Bomu la Lowassa: Tumeligundua, Tunaliteguaje?

[Pascal Mayalla]

Tumeshaelewa hoja ya Lowassa, nadhani sasa ni wakati wa kuelekeza juhudi zetu katika kutafuta ufumbuzi wa kudumu; Ni muhimu tukampongeza Lowassa kwa kuwa kiongozi wa kwanza nchini kulipa suala hili uzito unaostahili, Kitu muhimu alichofanya Lowassa ni kuamsha watu, kutokana na upeo wake mkubwa na uelewa juu ya masuala yanayozunguka jamii za dunia ya tatu, kupitia usomaji wa tafiti na ripoti mbalimbali, tofauti na viongozi wengi wa CCM ambao ni mchanganyiko wa wavivu wa kusoma na wasiojua kusoma kwa kuelewa;

Suala lingine muhimu, pengine zaidi ni kwamba, kitendo cha Lowassa kulizungumzia suala hili ni ishara kubwa kwamba pengine sasa suala hili litapata “POLITICAL WILL”, kwani ‘lack of political will’ ni moja ya vikwazo vikubwa vinavyotukabili kama taifa katika jitihada za kutokomeza umaskini, na vile vile kuchukua maamuzi magumu kwa maslahi ya taifa;

Hizi ni baadhi ya changamoto muhimu ambazo serikali ya CCM au Chadema, zote zitakumbana nazo Ikulu, na ni suala ambalo lipo katika nchi zote za “dunia ya tatu”; ni muhimu katika mjadala wetu juu ya ufumbuzi wa tatizo la ajira kwa vijana tukawa na ufahamu juu ya changamoto hizi, hasa kuhusu Nini serikali inaweza kufanya, na Nini Serikali haiwezi kufanya, bila ya kujalisha ni chama gani cha siasa au mtu gani anaingia Ikulu 2015;

Mkuu Mchambuzi, kadri siku zinavyokwenda ndivyo unavyozidi kutitirika na mada za ukweli, naomba nikupongeze tena na tena kwa kuwa u miongoni mwa ma great thinkers wetu humu jf ambao mnasimama kwenye kweli!. Kuhusu EL nimekusoma vizuri kabisa in between the lines kuhusu Uwezo, Upeo, Uelewa na Political will kufanya maamuzi magumu!. Thanks.
P.

 

[Zakumi]

Don't you see the correlation between this post and the concept in my post above?

There's a correlation. However, there's a subtle distinction. My position is Tanzania should do better with or without processing factories. This is because in the past two decades the number of people to feed has increased tremendously and in some instance you don't need to process anything in order to sell your products in the world market.

Take for example countries in East and Central African region. In the past we didn't viewed them as trade partners. However, now thing have changed. If we had a robust system of production, we would export to those countries agriculture produce such as rice and corn (maize) very easily. Unfortunately, we can't.

We can't because our transportation infrastucture doesn't stimulate economic activities.So instead of singing the old song of industrilization, let us do two things. First, the government should improve the transportation infrastructure, in particular the railway systems and high ways. Second, farmers should be encouraged to increase productivity and exploit the East and Central African food markets without any restrictions.

We can't excel in agriculture because we don't perceive farming activities the way we perceive other business endeavors. We need to change that.

 

[Mchambuzi]

Zakumi,

The only way Tanzania can come out of her troubles is to industrialize agriculture itself.
In America 5% percent of the population are farmers. They produce enough to feed the country and other nations. What's more, it's to easy to build factories around them.

You meant 5% of the population are farmers or 5% of the population is employed in farming/engaged in farm labour? There is a big difference between the two;

When you talk of "industrializing agriculture itself" I bet you mean agricultural transformation, right? If you do, then what's the ultimate goal?

Any underdeveloped economy begins with agriculture as the only existing industry of major proportions whereby 40-60% of GDP is derived from the sector, and 50-80% of the labour force is engaged in the sector; During the transformation, agriculture is supposed to aid this structural transformation process by providing CAPITAL for expansion of other sectors, chiefly, manufacturing; That's how it happened in the USA, and all other economies that underwent agricultural transformation;

Unless you have a different understanding of how the US managed to succeed in agriculture; From my understanding, their ultimate goal was to make the agricultural sector INSIGNIFICANT (economically, not politically), but they realized that, this could only happen if they made the sector very SIGNIFICANT in the beginning; What I mean by ‘significant' is to heavily invest in the sector to ensure a raise in productivity, output and farmers' income, and in the proceess, agriculture becomes the main provider of capital for expansion of other sectors, and in the long run, reduce the country's dependence on agriculture in terms of National Output/Income and Employment; Once you succeed doing that, you have managed to make the sector insignificant (economically, not politically);

However, although the contribution of Agriculture to GDP in the US is now only about 3% of GDP, in dollar terms this is about $420 billion, which is more than the entire annual GDP of a country like Saudi Arabia (about $400 billion); What does this tell you about agricultural transformation?

In Tanzania 85% are farmers or peasants.

My Answer to this is YES but not 85%, right now it could be as low as 70%, not because farmers find other lucrative opportunities in other sectors of the economy but its because many are abandoning the sector;

They don't produce enough to feed themselves or the nation.

My Answer to this is YES;

Yet you still think that you can easily build factories that take advantage of their products.

My answer to this is YES, but get rid of the "EASILY" bit; Otherwise with effective policies, especially if the WTO, World Bank and IMF give us enough Policy Space, we can successfully pass through a structural transformation of our economy (based on agricultural transformation), and in the process, agriculture would enable our country to feed itself, export surplus, and also provide capital for expansion of other sectors of our economy, chiefly manufacturing; in the long run, agriculture would become less significant economically in terms of labor force participation and national output (GDP), because the economy would now move into the modern sector, chiefly manufacturing;

 

[Bongolander]

Zakumi,


You meant 5% of the population are farmers or 5% of the population is employed in farming/engaged in farm labour? There is a big difference between the two;

When you talk of “industrializing agriculture itself” I bet you mean agricultural transformation, right? If you do, then what’s the ultimate goal?

Any underdeveloped economy begins with agriculture as the only existing industry of major proportions whereby 40-60% of GDP is derived from the sector, and 50-80% of the labour force is engaged in the sector; During the transformation, agriculture is supposed to aid this structural transformation process by providing CAPITAL for expansion of other sectors, chiefly, manufacturing; That’s how it happened in the USA, and all other economies that underwent agricultural transformation;

Unless you have a different understanding of how the US managed to succeed in agriculture; From my understanding, their ultimate goal was to make the agricultural sector INSIGNIFICANT (economically, not politically), but they realized that, this could only happen if they made the sector very SIGNIFICANT in the beginning; What I mean by ‘significant’ is to heavily invest in the sector to ensure a raise in productivity, output and farmers' income, and in the proceess, agriculture becomes the main provider of capital for expansion of other sectors, and in the long run, reduce the country’s dependence on agriculture in terms of National Output/Income and Employment; Once you succeed doing that, you have managed to make the sector insignificant (economically, not politically);

However, although the contribution of Agriculture to GDP in the US is now only about 3% of GDP, in dollar terms this is about $420 billion, which is more than the entire annual GDP of a country like Saudi Arabia (about $400 billion); What does this tell you about agricultural transformation?


My Answer to this is YES but not 85%, right now it could be as low as 70%, not because farmers find other lucrative opportunities in other sectors of the economy but its because many are abandoning the sector;

My Answer to this is YES;

My answer to this is YES, but get rid of the “EASILY” bit; Otherwise with effective policies, especially if the WTO, World Bank and IMF give us enough Policy Space, we can successfully pass through a structural transformation of our economy (based on agricultural transformation), and in the process, agriculture would enable our country to feed itself, export surplus, and also provide capital for expansion of other sectors of our economy, chiefly manufacturing; in the long run, agriculture would become less significant economically in terms of labor force participation and national output (GDP), because the economy would now move into the modern sector, chiefly manufacturing;

The problem we are facing in Tanzania now is that politics has taken over everything. There is politics in education, unemployment, agriculture, health, etc etc. The ruling party has done a lot of work in politicizing almost everything for her benefit, and that has crippled progress. When professor Baregu said "Mtaji wa CCM ni unyonge wa watanzania" that is what he was talking, the weaker the people are in these areas, the easier it is for politicians to manipulate and squeeze them. I do believe that if the government was sincere in addressing those issues, we would have been way better than we are now. Because when the government was serious our education system, health system, agriculture were better than they are now.

I am very skeptical with the idea that Bretton wood institution are there to help us. I am a little bit sad to hear some peopletalk about IMF, World Bank and alike, coming to rescue us. We are forgetting that these are money making institutions, they will only come to give you the advice and money (whether it is loan, credit, grant or whatever you wanna call it) when they are sure it will benefit them, not you. It may look like they are saviors when you are in trouble, but the fact is they are not, they just a bunch of thieves who would like to set you in a trap, which will help them keep squeezing you, and make it unable for you to break the viscous circle of poverty.

Let us look at foreign investments we have now. How do these investments come in? Do they come through TIC? unaweza kuona miradi hii inakuja kupitia mikataba inayosainiwa mahotelini kukiwa na promise ya kujaza pesa kwenye akaunti uswisi. May be that is not that bad, kama investment inakuwa serious na useful. But what are these investments, and what do they do to our economy? Angalia investments kubwa za Tanzania ziko kwenye sekta ya madini. Je wamesaidia vipi kuchochea production na consumption ya ndani, kimsingi hakuna. Sana sana utasikia ndio wahongaji wakubwa na wanajaza pesa kwenye akaunti za viongozi wetu Uswisi na kulipa kodi kiduchu sana.

Kwanini hatuna viwanda vinavyoweza kuwa consumers wa local raw materials? Kwanini IMF/WB au wanasiasa wetu hawapush kuleta investments kama hizo? Tanzania si nchi kubwa, ikiwa na viwanda viwili vya maana, kimsingi tunaweza kuondoa tatizo kubwa la ajira. Tukiwa na viwanda [Manufacturing] vinavyoweza kuwa mass consumers wa raw materials kutoka kwa mzalishaji mdogo tatizo la msingi la ajira linaweza kutatuliwa. Viwanda hivyo vitakuwa na spill over effect kubwa inayoweza kuonda matatizo mengi sana.

Pamoja na kuwa tuna TIC, ukweli ni kuwa serikali bado haijaweka mazingira mazuri ya kuifanya TIC ifanye kazi yake vizuri na kuvutia uwekezaji.

Anachoongea Lowassa ni politics tu. Angesema ana plan gani ya kushughulikia suala hilo.

 

[Mchambuzi]

Bravo Mchambuzi,

Nimesoma bandiko lako hapo juu pia.Huwezi kupunguza umaskini wa Tanzania bila kilimo na viwanda sambamba.Kinachoonekana hata katika sera zetu za uchumi hatujaangalia ni Technology ipi itumike kati ya labour intensive au capital intensive.

Kama tunataka kutoa suluhisho la matatizo ya ajira hata kwenye hizo processing industries ni lazima tutumie labour intensive.Ni choice.Ni jambo la ajabu hata inflow ya FDI serikali haijawa strict katika hili

Pia kwa mwanauchumi mzuri ni lazima tuelewe private investment inafuata profit na mengine baadae.Kwa mfano investment kwenye heavy industries kama Railway,Fertilizers na steel mara nyingi serikali ndiyo hufanya investment

Pia investment kwenye viwanda vya kutengeneza machine and other public utilities ni lazima zitegemee serikali

Hizo rule of games ukizifuata hivyo hutafanya kitu na kweli kama ulivyosema Asia walikaidi.Tumeshuhudia jinsi India na US walivyosuguana kule DOHa kwenye mkutano wa WTO juu ya ruzuku kwa wakulima.

IMF wakikusifia ujue unaumiza taifa na wananchi wako

China nayo ina mgogoro sasa hivi na inaongoza kundi la BRICS kupinga mataifa makubwa kutoa ruzuku kwa wakulima wao halafu wanaitumia IMF na WB kufanya advocacy sera ya uliberali.

Hapa EAC sisi kwa mfano,tunaongelea Tarrif free lakini wengine ndiyo wanaonufaika na hii policy.Hatuna industries za kutosha na Kenya inazo nyingi.Volume of trade especially manufacturing sector between Tanzania and Kenya ipo in favour of Kenya.Hatuna plans na tunaangalia kushinda uchaguzi tu.

Ben Saanane,

Umesema yote ya msingi katika bandiko lako hapo juu i.e. no.76; Ili kufanikisha industrulization katika nchi yetu, tunahitaji vitu vikuu vitatu: Kwanza ni serikali, pili ni serikali, na tatu ni serikali; Kama ulivyoeleza, Serikali inatakiwa iwe mstari wa mbele katika industrial policy, kwani kuna maeneo mengi sana ambayo soko linafeli, hivyo kuhitaji mkono mrefu wa serikali, hasa kwenye meaneo muhimu ya nchi ambayo soko haliyafuati kwa sababu hayana faida - rural areas; Moja wapo ni miundo mbinu ya mawasiliano na tekinolojia, technological capabilities kwa watoto/vijana kupitia reforms in the education curriculum, serikali kuanzisha national innovation system kupitia chombo kama COSTECH, ikiwa ni pamoja na research institutions zitazotafiti mahitaji ya soko (bidhaa na skills), na mahitaji ya uchumi wa kisasa in terms of technology capabilities, serikali lazima ijenge supporting industries ambazo zitakuja shiriki kwenye value chains za FDI zitakazoelekezwa na serikali, hasa manufacturing, na hizi FDI lazima zibanwe to diffuse technology ili supporting industries za wazawa zipate nafasi ya kwua suppliers lakini vile vile vijana wenye tech capabilities nao waweze kujiajiri as suppliers of goods and services to these FDI led industries, and in the long run, hata sisi tutaweza kujenga uwezo wa kuwa manufacturers in the light industries before going heavy...;

Yote haya yanahitaji sekta ya kilimo kupewa umuhimu now ili kwanza - kuchuma vizuri capital from it ili iende kuwekeza kwenye maeneo haya, na taratibu kupanua sekta nyingine, na in the long run kutupunguzia dependency kwenye sekta ya kilimo in terms of GDP na pia in terms of labour force participation; Kilimo hakitakiwi kuendelea kuwa 'of economic significance', otherwise hatutaweza ku modernize our economy; tunatakiwa kukitumia towards structural transformation, na kukibakiza kiwe not over 10% of GDP ili tuweze kujitosheleza kwa chakula, exports n.k, na tukiwa productive, we dont need GDP ya over 10% on kilimo kufanikisha haya; the 10% of GDP nayoongelea ni kubwa sana kama kitakuwa ni kilimo chenye high productivity kwani South Africa kwa mfano, percentage ya Kilimo kwenye GDP is only 3%, lakini in dollar terms its to $9 billion which is over one third ya GDP yetu nzima ya mwaka i.e. $23 billion;

Ni muhimu sana sana sana sana tukafanya structural transformation kupitia kilimo kuliko madini na mafuta au gesi kwani historia inaonyesha changamoto na failures pia nyingi sana zinazotokana na nchi kutafuta transformation by ignoring on Agriculture as the mainstay ya uchumi kiajira na output, na kukimbilia natural resources; mara nyingi sera za kutegema mafuta na madini for structural transformation hulenga zaidi political gain kuliko economic gain;

Kuhusu WTO, i agree; challenge kubwa tuliyonayo ni kwamba kazi kubwa ya WTO ni kuongeza investment and trade in belief kwamba this will lead to economic growth and poverty eradication; lakini under the current rules, wanaofaidika na rules za WTO, 70% ni developed countries, na iliyobakia 30% kwa kiasi kikubwa sana ni emerging economies, huku Afrika faida ikiwa ni very marginal; Hii ni kwa sababu WTO wanataka rules of the game zifuatane na neoliberal principles ambazo kwetu sisi haziwezi tusaidia kwani zinaisukuma serikali pembeni na kutaka soko ndio litawale;

WE NEED POLICY SPACE FROM WTO, WB & IMF, otherwise we are doomed...

 

[Bongolander]

There's a correlation. However, there's a subtle distinction. My position is Tanzania should do better with or without processing factories. This is because in the past two decades the number of people to feed has increased tremendously and in some instance you don't need to process anything in order to sell your products in the world market.

Take for example countries in East and Central African region. In the past we didn't viewed them as trade partners. However, now thing have changed. If we had a robust system of production, we would export to those countries agriculture produce such as rice and corn (maize) very easily. Unfortunately, we can't.

We can't because our transportation infrastucture doesn't stimulate economic activities.So instead of singing the old song of industrilization, let us do two things. First, the government should improve the transportation infrastructure, in particular the railway systems and high ways. Second, farmers should be encouraged to increase productivity and exploit the East and Central African food markets without any restrictions.

We can't excel in agriculture because we don't perceive farming activities the way we perceive other business endeavors. We need to change that.

If we manage our economy properly, for sure in less than a decade we will be better than we are. But if we have to make significant progress, we need one or two serious investments. Wawekezaji kama Vodacom, Airtel si wabaya, lakini hawatusaidii sana katika ku-export resources zetu. Tunatakiwa tuwe na investement zinazoleta mzunguko. Yaani mkulima anauza material kiwandani, kiwanda kinatumia material hizo na kuuza product kwa producer mwingine, au finished product kwa mkulima. Hiyo itatusaidia sana.

 

[Zakumi]

Zakumi,


You meant 5% of the population are farmers or 5% of the population is employed in farming/engaged in farm labour? There is a big difference between the two;

When you talk of “industrializing agriculture itself” I bet you mean agricultural transformation, right? If you do, then what’s the ultimate goal?

Any underdeveloped economy begins with agriculture as the only existing industry of major proportions whereby 40-60% of GDP is derived from the sector, and 50-80% of the labour force is engaged in the sector; During the transformation, agriculture is supposed to aid this structural transformation process by providing CAPITAL for expansion of other sectors, chiefly, manufacturing; That’s how it happened in the USA, and all other economies that underwent agricultural transformation;

Unless you have a different understanding of how the US managed to succeed in agriculture; From my understanding, their ultimate goal was to make the agricultural sector INSIGNIFICANT (economically, not politically), but they realized that, this could only happen if they made the sector very SIGNIFICANT in the beginning; What I mean by ‘significant’ is to heavily invest in the sector to ensure a raise in productivity, output and farmers' income, and in the proceess, agriculture becomes the main provider of capital for expansion of other sectors, and in the long run, reduce the country’s dependence on agriculture in terms of National Output/Income and Employment; Once you succeed doing that, you have managed to make the sector insignificant (economically, not politically);

However, although the contribution of Agriculture to GDP in the US is now only about 3% of GDP, in dollar terms this is about $420 billion, which is more than the entire annual GDP of a country like Saudi Arabia (about $400 billion); What does this tell you about agricultural transformation?


My Answer to this is YES but not 85%, right now it could be as low as 70%, not because farmers find other lucrative opportunities in other sectors of the economy but its because many are abandoning the sector;

My Answer to this is YES;

My answer to this is YES, but get rid of the “EASILY” bit; Otherwise with effective policies, especially if the WTO, World Bank and IMF give us enough Policy Space, we can successfully pass through a structural transformation of our economy (based on agricultural transformation), and in the process, agriculture would enable our country to feed itself, export surplus, and also provide capital for expansion of other sectors of our economy, chiefly manufacturing; in the long run, agriculture would become less significant economically in terms of labor force participation and national output (GDP), because the economy would now move into the modern sector, chiefly manufacturing;

It doesn’t really matter whether the 5% represents farmers or people who are employed in farming labor. You still have 95%, which is almost 100%, of the population which doesn’t engage in that business.

The process of agricultural industrialization entails the use of machinery and advance methods in order to increase productivity. So in essence it’s a transformation, and its ultimate goal is to augment agriculture net product per unit hector and per unit investment.

This goal will in turn have induced effects in other economic and social activities such as food security, employment, commerce and innovation. You can’t find scientists or innovators in a society in which malnutrition is rampant.
If agriculture is the backbone of our nation, before we can think about processing factories or for that matter any other factories, we need to show the world that we can really farm. The average output of Tanzania farms even by African standards is pathetic. Take for example corn or maize production.

The average output of one hector of corn (maize) in Tanzania is between 5-10 bags (100Kg bag). This is far less than the peasants put in. If farming was conducted in terms of investments and profits like in other business, farmers and peasants in Tanzania would have stopped plying their trade long time ago. However, since they have to survive, they do it anyway.
The Americans never made agriculture insignificant. I don’t comprehend why you have mentioned that. For the past 200 or more, American farmers have been legendary. Part of it is from the beginning they have engaged in farming to make profits and not maintain outdated traditions. So the use of advance methods, machinery, and record keeping has been in their DNA for many years.

The reason why agriculture in America is 3% isn’t because they neglected it. It’s because there’s expansion in other sectors as it happens now in Tanzania. 20 years ago, agriculture was the largest sector of Tanzanian economy. However, in recent years the throughputs of mining and tourism have overshadowed that of agriculture. We didn’t need agriculture to diversify our economy so did the Americans.

Economy expansion happens for many reasons, but innovation and technological advancement have always made the difference. For example, people who leaved during the end of Stone Age didn’t stop using stones because there was lack of stones. They stopped because they innovated something better using bronze. Likewise, if Tanzanians decide to embark into modern economic transformation, farming would be left to very few people who will treat it as business entities with profits to be made.

 

[Mchambuzi]

Bongolander,

Asante sana kwa mchango wako; Watanzania wengi ni vigumu kuwaelewesha jinsi gani external factors pia zinachangia kwa kiasi kikubwa sana kwa watanzania kuzidi kudidimia katika umaskini; Hii haina maana kwamba serilai ya CCM inafanya kila kitu right na kwamba ni external factors ndio zinaangusha CCM, la hasha, kinachoendelea ni kwamba, watawala wa CCM badala ya kupigania maslahi ya taifa, hasa wakienda huko kwenye WTO summits au kwenye vikao vya WorldBank and IMF kule Washington, akili zao zipoa zaidi kwenye posho na shopping; Katika summit hizi, hakuna la maana wanalopigania kwa ajili ya wananchi wa Tanzania;

Nilishangaa kusikia kwamba for the first time since independence, ni mwaka 2000 ndio mawaziri wa wa viwanda wa afrika walikaa kikao cha pamoja na kujadiliana jinsi ya kujipanga for negotiations na WTO na G8 kuhusu suala la trade; It is clear kwamba prior to that, mawaziri hawa na watawala kwa ujumla walikuwa wanaishi dunia tofauti kabisa before; Pamoja na kuamka mwaka 2000, ni nchi chache ziliendelea kukaa macho kwani majority including Tanzania zikarudi kwenye usingizi; Inasikitisha hata bungeni, mijadala ya namna hii haipo; Ni vigumu kuelewa iwapo our leaders are incapable of understanding the crucial link between trade and development, hasa jinsi yaku maneuver au kupigania maslahi yetu under the current rules; , au pengine ni suala la mazoea tu ya utamaduni wa watawala wetu to let others worry about our development issues;

Kuna kitabu kimoja by Robert Calderisi, former Economist katika moja ya hizi international institutions anasema kwamba – from his experience kwenye summits mbalimbali, Africa inaangushwa na waafrika wenyewe; Kwa mfano, debate on Africa and International Trade zilishika kasi sana in early 2000, na hizi zilikuwa initiated zaidi na sympathizers of Africa ambao ni watu wan je ya bara la Afrika; Calderisi anasema "When trade talks collapsed in Cancun, Mexico, African delegations were largely responsible. And they were the only ones who cheered."

Swali la muhimu hapa ni kwamba: Global Trade rules chini ya WTO pamoja na conditionalities mbalimbali za World Bank and IMF, je, do they enable or restrict us from establishing development policies, including industrial policies?

My answer is, YES, they do, and the situations gets worse when our very own leaders don't do anything about it and instead entertain this dirty game just because their Swiss Accounts continue to swell in numbers;

Its prudent that our leaders demand for POLICY SPACE kwa hawa bwana wakubwa, kuliko kupoteza muda kuwapigia tu kelele wananchi majukwaani ili waonekane wanajua matatizo ya wananchi; Nguvu ya UMMA haiwezi kusaidia nchi yetu kupata POLICY SPACE bali Effective Leadership ya viongozi tunaowachagua na wanaoteuliwa kwenye wizara nyeti kama Kilimo, Viwanda, na Fedha uchumi na mipango; Vinginevyo tutaendelea kutekeleza sera ambazo sio home – grown na kuzidi kudidimiza watanzania katika umaskini;

The primary goal of WTO is to increase Trade and Investments and proponents of Free Trade argue kwamba – increasing Trade and Investment through WTO would lead to economic growth and development/poverty eradication; Ingawa hii argument ipo grounded on ECONOMIC THEORY, such claims zina-base on assumptions ambazo hazina mashiko katika nchi maskini kama Tanzania, na wanajua hilo;

Ni muhimu kwa watawala wetu wakajua umuhimu wa Government katika uchumi ni nini na wapiganie hilo huko kwenye vikao vyao badala ya kuwaza posho na shopping; Market – based policies ni muhimu katika ujenzi wa uchumi wa kisasa lakini ukweli unabakia kwamba – in order for market principles kufanya kazi kikamilifu, ni lazima kuwepo na 'an Effective State Management To ensure that the market is more development friendly; Development Policies (esp. those that require role of the state), ambazo leo hii nchi tajiri zinazibeza, are the very same policies that were essential for industrialization in their very own countries/economies; Umuhimu wa serikali haujabadilika, kilichobadilika is the means – hasa katika suala la Serikali kupewa Policy Space na wakubwa hawa, na Serikali kuwa selective on why, what, where, when, which and how to intervene….

 

[Mchambuzi]

It doesn't really matter whether the 5% represents farmers or people who are employed in farming labor. You still have 95%, which is almost 100%, of the population which doesn't engage in that business.

It matters, especially if we are talking of labour force and its participation rate; You cant just generalize that 95% of the population is in agriculture - doing what, producing? feeding off it?

The process of agricultural industrialization entails the use of machinery and advance methods in order to increase productivity. So in essence it's a transformation, and its ultimate goal is to augment agriculture net product per unit hector and per unit investment.

I agree

This goal will in turn have induced effects in other economic and social activities such as food security, employment, commerce and innovation. You can't find scientists or innovators in a society in which malnutrition is rampant.
If agriculture is the backbone of our nation, before we can think about processing factories or for that matter any other factories, we need to show the world that we can really farm. The average output of Tanzania farms even by African standards is pathetic. Take for example corn or maize production.

I agree but only to an extent; the primary objective of the transformation is not to enable agriculture to feed into processing factories, but rather, provide capital for expansion into other sectors; bear in mind, kuna tofauti kuba baina ya haya mawili; Otherwise in the long run, agriculture would become insignificant in terms of labour force participation rate and GDP dependence as i discussed earlier; A lot of things may happen in the process, but lengo kuu hapa is to modernize our economy ili iwe ya kisasa na isiyotegemea kilimo as i have already argued elsewhere;

The average output of one hector of corn (maize) in Tanzania is between 5-10 bags (100Kg bag). This is far less than the peasants put in. If farming was conducted in terms of investments and profits like in other business, farmers and peasants in Tanzania would have stopped plying their trade long time ago. However, since they have to survive, they do it anyway.
The Americans never made agriculture insignificant. I don't comprehend why you have mentioned that. For the past 200 or more, American farmers have been legendary. Part of it is from the beginning they have engaged in farming to make profits and not maintain outdated traditions. So the use of advance methods, machinery, and record keeping has been in their DNA for many years.

Mengi ya hoja zako hapa kimsingi make sense na sita tatizo nazo lakini suala la insiginificance of agriculture in an economy pengine haujalielewa; Nilitamka insignificant economically but not politically, kwani kisiasa, kilimo kitaendelea kuwa muhimu, otherwise kiuchumi, hata ukimsikiliza Romney na Obama, na hata uchaguzi wa 2016, kilimo wont have an economic significance to the US economy; Kama bado hatuelewani kwa hili please let me know so that i spend more time on it;

The reason why agriculture in America is 3% isn't because they neglected it. It's because there's expansion in other sectors as it happens now in Tanzania. 20 years ago, agriculture was the largest sector of Tanzanian economy. However, in recent years the throughputs of mining and tourism have overshadowed that of agriculture. We didn't need agriculture to diversify our economy so did the Americans.

Collapse of Kilimo was due to pure neglect, but you may choose to believe otherwise; The way Kilimo kiliendeshwa wakati wa Nyerere was ukweli kwamba it ended up kuwa town dwellers exploiting peasants; Nyerere made agriculture, not industry as the basis of development, na ndio maana kilimo kikaendelea kwa muda mrefu kuwa sehemu ya kuchumu na pia kuajiri watu - to keep watu occupied, badala ya kuwa ni sehemu ya kusaidia ajira na output temporarily ili kutumia capital toka huko kikamilifu na kuachana na kilimo taratibu kwa maelezo niliyoeleza tayari elsewhere in this thread; in short, ingawa kulikuwa pia na extenrnal factors, internally pia tulijisahau na kilimo na ndio maana hakikuwa in a sustainable way;

Moja ya matatizo were chronic low prices for farmers, inefficient processing factories, and also the villagization pgm that had relocated 70% of the rural population in just 3 years!!!!, all of which led to sharp falls in production of principle exports (coffee, tea, etc); Katika azimio la arusha, kilimo kilikuwa ndi key, lakini for some reasons, kilimo became almost the last thing in accounting; in short, the country was not being efficient kwani State Companies were absorbing wealth, not creating it;

Economy expansion happens for many reasons, but innovation and technological advancement have always made the difference. For example, people who leaved during the end of Stone Age didn't stop using stones because there was lack of stones. They stopped because they innovated something better using bronze. Likewise, if Tanzanians decide to embark into modern economic transformation, farming would be left to very few people who will treat it as business entities with profits to be made.

I agree with you on this one; but do you think ni bora kwa sasa kuhamia kwenye industrial economy au the new economy - knowledge based economy?

 

[Mchambuzi]

Zakumi,

Nimemega hii quote yako ili tuijadili kwa undani zaidi separately:

The reason why agriculture in America is 3% isn't because they neglected it. It's because there's expansion in other sectors as it happens now in Tanzania. 20 years ago, agriculture was the largest sector of Tanzanian economy. However, in recent years the throughputs of mining and tourism have overshadowed that of agriculture.

So you mean to tell me other sectors za uchumi wa marekani kukua kwake hakukuchangiwa na increase in productivity of agriculture? How do other sectors of an underdevelopd economy expand? from what resources? what labour? what capital? Economic theories zina mapungufu yake lakini on this one, there is a consensus ambayo wewe u seem upo contrary to it;

Ni kweli sector za madini na utalii zimekuwa lakini kwa mtaji gani? Jibu ni FDI na mapato ya utalii unaoendeshwa na makampuni ya nje, na haya yote ni guided na principles za soko huria, na serikali haina mkono mrefu, ndio maana expansion hii doesn't necessarily mean kwamba our economy has structurally transformed; structural transformation entails kuhamisha labour force from kilimo into other sector kutokana na increase in productivity ya kilimo, income za wakulima zilingane au karibiane na modern sector, na pia kupunguza GDP dependence on Kilimo na badala yake kuhamia into products zenye more value in today's global economy ambapo ushindani ni knowledge and tech capabilities;

Kwa hoja yako ya utalii na Madini, naona una ignore aidha kwa makusudi au bahati mbaya the fact kwamba transformation lazima iendane sambamba na kupunguza ajira kwenye kilimo na iende kwingine while maintaining decent levels of employment of factors of production in the economy; Sekta ya madini ni more capital intensive, not labour intensive ndio maana sio nzuri sana kuitumia for agricultural transformation, ni muhimu kutumia sekta hiyo hiyo ya kilimo to achieve that;

We didn't need agriculture to diversify our economy so did the Americans.

Are you serious or it was a typo and instead you meant we DID NEED and SO DID AMERICANS?

 

[Zakumi]

If we manage our economy properly, for sure in less than a decade we will be better than we are. But if we have to make significant progress, we need one or two serious investments. Wawekezaji kama Vodacom, Airtel si wabaya, lakini hawatusaidii sana katika ku-export resources zetu. Tunatakiwa tuwe na investement zinazoleta mzunguko. Yaani mkulima anauza material kiwandani, kiwanda kinatumia material hizo na kuuza product kwa producer mwingine, au finished product kwa mkulima. Hiyo itatusaidia sana.

To say that if we manage our economy properly, we will be better in less than a decade is ok. However, as the Americans say the devil is always in details. I would like to know the nitty-gritty that we will take the Tanzanians to the land of milk and honey, metaphorically.

I ask that because when I listen to CHADEMA, I hear the reproduction of Nyerere's speeches with different sound bites. On other hand CCM don't know what they are up for.

 

[Mchambuzi]

To say that if we manage our economy properly, we will be better in less than a decade is ok. However, as the Americans say the devil is always in details. I would like to know the nitty-gritty that we will take the Tanzanians to the land of milk and honey, metaphorically.

I ask that because when I listen to CHADEMA, I hear the reproduction of Nyerere's speeches with different sound bites. On other hand CCM don't know what they are up for.

Kwa kweli Chadema hawana solution kwani wao ni believers wa neo liberal policies per se ambazo zinakuwa dictated na WTO, WB na IMF, na zinakuwa implemented na CCM; What Chadema promises ni kwamba they will go implement them better than CCM via more accountability, efficient use of natural resources kwa faida ya wananchi, curbing corruption etc; CCM has failed in all these three areas, na wananchi wanahisi Chadema will do better;

Solution would involve a radical orientation, sio ujamaa au ukomunisti bali itikadi na sera ambazo zitalazimisha WTO, WB na IMF kutuachia Policy Space ili na sisi tuweze ku own polices na pia serikali to take a leading role in the economy kwenye maeneo ambayo yameshakuwa proven kwamba yana experience MARKET FAILURE, in the context of stabilization, liberalization, marketization and privatization kwani miaka zaidi ya 20 ya kutekeleza sera hizi has led us into DE-INDUSTRIALIZATION AND STAGNATION OF THE RURAL ECONOMY;

Kuhusu sound bites za mwalimu, as you already know, hauwezi kusonga mbele kisiasa kwa kupingana na mwalimu, hata kama unachopinga ni mapungufu ya mwalimu yaliyo dhahiri; Vinginevyo the emergence of Chadema was due to Mtei's antagonism with Nyerere in early to mid 1980s; It is about time that mzee wetu huyu atueleze wananchi - mabaya ya mwalimu ni yepi na mazuri ambayo chadema inayachukua ni yepi;

 

[Zakumi]

It matters, especially if we are talking of labour force and its participation rate; You cant just generalize that 95% of the population is in agriculture - doing what, producing? feeding off it?


I agree


I agree but only to an extent; the primary objective of the transformation is not to enable agriculture to feed into processing factories, but rather, provide capital for expansion into other sectors; bear in mind, kuna tofauti kuba baina ya haya mawili; Otherwise in the long run, agriculture would become insignificant in terms of labour force participation rate and GDP dependence as i discussed earlier; A lot of things may happen in the process, but lengo kuu hapa is to modernize our economy ili iwe ya kisasa na isiyotegemea kilimo as i have already argued elsewhere;


Mengi ya hoja zako hapa kimsingi make sense na sita tatizo nazo lakini suala la insiginificance of agriculture in an economy pengine haujalielewa; Nilitamka insignificant economically but not politically, kwani kisiasa, kilimo kitaendelea kuwa muhimu, otherwise kiuchumi, hata ukimsikiliza Romney na Obama, na hata uchaguzi wa 2016, kilimo wont have an economic significance to the US economy; Kama bado hatuelewani kwa hili please let me know so that i spend more time on it;

Collapse of Kilimo was due to pure neglect, but you may choose to believe otherwise; The way Kilimo kiliendeshwa wakati wa Nyerere was ukweli kwamba it ended up kuwa town dwellers exploiting peasants; Nyerere made agriculture, not industry as the basis of development, na ndio maana kilimo kikaendelea kwa muda mrefu kuwa sehemu ya kuchumu na pia kuajiri watu - to keep watu occupied, badala ya kuwa ni sehemu ya kusaidia ajira na output temporarily ili kutumia capital toka huko kikamilifu na kuachana na kilimo taratibu kwa maelezo niliyoeleza tayari elsewhere in this thread; in short, ingawa kulikuwa pia na extenrnal factors, internally pia tulijisahau na kilimo na ndio maana hakikuwa in a sustainable way;

Moja ya matatizo were chronic low prices for farmers, inefficient processing factories, and also the villagization pgm that had relocated 70% of the rural population in just 3 years!!!!, all of which led to sharp falls in production of principle exports (coffee, tea, etc); Katika azimio la arusha, kilimo kilikuwa ndi key, lakini for some reasons, kilimo became almost the last thing in accounting; in short, the country was not being efficient kwani State Companies were absorbing wealth, not creating it;


I agree with you on this one; but do you think ni bora kwa sasa kuhamia kwenye industrial economy au the new economy - knowledge based economy?

We can’t survive without eating, and the point I want to make about the percentage of farmers is to show how human capital is involved in agriculture, and how the use of machinery could significantly transform the relationship between men and the land they use to farm.

In a primitive society or to be politically correct in underdeveloped society, 100% of the work force engages in farming and to some extent animal husbandry. As the society advances and starts to use advance methods and machinery, the number of people who engage in farming reduces. For example the percentage of farmers in America has reduced from 100% to 5% or less because of the use of machinery. Today they eat more than before, but the machines and subsidies have made wonders to maintain the equilibrium of supply and demand.

My theory is Tanzania cannot develop socially and economically if the goal is to keep the number of people who engage in agriculture, directly or indirectly, higher. If we want to improve we should use machinery there, and stop thinking that engagement in agriculture will one day cut massive youth unemployment. It won’t, and any politician who claims that his policies in agriculture will create jobs, please stone him immediately.

Concerns the agriculture policies in the US, let me say this. In the US or for that matter in many developed countries, agriculture policies are monitored very close and aren’t partisan issues. In some cases, policies are set in stones. For example, in America, farmers receive all kind of subsidies in order to increase their productivities, reduce production costs and stay competitive. So as you can see sir, agriculture is significant in the US. Otherwise, politicians from both side of the aisle wouldn’t throw easy money to farmers. Furthermore, to large extent agriculture is administrated locally. Romney and Obama might not talk about it at federal level, but at state levels, agriculture politics is very alive.

The use of agriculture as an investment vehicle that would be used to diversify the economy of the country is illogic. The governments of other countries fund this sector through subsidies massively. For example, despite higher production costs, the price of cotton from North Carolina or Greece is cheaper than that one from Jinja or Mwanza. How would Tanzania compete in that area?

 

[Mchambuzi]

We can't survive without eating, and the point I want to make about the percentage of farmers is to show how human capital is involved in agriculture, and how the use of machinery could significantly transform the relationship between men and the land they use to farm.

In a primitive society or to be politically correct in underdeveloped society, 100% of the work force engages in farming and to some extent animal husbandry. As the society advances and starts to use advance methods and machinery, the number of people who engage in farming reduces. For example the percentage of farmers in America has reduced from 100% to 5% or less because of the use of machinery. Today they eat more than before, but the machines and subsidies have made wonders to maintain the equilibrium of supply and demand.

I agree about machinery replacing human labor, but what was the source for such capital? AID? OIL? MINERALS? And how did they systematically transform the economy from being the one that highly relies on Kilimo as mainstay in terms of GDP and Employment, to uchumi relying on the said machinery?

I would love to hear your analysis on how the 100% became 5% in the course of policy and economic development;

My theory is Tanzania cannot develop socially and economically if the goal is to keep the number of people who engage in agriculture, directly or indirectly, higher. If we want to improve we should use machinery there, and stop thinking that engagement in agriculture will one day cut massive youth unemployment. It won't, and any politician who claims that his policies in agriculture will create jobs, please stone him immediately.

You are right, but how do we systematically move away from agriculture while maintaining high levels of employment of factors of production, labour included without causing social and economic havoc? Agrarian transformation happens when a good number of rural households:

-Have incomes that exceed national poverty level;
-Operate farms on a commercial basis i.e. (selling a substantial portion of the value of their output for the market instead of consuming it directly/subsistence&#8230😉
-Specialize in production at the farm level i.e. Agriculture now becomes a profession;
-Invest more heavily on the farm, due to increase incomes and more incentives to do so;
-Purchase framing/commercial inputs, such as hired labor, in significant quantities
-Adopt into new technologies on a continuous/regular basis.

At this stage, a dynamic growth process is already taking place, with agricultural sector becoming increasingly modernized, food becoming cheap to produce due to economies of scale, and eventually the sector releasing labor to the non-agricultural sectors, especially manufacturing, after these sectors manage to get capital from a successful agrarian transformation;

Concerns the agriculture policies in the US, let me say this. In the US or for that matter in many developed countries, agriculture policies are monitored very close and aren't partisan issues. In some cases, policies are set in stones. For example, in America, farmers receive all kind of subsidies in order to increase their productivities, reduce production costs and stay competitive. So as you can see sir, agriculture is significant in the US. Otherwise, politicians from both side of the aisle wouldn't throw easy money to farmers. Furthermore, to large extent agriculture is administrated locally. Romney and Obama might not talk about it at federal level, but at state levels, agriculture politics is very alive.

I agree with you about the present, but what about the past? How did they where they are right now? YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY DENIED TO TALK OF THE PAST!

Let me emphasize again – the issue of agriculture losing its importance is only in economic terms (esp. decline in GDP share), otherwise in political terms, it doesn't lose its importance because it is a strategic sector; This a paradox about the sector: In economic terms, agriculture becomes less important as per capita income of a country rises; If we fail to understand how and why this happens, we are surely going to face big and serious problems down the road; BUT if we do understand this well enough, we will face some serious problems right now because, as I have argued elsewhere, one FACT remains: In order for us to make agriculture unimportant (economically GDP and employment wise), is to make it important right away. One key question follows:

If agriculture's share in GDP is going to decline (for instance as you argued in post number 87 of this thread on tourism, mining&#8230😉 – if agriculture as percentage of GDP and employment is going to decline anyways, then why should we worry about investing in it e.g Kilimo Kwanza and the like? Why should we worry then about the infrastructure development (esp. roads), irrigation, research, increasing farmers knowledge and other stuff that are essential for modernizing our agriculture, if 20-30 years down the road we are not going to need all these things when agriculture loses its economic importance (decline in GDP's share)?

It is because agriculture forms the economic base for any country that truly seeks to transform structurally without bringing any social havocs, thus the need to get all the required to develop an economy from the agricultural sector; But we wont be able to make agriculture's share of GDP and Employment Decline unless we make the sector grow rapidly as discussed earlier. Bottom line is, we have no choice but to heavily invest in this sector; As an underdeveloped or poor country, we cannot grow our economy rapidly unless we start by building a strong agricultural base;

Here is another important fact:

If you look at world prices for major agricultural products, they are constantly declining, and this has been happening for quite some time; For instance, wheat and rice prices have been declining since the period prior to The Civil War in the US; And if you check on stats in Europe, wheat prices have been declining since the 16th century. What does this tell you? It tells you that The Real Economic Value of what Agriculture Produces is on a Declining Trend - Globally. This is why we have to make the sector important now economically so that we manage to make it less important in the long run and move our economy into higher global value chains - by producing high tech products that requires tech capabilities and knowledge, or else we will continue to be America and Europe's Backyard; Agriculture is declining as a share of the GDP/economy, and what it produces is less valuable per ton along the way; This is a fact that we have to deal with if we want to transform our economy;

The use of agriculture as an investment vehicle that would be used to diversify the economy of the country is illogic. The governments of other countries fund this sector through subsidies massively. For example, despite higher production costs, the price of cotton from North Carolina or Greece is cheaper than that one from Jinja or Mwanza. How would Tanzania compete in that area?

The problem is, you are talking as if these developed countries FLUKED to get where they are today; Have you ever tried to think of the past when it comes to success in these countries (kwenye Kilimo) and stay away at least for a moment from thoughts of the present?

You are talking of agriculture subsidies in rich countries, YES, they happen but not because the sector is Economically Important, instead, it is because the sector is Politically Important; No one denies about the effects these subsidies have on african agriculture, but it doesn't mean the buck should stop there; If we truly want to transform our economy structurally, we have to continue our pressure the WTO and the International Financial Institutions (WB & IMF) to give us some SPACE IN POLICY instead of dictating what we should do, but more importantly, they should assist us in our efforts to make the sector important now economically so that later it becomes less important; If they didn't this makwao i.e. heavily investing in agriculture in the beginning, they wouldn't have been where they are today; Otherwise its true, globalization has brought with it many challenges towards that end,but for every challenge,there is an opportunity; I will attend this issue in depth a little bit later i.e. the issue of subsidies and what we can do to resolve that;

 

[Bongolander]

Bongolander,

Asante sana kwa mchango wako; Watanzania wengi ni vigumu kuwaelewesha jinsi gani external factors pia zinachangia kwa kiasi kikubwa sana kwa watanzania kuzidi kudidimia katika umaskini; Hii haina maana kwamba serilai ya CCM inafanya kila kitu right na kwamba ni external factors ndio zinaangusha CCM, la hasha, kinachoendelea ni kwamba, watawala wa CCM badala ya kupigania maslahi ya taifa, hasa wakienda huko kwenye WTO summits au kwenye vikao vya WorldBank and IMF kule Washington, akili zao zipoa zaidi kwenye posho na shopping; Katika summit hizi, hakuna la maana wanalopigania kwa ajili ya wananchi wa Tanzania;

Nilishangaa kusikia kwamba for the first time since independence, ni mwaka 2000 ndio mawaziri wa wa viwanda wa afrika walikaa kikao cha pamoja na kujadiliana jinsi ya kujipanga for negotiations na WTO na G8 kuhusu suala la trade; It is clear kwamba prior to that, mawaziri hawa na watawala kwa ujumla walikuwa wanaishi dunia tofauti kabisa before; Pamoja na kuamka mwaka 2000, ni nchi chache ziliendelea kukaa macho kwani majority including Tanzania zikarudi kwenye usingizi; Inasikitisha hata bungeni, mijadala ya namna hii haipo; Ni vigumu kuelewa iwapo our leaders are incapable of understanding the crucial link between trade and development, hasa jinsi yaku maneuver au kupigania maslahi yetu under the current rules; , au pengine ni suala la mazoea tu ya utamaduni wa watawala wetu to let others worry about our development issues;

Kuna kitabu kimoja by Robert Calderisi, former Economist katika moja ya hizi international institutions anasema kwamba – from his experience kwenye summits mbalimbali, Africa inaangushwa na waafrika wenyewe; Kwa mfano, debate on Africa and International Trade zilishika kasi sana in early 2000, na hizi zilikuwa initiated zaidi na sympathizers of Africa ambao ni watu wan je ya bara la Afrika; Calderisi anasema “When trade talks collapsed in Cancun, Mexico, African delegations were largely responsible. And they were the only ones who cheered.”

Swali la muhimu hapa ni kwamba: Global Trade rules chini ya WTO pamoja na conditionalities mbalimbali za World Bank and IMF, je, do they enable or restrict us from establishing development policies, including industrial policies?

My answer is, YES, they do, and the situations gets worse when our very own leaders don’t do anything about it and instead entertain this dirty game just because their Swiss Accounts continue to swell in numbers;

Its prudent that our leaders demand for POLICY SPACE kwa hawa bwana wakubwa, kuliko kupoteza muda kuwapigia tu kelele wananchi majukwaani ili waonekane wanajua matatizo ya wananchi; Nguvu ya UMMA haiwezi kusaidia nchi yetu kupata POLICY SPACE bali Effective Leadership ya viongozi tunaowachagua na wanaoteuliwa kwenye wizara nyeti kama Kilimo, Viwanda, na Fedha uchumi na mipango; Vinginevyo tutaendelea kutekeleza sera ambazo sio home – grown na kuzidi kudidimiza watanzania katika umaskini;

The primary goal of WTO is to increase Trade and Investments and proponents of Free Trade argue kwamba – increasing Trade and Investment through WTO would lead to economic growth and development/poverty eradication; Ingawa hii argument ipo grounded on ECONOMIC THEORY, such claims zina-base on assumptions ambazo hazina mashiko katika nchi maskini kama Tanzania, na wanajua hilo;

Ni muhimu kwa watawala wetu wakajua umuhimu wa Government katika uchumi ni nini na wapiganie hilo huko kwenye vikao vyao badala ya kuwaza posho na shopping; Market – based policies ni muhimu katika ujenzi wa uchumi wa kisasa lakini ukweli unabakia kwamba – in order for market principles kufanya kazi kikamilifu, ni lazima kuwepo na ‘an Effective State Management To ensure that the market is more development friendly; Development Policies (esp. those that require role of the state), ambazo leo hii nchi tajiri zinazibeza, are the very same policies that were essential for industrialization in their very own countries/economies; Umuhimu wa serikali haujabadilika, kilichobadilika is the means – hasa katika suala la Serikali kupewa Policy Space na wakubwa hawa, na Serikali kuwa selective on why, what, where, when, which and how to intervene….

Mchambuzi nakubaliana sana na wewe. Adui mkubwa wa Maendeleo ya Tanzania yuko hapa hapa Tanzania, sisi wenyewe ndio tunafanya nchi yetu iwe maskini. Bado hatujaqualify kuwalaumu wa nje, kwa sababu kuna mismanagement kubwa sana.

Tutake tusitake role ya serikali kwenye uchumi kwa nchi kama Tanzania intakiwa kuwa kubwa zaidi kuliko sasa. Ambako soko linaonekana kufanikiwa, liachwe lifanye kazi. Ni nchi chahce sana duniani labda Marekani peke yake, ndio imeacha kila kitu kwenye private sector, lakini nako serikali ina mkono wake kwenye production [si kisera tu].

Kuondoa kabisa role ya serikali kwenye uzalishaji ni suicidal. Pamoja na kuwa kuna sababu za msingi zilizofanya tuondoe, lakini tulipitiliza.

 

[Zakumi]

Zakumi,

Nimemega hii quote yako ili tuijadili kwa undani zaidi separately:


So you mean to tell me other sectors za uchumi wa marekani kukua kwake hakukuchangiwa na increase in productivity of agriculture? How do other sectors of an underdevelopd economy expand? from what resources? what labour? what capital? Economic theories zina mapungufu yake lakini on this one, there is a consensus ambayo wewe u seem upo contrary to it;

Ni kweli sector za madini na utalii zimekuwa lakini kwa mtaji gani? Jibu ni FDI na mapato ya utalii unaoendeshwa na makampuni ya nje, na haya yote ni guided na principles za soko huria, na serikali haina mkono mrefu, ndio maana expansion hii doesn't necessarily mean kwamba our economy has structurally transformed; structural transformation entails kuhamisha labour force from kilimo into other sector kutokana na increase in productivity ya kilimo, income za wakulima zilingane au karibiane na modern sector, na pia kupunguza GDP dependence on Kilimo na badala yake kuhamia into products zenye more value in today's global economy ambapo ushindani ni knowledge and tech capabilities;

Kwa hoja yako ya utalii na Madini, naona una ignore aidha kwa makusudi au bahati mbaya the fact kwamba transformation lazima iendane sambamba na kupunguza ajira kwenye kilimo na iende kwingine while maintaining decent levels of employment of factors of production in the economy; Sekta ya madini ni more capital intensive, not labour intensive ndio maana sio nzuri sana kuitumia for agricultural transformation, ni muhimu kutumia sekta hiyo hiyo ya kilimo to achieve that;



Are you serious or it was a typo and instead you meant we DID NEED and SO DID AMERICANS?

You can’t argue that agriculture was the only component of the American economic expansion. If it had been, the Egyptians, Chinese, and Greeks would have done it long time ago. For, they invented the best methods of farming well before the ancient time.

Take another example. In 1948 Argentina was among the 10 richest country in the world. Her economy was based purely on the export of agriculture products. If agriculture is so good, why don’t you pick Argentina for an example? Instead, you always use the US.

In short, the economy of the US has expanded because the country has the right ingredients which include people, policies, climate, rule of law, education system, and the array of other things. Take for example, the protection intellectual properties.

Each year, people from all over the world come to the US to file their patents. Why they come to America? Why don’t they follow the same process in their own countries? Because they know their intellectual properties will be protected and the hope of making big in the US is higher than elsewhere on the planet earth.

In summary, I am in favor of improving the state of agriculture sector in Tanzania. I believe we need food security to reduce inflation, and improve the quality of life. However, I don't think agriculture is a panacea to our economic and social problems.

Tanzania is blessed to have multitudes of natural resources and the best approach to move forward is to combine our efforts. Mining, tourism, education, agriculture, transportation, fishing should play their roles.

 

[Mchambuzi]

You can't argue that agriculture was the only component of the American economic expansion. If it had been, the Egyptians, Chinese, and Greeks would have done it long time ago. For, they invented the best methods of farming well before the ancient time.

Take another example. In 1948 Argentina was among the 10 richest country in the world. Her economy was based purely on the export of agriculture products. If agriculture is so good, why don't you pick Argentina for an example? Instead, you always use the US.

In short, the economy of the US has expanded because the country has the right ingredients which include people, policies, climate, rule of law, education system, and the array of other things. Take for example, the protection intellectual properties.

Each year, people from all over the world come to the US to file their patents. Why they come to America? Why don't they follow the same process in their own countries? Because they know their intellectual properties will be protected and the hope of making big in the US is higher than elsewhere on the planet earth.

In summary, I am in favor of improving the state of agriculture sector in Tanzania. I believe we need food security to reduce inflation, and improve the quality of life. However, I don't think agriculture is a panacea to our economic and social problems.

Tanzania is blessed to have multitudes of natural resources and the best approach to move forward is to combine our efforts. Mining, tourism, education, agriculture, transportation, fishing should play their roles.

There you go again, ignoring the past and making case for the present; I am using the US as an example because it is a typical success story when it comes to agricultural transformation and the fact that you are ignoring ukweli kwamba US is the best case study on agricultural transformation in the world kidogo inaleta ulakini katika analysis yako on what can work kwetu kuinua kilimo; We cant reinvent the wheel on this one; And Why did you pick Argentina? Is it a success story in any way? From my understanding, it is a failure story in the context of neo liberal policies; but you have an opportunity to present your case;

All that said and done,the fact still remains kwamba - our economy traditionally depended on agriculture then, and it still does now in terms of employment and income for the majority of Tanzania; and in order for us to change that, we have to transform this sector by making it important now and heavily invest on it so that it provides us with enough capital to expand into other sectors and slowly release the abundant, unproductive and low waged labor from this sector, thats how we are going to be able to slowly abandon its importance ECONOMICALLY in terms of National Output and Employment and move into more valuable products that are knowledge and technology based, chiefly manufacturing; We wont be able to get there by relying on AID or OIL and Mineral rents, but from CAPITAL derived from a highly productive agricultural sector; Short of that, the majority of Tanzanians will continue to live in extreme poverty na nchi kubakia na kilimo duni kukidhi mahitaji ya kisiasa, sio ya kiuchumi;

 

[Zakumi]

I agree about machinery replacing human labor, but what was the source for such capital? AID? OIL? MINERALS? And how did they systematically transform the economy from being the one that highly relies on Kilimo as mainstay in terms of GDP and Employment, to uchumi relying on the said machinery?

I would love to hear your analysis on how the 100% became 5% in the course of policy and economic development;



You are right, but how do we systematically move away from agriculture while maintaining high levels of employment of factors of production, labour included without causing social and economic havoc? Agrarian transformation happens when a good number of rural households:

-Have incomes that exceed national poverty level;
-Operate farms on a commercial basis i.e. (selling a substantial portion of the value of their output for the market instead of consuming it directly/subsistence…)
-Specialize in production at the farm level i.e. Agriculture now becomes a profession;
-Invest more heavily on the farm, due to increase incomes and more incentives to do so;
-Purchase framing/commercial inputs, such as hired labor, in significant quantities
-Adopt into new technologies on a continuous/regular basis.

At this stage, a dynamic growth process is already taking place, with agricultural sector becoming increasingly modernized, food becoming cheap to produce due to economies of scale, and eventually the sector releasing labor to the non-agricultural sectors, especially manufacturing, after these sectors manage to get capital from a successful agrarian transformation;


I agree with you about the present, but what about the past? How did they where they are right now? YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY DENIED TO TALK OF THE PAST!

Let me emphasize again – the issue of agriculture losing its importance is only in economic terms (esp. decline in GDP share), otherwise in political terms, it doesn't lose its importance because it is a strategic sector; This a paradox about the sector: In economic terms, agriculture becomes less important as per capita income of a country rises; If we fail to understand how and why this happens, we are surely going to face big and serious problems down the road; BUT if we do understand this well enough, we will face some serious problems right now because, as I have argued elsewhere, one FACT remains: In order for us to make agriculture unimportant (economically GDP and employment wise), is to make it important right away. One key question follows:

If agriculture’s share in GDP is going to decline (for instance as you argued in post number 87 of this thread on tourism, mining…) – if agriculture as percentage of GDP and employment is going to decline anyways, then why should we worry about investing in it e.g Kilimo Kwanza and the like? Why should we worry then about the infrastructure development (esp. roads), irrigation, research, increasing farmers knowledge and other stuff that are essential for modernizing our agriculture, if 20-30 years down the road we are not going to need all these things when agriculture loses its economic importance (decline in GDP’s share)?

It is because agriculture forms the economic base for any country that truly seeks to transform structurally without bringing any social havocs, thus the need to get all the required to develop an economy from the agricultural sector; But we wont be able to make agriculture's share of GDP and Employment Decline unless we make the sector grow rapidly as discussed earlier. Bottom line is, we have no choice but to heavily invest in this sector; As an underdeveloped or poor country, we cannot grow our economy rapidly unless we start by building a strong agricultural base;

Here is another important fact:

If you look at world prices for major agricultural products, they are constantly declining, and this has been happening for quite some time; For instance, wheat and rice prices have been declining since the period prior to The Civil War in the US; And if you check on stats in Europe, wheat prices have been declining since the 16th century. What does this tell you? It tells you that The Real Economic Value of what Agriculture Produces is on a Declining Trend - Globally. This is why we have to make the sector important now economically so that we manage to make it less important in the long run and move our economy into higher global value chains - by producing high tech products that requires tech capabilities and knowledge, or else we will continue to be America and Europe's Backyard; Agriculture is declining as a share of the GDP/economy, and what it produces is less valuable per ton along the way; This is a fact that we have to deal with if we want to transform our economy;



The problem is, you are talking as if these developed countries FLUKED to get where they are today; Have you ever tried to think of the past when it comes to success in these countries (kwenye Kilimo) and stay away at least for a moment from thoughts of the present?

You are talking of agriculture subsidies in rich countries, YES, they happen but not because the sector is Economically Important, instead, it is because the sector is Politically Important; No one denies about the effects these subsidies have on african agriculture, but it doesn't mean the buck should stop there; If we truly want to transform our economy structurally, we have to continue our pressure the WTO and the International Financial Institutions (WB & IMF) to give us some SPACE IN POLICY instead of dictating what we should do, but more importantly, they should assist us in our efforts to make the sector important now economically so that later it becomes less important; If they didn't this makwao i.e. heavily investing in agriculture in the beginning, they wouldn't have been where they are today; Otherwise its true, globalization has brought with it many challenges towards that end,but for every challenge,there is an opportunity; I will attend this issue in depth a little bit later i.e. the issue of subsidies and what we can do to resolve that;

Let me answer you post in general. I don't avoid talking about the past as you constantly accuse me. For, we have used the past as our an excuse, and I believe that this trend is overdue. Bear in mind it's 50 years after independence and the examination of our failures should purely based on our ability to make and implement policies. Yes there are some noises of the colonial legacy. But it's time to move on.

Developed country have made progress not because it was easy. Take for example the US. They fought blood wars for independence and for uniting the country. So their path wasn't easy. And we shouldn't assume that if we invest a lot of money in agriculture, we will get it right. We tried that in the past, but it didn't work out as expect.

Second, many developed countries have grown agriculture products that are indigenous in the areas or that have market in the local population. If you go to England, the largest consumer block are people from England and neighboring countries. The same could be said about German, Japan or the US. We on the other hand, we don't consume our own agriculture products or those from our neighbors.

The relationship between consumers and producers in proximity have forced developed countries to formulate policies that are favorable to their own people. For example, in medieval time food produce in France or Poland was cheaper but you couldn't have sold it in the UK easily because of tariffs to protect the UK farmers.

In recent time, developed countries subsidize their farmers heavily, and without this the price of food wouldn't have dropped as you mentioned in your post. Take for example Japan and the European Union. In 90s, each cow in Japan receive 3000 USD while In Europe 2000 USD each year. Basically the farmers don't farm to sell, but they do that to receive lucrative subsidies. The question, how much a Tanzania farmer receives per hector or per cow? Nothing.

Second the transportation infrastructures to connect various trade centers have played a major role. In America, states, city, and trade centers are connected. This alone has encouraged people to engage in commerce and innovation with very little government intervention.

Now come back to Tanzania. How long it takes to transport maize from Ruvuma to DSM to Arusha and how much it costs? You know the answer. There was a time, it was easier to receive food aid from the US than to transport food from Ruvuma produced by own brothers and sisters. We neglected commerce and innovation for cheap foreign aid.

If Americans had taken the same approaches which we have taken since the independence of ther country, they would have remained a backward country. So rather than dwelling on historical narratives, we should take responsibilities for our own actions.

In DSM today, big houses are sprout like mushrooms. However, the majority of owners of those houses don't have a single stock at our stock exchange. If we don't put our money where our mouths are, why should we expect miracles. Do you think America would have moved forward without the money market? There's where the capital is generated.

 

[FairPlayer]

Hello Guys,

Great debate. Why dont you focus on solutions rather than problems?

I am quite sure we all know why Tanzanians are poor, except Mr President of course.

I would like to explore on some opportunities and way forwards......

 

[Zakumi]

Hello Guys,

Great debate. Why dont you focus on solutions rather than problems?

I am quite sure we all know why Tanzanians are poor, except Mr President of course.

I would like to explore on some opportunities and way forwards......

FP,

How could you find or focus on solutions when you don't know your problems? As a country, since independent we have development blue print after development blue print. There's no time in history of our republic, when we didn't have solutions to our problems. However, our ideas don't seem to work.

For anybody who is interested in the development of our nation, the situation is very dire and depressing. So rather than looking for another grand idea, probably we should critically examine ourselves and find what's wrong with us. For, we can't continue to think that failure is an option.

We need to reduce the rate of failures. For examples, If we decide to reduce illiterate rate, we shouldn't settle for higher percentage of enrollment when the graduates don't master key literacy skills. If we have decided to empower famers through Kilimo Kwanza programs, we should make sure that at the end of day the agriculture throughput is up.