Is It Poor Bryant or Poor Liberia: A Case for Govt. Investment in Education

By J. Yanqui Zaza

30 April 04

In his article on students demanding better conditions for their teachers, Tom Kamara fell in the trap of institutions known to champion economic policies against the poor. He wrapped his arms around the fear of big government and sang the song of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Wall Street and Monrovia bureaucrats by denouncing students of the University of Liberia for calling on government to invest in education. Apparently unaware of the implications, he has helped in spreading the cheap lies of profiteers and unscrupulous investors, which are that reducing college tuition for poor students, or that the idea of government investing in social programs, breeds laziness, incompetence, and corruption. In lambasting Liberian students for calling on the current interim government (a government that continues to spend and lavish the country’s limited resources on luxurious goods) to reduce tuition fees and invest in education, Mr. Kamara raised an important issue: does a country attract investment, entice skilled manpower, provide an environment conducive for promoting democracy, enhancing and sustaining peace and stability by reducing the cost of education, health, shelter, and other social programs?

Mr. Kamara and officers of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) say private institutions should invest for maximum profit, and government shouldn't. Many experts say the opposite. The experts say a country or community usually reaps enormous benefits whenever a genuine investment is made, be it by a government, or by a private institution. Governments, including capitalist and socialist leaders of Europe, for good reasons, pay a lion share of the costs of education, health, shelter, and other social programs. Even in the United States of America, where influential policy makers shun the idea of investing in social programs, federal and local officials do invest in education, shelter, health and other social programs.

However, in the case of the United States, government’s spending has produced negative results, because as some critics assert, U.S.’s investment is wrongly designed and allocated. Those experts claimed that U.S. policy makers invest, in many cases, primarily to calm, or pacify unemployed residents (the would-be rioters), or pay back chief executives for financing elections. For example, the U.S. Government, through tax incentive and research funding, spends more than $27 billion dollars yearly on health care, even though the health industry continues to provide less and less benefits for fewer residents, said Ralph Emmanuel, former advisor to president Bill Clinton and current U.S. Representative.

In fact contrary to the views of officers of the International Monetary Funds (IMF) and World Bank (WB) that “government social spending does not shut growth.” Mr. Peter H. Lindert, a professor at the University of California said government spending promotes democracy and enhances economic prosperity. A former president of the Economic History Association; and an associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, argues in his book that “government spending, if administered wisely, can have great value for everyone, including but not limited to the especially disadvantaged.” He added (based on a survey he conducted in nine decades up to 2000 in 19 developed nations, including most of western Europe, Japan, Australia, the United States) that nations that invest on social programs continue to grow faster than the United States, a nation with low social spending.

Interestingly, Mr. Kamara, a son of Liberia, a country that needs massive government investment in reducing the cost of housing, education, or health care, has questioned the idea of “big government,” while, Mr. George Pataki, the Governor of one of the richest states in the world, New York, embraces and endorses the same idea. The Governor of the state of New York, the state that prides itself for spearheading capitalism, has accepted his Commission’s recommendation to invest $3.6 million in public education in New York State. Governor Pataki said the investment in education is necessary in meeting the manpower requirements of corporate employers doing business in New York.

Animals, including mankind, as the saying goes, will always migrate in search for better living conditions. That's the prime reason why multinational corporations are now relocating their business offices from developed countries, with high cost of living, to developing countries with low cost of living. Had Liberian leaders invested in education, as the 70’s advocates advised, multinational corporations would have been relocating in Liberia, thereby providing incentives for the Liberian skilled manpower to stay home. Liberians would have had no reasons to be forced to live in exile because democracy would have prevailed and child soldiers would have received better incentives from employers than the benefits they received from warlords. As in the case of India, where corporations are flocking to, hence enticing Indians residing in the United States and Great Britain to begin relocating home, Liberians would have begun relocating to where we called “sweet home.” It is in Liberia interest, if we want to entice and retain our skilled manpower, and subsequently disarm future child soldiers, to invest in social programs.

Mr. Thomas L. Friedman, a NY Times columnist, has added his voice to those who are calling for governments to invest in social programs. He asked U.S. policy makers to invest in social programs in Mexico in preventing young Mexicans from migrating to the United States. In the April 4, 2004 article (North America needs to think beyond Nafta), he added his voice to Robert Pastor’s view that “the U.S., Canada and Mexico establish a North America Investment Fund, which, over ten years invest in roads, telecommunication and post-secondary education in Mexico,” to prevent a social crisis. Friedman said that Mexico, not only is it next door, but Mexico’s huge bubble of unskilled job seeking baby boomers will flock to the United States, if policy makers do not invest in social programs.

Surprisingly, why is it that Mr. Kamara, who has and continues to advocate for the advancement of the human race, is now re-echoing anti-poor policies promulgated by IMF, WB, and Wall Street. There are many reasons why many Liberians who have advocated for economic justice in the past are now accepting and promoting the views of IMF and WB. However, Liberians, while searching for the reasons, should simultaneously double the efforts on their part in promoting the idea of government investing in social programs. Because if government does not, but instead relies on the advice of officers of the IMF and WB, Liberia's poor will continue to suffer, as Nat Gbessagee correctly stated in his 4/17/04 article carried by the New Democrat Web Site. Mr.Gbessage concluded that less spending in social programs has had devastating effect on poor people in developing countries.

Oh yes, Liberia failing to invest in social programs would breed the ingredients for a civil war. Liberia, unlike the U.S., does not have the resources and programs to calm the would-be rioters and child soldiers. More so, Investors will fill in the void as REAL ESTATE OWNERS ARE MILKING TENANTS IN MONROVIA, OR AS OWNERS OF POORLY RUN NIGHT SCHOOLS, PRIOR TO THE 1980 COUP, COLLECTED MONEY FROM POOR STUDENTS AND DUMPED OUT MANY UNPREPARED AND UNSKILLED GRADUATES.