What I didn’t expect was a local food bank, which last year gave out more than 5,000 emergency supplies to hungry people. Statistically, Richmond has some of the lowest rates of poverty of any London borough. If there is a food bank here, the Tories are toast.

Last Sunday was our Harvest Festival. We brought hoop spaghetti, toothpaste, and health care products to the altar. At lunchtime, 60 of us sat down in the church hall for shepherd’s pie and trifle, raising several hundred pounds for the food bank. Every spud peeled, every carrot scraped was another reminder of the failure of trickle-down economics. If people are going hungry in an area as posh as this, I don’t give the Tories a sniff of winning the next election.

Not that the food was that appealing at the Tory Party Conference in Birmingham, judging by the looks of those who laboured through their tasteless Starbucks sandwiches. The tone was funereal. They have lost their appetite, not just for bread and cheese, but for government too apparently.

Pacing about those gloomy halls, it was good to see the friendly face of Danny Kruger, MP for Devizes, and, not unrelated to the purpose of my trip, the son of restaurateur and food critic Prue Leith. I told him I was at conference to argue for restoring Britain’s 0.7% aid target: once an international standard of generosity for rich countries. He smiled at me, sympathetically: “Good luck with that.” The Tories had other things on their minds. Much more pressing issues, apparently.

But what could be more pressing than this? “Do we care, do we act, and do we lead? The promise of 0.7% meant that we — Global Britain — answered ‘yes’ to all three,” said David Cameron in 2020. But the current Tory party seems to have forgotten all this precisely at a time when it is most important.

“Growth, growth, growth” intoned the Prime Minister at her conference speech, obviously pleased with herself at presenting so succinctly the holy trinity of Trussian economics. With harvest hymns still ringing in my ears — “We plough the fields and scatter the good seed on the land” — I wondered how her philosophy of growth related to the growth of real living things — being rooted, being fed and watered, being tended. For her, growth seems to be the thing that happens when the gardener, aka the state, stops interfering. But the state of my garden tells me that when you do this, the weeds will always win. It is not insignificant that the people most upset by the bright idea of “economic development zones”, which means tax breaks and planning liberalisation, are those who point out the environmental impact. There is good growth and bad growth.

Suggested reading

How the Tories were radicalised

By Richard Bourke

To be fair, the Tories can’t be blamed entirely for the current crisis of food insecurity. Putin’s wicked invasion of Ukraine has devastated the breadbasket of Europe. Russians have been deliberately shelling agricultural lands with incendiary shells, burning down crops, using food and hunger as a weapon of war. Because of this — and yes, for other reasons too — 40 million people in the horn of Africa are on the edge of starvation. In many places, fertiliser has become too expensive for the poor to buy, leading to low crop yields. Farmers in Somalia are surrounded by the white bones of their dead cattle. Many have abandoned their fields looking for more fertile lands. But despite their arduous travels, they find the famine wherever they go.

I sat on a panel with Vicky Ford, the new Development Minister and Emma Revie, the CEO of the Trussell Trust, which runs the Richmond Foodbank along with 1,300 others in the UK. A handful of people attended our event. Outside the meeting, groups of young men in the ubiquitous Tory uniform of blue suits and open-neck white shirts walked past at West Wing pace, obviously going somewhere terribly important. But they weren’t coming in here.

I do believe Vicky Ford gets it. She was off to Ethiopia on Tuesday. But there were few answers to the challenges that now face the poorest people in the world. New technology could be leveraged to help, she explained. And the Qatari’s are being very generous too. The Tories have promised that they will return to the 0.7% target once the economy is back on track. “Good luck with that,” I said, perhaps a little too sharply. “Be nice,” replied the Minister. But I am not in the mood for being nice about this. We should be far angrier.

Suggested reading

Liz Truss makes the case for Labour

By John McTernan

In 2015, the United Nations launched the Sustainable Development Goals, which aimed to eliminate hunger by 2030. But we are nowhere near hitting that goal: in fact, global hunger levels have risen since 2015. Today, nearly 9% of the world’s population are hungry.

The Harvest Festival looks very different in church these days. Instead of giant leeks and corn dollies, we pile up baked beans in front of the altar. And when we pray “give us this day our daily bread”, we think of combine harvesters in Ukraine dodging enemy tank fire and desperate families trekking across the Sudan, with a child in one hand and a packet of seeds in another.

But we also think of families in Britain struggling to afford their weekly food shop. Hunger has never just been an issue for the developing world, and now that it’s found its way to the door of places like Richmond, the tin-eared Conservative party will finally have to take note. It may be politically convenient to ignore starving children in Sudan, but it’s foolhardy for politicians to turn their backs on a hungry electorate. If the party has any hope of winning the next election, it will have to find itself a moral compass.

As well as being monstrous, the argument isn’t even right in its own terms. Recent decades have demonstrated beyond doubt that achieving humanitarian aims with regard to the food supply, healthcare, education and economic security brings down the birth rate. Reduction in population growth follows development, not the other way round.

Suggested reading

Why the population bomb is not going to explode

By Fred Pearce

Globally, the human population – currently at the seven billion mark – is still growing. The UN predicts it will hit eleven billion by the end of the century. However, as Max Roser of Our World In Data explains here almost of all of that projected growth is accounted for by reduced mortality, not increased natality. Indeed, Roser shows how we’re getting close to ‘peak child’ i.e. a maximum in the number of babies being born each year. At that point, births will cease to contribute to global population growth, which will instead be entirely accounted for by people living longer (especially by surviving their vulnerable early years).

The fact that people from developing countries are getting the better of war, famine, pestilence and (premature) death cannot and should not be held against them.

If our numbers do reach 11 billion by 2100, it will therefore be for the right reasons. However, according to fascinating article by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson in the Guardian, things could turn out even better:

“Jørgen Randers, a Norwegian academic who decades ago warned of a potential global catastrophe caused by overpopulation, has changed his mind. ‘The world population will never reach nine billion people,’ he now believes. ‘It will peak at 8 billion in 2040, and then decline.’’

“Similarly, Prof Wolfgang Lutz and his fellow demographers at Vienna’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis predict the human population will stabilise by mid-century and then start to go down.

“A Deutsche Bank report has the planetary population peaking at 8.7 billion in 2055 and then declining to 8 billion by century’s end.”

It’s not that these forecasts are expecting more people to die, but, rather, fewer to be born. The UN disagrees, because they prefer to base their models on established trends:

“‘We imagine that countries that currently have higher levels of fertility and lower levels of life expectancy will make progress in the future in a similar manner, at a similar speed, to what was experienced by countries in the past,” John Wilmoth, director of the UN Population Division, says. ‘It’s all grounded in past experience.’”

That’s not unreasonable, but the dissenting experts point out that the development that led to falling birth rates in the past is increasingly taking place in a new and game-changing context:

“In 2007, for the first time in human history, the majority of people in the world lived in cities. Today, it’s 55%. In three decades, it will be two-thirds.

“A lot happens when people move from the countryside into the city. First, a child changes from being an asset – another pair of shoulders to work in the fields – to a burden – another mouth to feed.”

The impact of economic growth is therefore compounded by the impact of urbanisation.

As Bricker and Ibbitson point out, many of those moving to the rapidly expanding cities of the developing world still have strong links to the “immemorial, agricultural, subsistent and patriarchal” communities they came from. But with each generation those ties will get weaker – as they did with great rapidity in earlier waves of urbanisation elsewhere .

There are other forces accelerating the pace of cultural change – not least the spread of communication technologies. For instance, in Kenya, “over 75% of the population have mobile device subscriptions.”

A richer, more urban and faster-paced developing world leaves less need, space and time for large families. Indeed, it begins to look increasingly like the developed world where birth rates are generally below replacement level – often worryingly so.

Suggested reading

This demographic catastrophe will hit us all

By Peter Franklin

In fact, in the most populous non-western nations, the convergence has already happened:

“China, the world’s largest country, has a fertility rate of 1.5, lower than Britain’s. India, soon to overtake China as the world’s most populous nation, is at the replacement rate of 2.1 and falling. Brazil, the fifth most populous country, has a fertility rate of 1.8.”

Stable or declining population trends appear to be ‘baked in’ across most of the world. Africa, however, is the ‘swing continent’ – and what happens there over the coming decades will be the biggest influence on many more billions of us there are by 2100.

That said, westerners shouldn’t forget that the burden each of us place upon the planet should be weighted by consumption level – and that we’ve been consuming a lot more, for a lot longer, than anyone else.

Further reading

Advanced economies shouldn't depend on cheap labour

By Peter Franklin

In an important article for Bloomberg, Kai-Fu Lee, encourages us to take a different perspective. What will robotics and AI do to jobs in the developing world?

“Artificial intelligence is dramatically accelerating the automation of factories and taking over routine tasks such as customer service or telemarketing. AI does such jobs cheaper than the low-wage workers of the developing world and, over time, will do them better. Robots examining your iPhone for scratches don’t take vacations for Chinese New Year; AI customer-service agents don’t demand pay raises.”

For any given range of jobs where automation is a viable option, one would expect those paying the highest wages to be prioritised. So does that mean that developing economies, with their comparatively low wage levels, are safe?

Not necessarily. Offshoring may save on payroll costs, but can be expensive in other ways. Distance from home markets and the difficulty of operating in an unfamiliar regulatory environment can both take their toll. Then there’s the potential threat to intellectual property and the opportunities for efficiency improvement that get lost when the shopfloor is a half-a-world-away from designers, engineers and other specialists.

It seems likely that many companies would re-shore their manufacturing facilities and call centres if they didn’t have to pay higher wages – or, indeed, any wages.

That could have devastating consequences for the countries left behind:

“Without a cost incentive to locate in the developing world, corporations will bring many of these functions back to the countries where they’re based. That will leave emerging economies, unable to grasp the bottom rungs of the development ladder, in a dangerous position: The large pool of young and relatively unskilled workers that once formed their greatest comparative advantage will become a liability — a potentially explosive one.”

China, though, will be fine.

As highlighted before on UnPacked, the Chinese want much more for themselves than to be the ‘workshop of the world’; Chinese demographics mean that the country can’t rely on an endlessly abundant labour supply; and, in any case, Chinese technological expertise and domestic consumer markets are strong enough to keep a heavily automated manufacturing sector at home.

Further reading

The innovation game: Can China regain its lead over the West?

By Peter Franklin

The real threat is to those much poorer countries that hope to get the sort of jobs from China that China once got from the West. In other words, if robotics and AI puts an end to the advantage of having a young and cost-competitive workforce, it could also end the spread of industrialisation and the prosperity that comes with it.

That looks like especially bad news for Africa – the great population growth centre of the 21st century. A different way forward is required:

“…what is an emerging economy to do? The first step is to recognize that the traditional paths to economic development — the China and India models — are no longer viable… The next wave of emerging economies must chart a new course.”

The developing world’s use of new technology to leapfrog entire stages of development that richer countries had to go through is a well-documented phenomenon. Examples include mobile phone-based financial services in places where there are no high street banks or, indeed, high streets. Then there’s the use of distributed forms of renewable energy where there are no electricity grids or big central power stations.

But that’s just for starters. If progress in artificial intelligence results in significant automation of specialisms such as the law, accountancy and education, then developing countries may be able leapfrog a lot of the services infrastructure that appears to be so essential to the functioning of a western economy.

Note that this does not require complete automation. For instance, in ten or 20 years time, an AI ‘law bot’ probably won’t be able to do everything that a London QC can do now, but it might be able to undertake more basic legal work. Such tools could combine to allow developing economies to advance without the highly expensive – and, one might argue, self-justifying – public and private sector bureaucracies that weigh us down in the West.

This would free the brightest and best in rising nations to focus on real entrepreneurship and true innovation.

Well, that’s the optimistic scenario – but why not go for it?

Further reading

How long before the world's youngest continent revolts?

By Daniel Knowles

“So bring it on – the dull small island life, grey, inward, with shops full of pies and chips and blue passports in our bags. Groan.”

Her words contain a curious echo of something that Emma Thompson said in the run-up to the referendum campaign. After declaring her preference to remain in the EU, the British actress gave a rather tart description of her country:

“…a cake-filled misery-laden grey old island.”

The British people may be no strangers to a carb-heavy snack; but do we really rely on Europe to save us from small-minded, mean-spirited isolationism?

As a citizen of two nations – France and Britain – it seems to me that the latter has a remarkably global outlook. And, yes, that does extend to our dietary habits – we don’t just consume British fare with enthusiasm, but also the food of other nations: China, India, Turkey, Italy, America, Mexico, we invite the world to clog our arteries.

There’s further evidence of the UK’s willingness to engage with the planet in a report by John McArthur and Krista Rasmussen for Brookings. It takes the form of a systematic survey of national funding for international organisations, including various UN bodies such as UNESCO and the World Health Organisation as well as a number of non-UN bodies such as the Global Environment Facility and the Council of Europe:

“The 53 multilaterals in our sample received around $63 billion per year in estimated direct, recurrent grant funding during the 2014-2016 period… In absolute terms, the U.S. is the largest overall funder at $14.1 billion per year, providing 22 percent of the sample’s resources. The U.K. is the second-largest funder at $7.6 billion (12 percent), followed by Japan at $5.4 billion (9 percent) and Germany at $4.4 billion (7 percent). These four countries contribute approximately 50 percent of the total funding…”

(An interesting aside is that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the 17th largest funder, contributing more than either Saudi Arabia or Russia do.)

Of course, America, Britain, Japan and Germany are large, rich economies that one might expect to provide much of the money. But how generous do they look when funding levels are calculated on a per capita basis?

From this perspective, the Scandinavian countries (plus Switzerland and a number of very small countries like Monaco and the Vatican) are the biggest givers:

“The graph shows that Norway contributes by far the most per person to the multilateral system, at $399 per year, followed by Sweden at $229 and Denmark at $160.”

Nevertheless, the UK’s record is nothing to be ashamed of:

“Among the top three absolute funders… the U.S. ranks 20th overall in per capita terms at $44, the U.K., is eighth at $116, and Japan is 21st at $42.”

Thus the UK is not only the second biggest donor in absolute terms, it is also the biggest per capita donor among the G7 and G20 nations.

None of this depends on Britain’s membership of the European Union. Indeed, the Brookings study does not include the UK’s big net contribution to the EU budget. Nor does it cover the Commonwealth (though it does include the Francophonie group of French speaking nations). And let’s not forget Britain’s vital role in what is still the most important international organisation in the world today, NATO.

Not too bad for a “grey” and “inward” little island. I shall celebrate with a generous slice of cake.

The size of the whole of Western Europe, DRC is home to huge mineral wealth which, amongst other things, is vital for mobile phone technology, and to a huge swathe of rainforest – one of the world’s most important “lungs”. The scale of untapped human potential is vast and, if stable and well governed, the country could grow enough food and generate enough clean energy to serve the whole continent.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals cannot be met if poverty in Congo isn’t addressed. The future of the whole of Africa is tied up in the future of DRC and it is a future we should all be concerned about.

***

Introduction to this Under-reported series.

Summary guide to all under-reported articles in this series.

Though the physiocrats went wrong by overlooking the added value created by non-agricultural sectors of the economy, it is true that progress in agriculture enables other economic activity. If we weren’t able to rise above subsistence level, then none of us would have the time to do anything else but sow and reap to fend off starvation. But when a surplus of food is produced, then farmers can support a growing population of other workers – including those who make tools and develop methods for enhancing agricultural productivity.

This virtuous circle of surplus and reinvestment has driven growth throughout recorded history and continues to be important today – especially in the poorest countries where subsistence agriculture is still a big part of the economy. To escape poverty it is vital that farmers invest in their land.

But what if it isn’t their land? Or, rather, what if they can’t prove it’s theirs? Without secure rights to a piece of land, you’re less likely to invest in the long-term improvement of its soil, or build a workshop on it, or install a solar panel there.

The importance of property rights to development is something that is well understood, but according to Frank Pichel for Project Syndicate it is still a major problem in many parts of the world. A major component of that problem is the lack of adequate documentation:

“According to the World Bank, more than 90% of Africa’s rural land is undocumented. Overlapping and conflicting land-management systems are the norm, as are inaccessible, out-of-date, incomplete, inaccurate, or nonexistent land records. But while dysfunctional systems of land tenure have no doubt cost African governments millions in foreign investment, they have hurt African farmers most directly.”

As a result, the grounds for investment are missing – literally:

“Africa’s small family farmers – already burdened by soil degradation, climate change, and resource competition fueled by surging populations – face an even more challenging bureaucratic hurdle: no paper to prove that the land they call home is theirs. Uncertain of their ability to control their farms into the next season, farmers’ planning horizons shrink. Instead of investing in terraced fields, planting trees, and buying high-quality fertilizer, Africa’s farmers seek to maximize short-term profits. This is particularly true of female farmers, who face an additional thicket of discriminatory land laws and customs.”

In this respect, what Africa needs is more bureaucracy – i.e. a reliable system for surveying land and documenting its ownership. A properly functioning legal system is required to enforce property rights – but the authorities first have to know exactly who is entitled to what.

The economic, social and environmental benefits are clear:

“In Tanzania, women with secure rights earn three times more than their landless counterparts. In Nepal, children whose mothers have secure land rights are 33% more likely to be well nourished…

“Communities with clear legal control over land manage those resources more assiduously than those with shaky tenure. The same can be said for individuals. In Ghana, farmers with strong land rights are 39% more likely to plant trees. In Ethiopia, farmers are 60% more likely to invest in preventing soil erosion when they have secure rights to their plots.”

When western nations first began accurately surveying and mapping their land, it was a top-down process. For instance, Britain’s Ordnance Survey grew from a decision by George II to map the rebellious Scottish highlands. This came fast on the heals of Louis XIV, who ordered the production of the first modern map of France.

In the 21st century, technology is enabling local people in developing countries to take the initiative instead:

“Advances in GPS, drones, and cloud computing have given communities the ability to document land – with or without official recognition or support.”

British aid money is being used to support these grassroots initiatives – which, if we want aid to help people become less dependent on outside help, is exactly the right approach.