We’ve talked before about the complexities of tackling a massive problem like extreme global poverty. If you spend any time at all reading about or discussing this, you will inevitably run into the argument that a lot of international aid is ineffective because it goes to prop up the regimes of corrupt, awful leaders. And while it’s not quite that simple, there’s some truth there. The argument often continues to point out that liberal democracies tend not to suffer famine or to suggest that market reforms might lay the groundwork for positive economic growth. In a very simplistic sense, this is part of the argument behind the recommendations and requirements that the IMF lays out for the poorest of nations.

But here’s the thing…. It makes sense to point to a country like Zimbabwe and say that the impending food emergency can be traced in large part to Mugabe’s misguided land reform and his horrific policies aimed at the urban poor and rural citizenry. But Niger’s case is much different. In many ways, Niger seems to be doing a lot of things right. It is a fairly respectable democracy in a region where dictatorship and military coups are more the norm. It has begun to implement many of the free market reforms recommended by the IMF and the EU.

And yet millions of Niger’s citizens face a dire food emergency.

When I first started reading and writing about this, the storyline seemed pretty clear:
bad harvest + locusts + lack of international response = famine. But the articles I read today suggest that the story is much more complicated than that....

The food emergency in Niger doesn’t seem to be a proper reflection of Niger’s ability to produce food. I’ve read a number of accounts of bustling, well-stocked food markets throughout the country.

Ultimately, it’s possible that these market reforms will be the key to getting Niger out of its current cycle of extreme poverty. But if letting the free market drive pricing results in the death of hundreds of thousands to millions of people, is it worth it? Might there be other preconditions that need to be met before freeing prices?

Look, the dark side of capitalism is that there will always be economic losers. But there’s a huge difference between inevitable income inequity and inevitable mass starvation. I don’t want to pretend that there’s anything but an ugly answer to this question, but what is the threshhold where the loss outweighs the benefits of market liberalization?

[via From the Salmon, emphasis mine]