Garrett Hardin posed a theory in 1974 called Lifeboat Ethics (Hardin 1974). It stated that the global economy should be considered akin to a lifeboat. That it’s limited resources and space should be given to those with the good luck to receive them, not reappropriated to assist those less fortunate. His ideas argued against institutions such as a world food bank, a hot debate topic of the time. And now, 40 years later we’re left with an application of his theories that his work never encouraged.

His work criticized the over ideological, the bleeding hearts that could believe “to each his own according to his needs” (famously stated by Karl Marx). He criticized those that would encourage aiding countries whose populations had already exceeded the bounty their land was capable of producing. His goal was that these developing countries would either learn to fend for themselves, or the carrying capacity of our planet simply would not allow them to live

But never in his essays or writings did he hint that we should assist Mother Nature in depleting another countries economic and material resources for our own gain, he never wanted us to help it along. And yet since the 1980’s we have evidence of just such action in the form of neocolonialism. While Neocolonialism and its ideological counterpart Neoliberalism are intended as a method of economic growth and stimulation they’ve become the mechanism by which a de facto exploitative economic system has come into power in a number of developing countries around the globe that poses too great of a cost of life to be allowed to continue.

Neocolonialism isn’t the label on any one government initiative; it’s a whole orchestration working in tandem to create a specific environment in impoverished countries that need aid from richer ones. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are both lynchpins in this process. They were both created to assist in the restoration of smaller allied countries after World War II and during the Cold War. But after the wall came down and Eastern Europe was again a world power these organizations began exacting their true agenda. The World Bank is the first step in the process; they dole out massive loans to developing countries that even their full GDP couldn’t hope to pay back. And once the country defaults on their loan payments the IMF steps in to offer aid and protection from the big bad conglomerate of the World Bank, with one major caveat.

In order to receive aid from the IMF a developing country must sign and adhere to a Structural Adjustment Plan (SAP) intended to ensure that countries are using the aid they’re receiving in ways to develop their economy. Main tenants include privatization (of businesses, land and material resources previously held by the state), budget deficit spending and a reduction of inflation. When a country doesn’t adhere to their SAP, the consequences are severe. Let us take the example of Hanson and Hentz’s case study in Zambia from 1987-1996.

Map of Zambia

Zambia is a small African nation. In 1987 its president Kaunda spoke out against IMF strategies, phrasing it as an outcry against imperial neocolonialism and broke with the IMF support they had been receiving. His subsequent policies were popular and actually encouraged economic growth within the country. But in shunning the IMF the other donor nations (bi-lateral donors such as the United States, Great Britain, Germany an Scandinavia) that had been sending aid to the extremely indebted country backed out. Without the IMF stamp of approval other countries wouldn’t lend, and subsequent programs and projects suffered and eventually came to halt. As the aid dried up an opposing political party whose basis was in neoliberal ideas (“and by liberalizing industry, trade and commerce, with the Government only creating an enabling environment whereby economic growth must follow as it has done all the world’s successful countries” {Hanson 1999}) sprang up and won the next election in a landslide.

And because of these neoliberal policies under the new president Chiluba the economy was stimulated, as almost $1 billion in international aid flowed into the country annually between 1991-1996. As the years passed by even Chiluba became recalcitrant of his commitment to the IMF, but with repeated threats of aid withdrawal his hands are tied and Zambia remains committed to a neoliberal program of economic growth.

It can be understood that these developing countries (Haiti, the Philipines, Indonesia, Guatemala etc) are already so impoverished that any aid is helpful, even if it comes prepackaged with economic reform. Obviously the IMF intended for their reforms to be helpful to the host country, to help them become self-sufficient by reforming their government along previously successful models. Progress is always assumed to be a bounty, these countries actively seek it to try and catch up to more developed populations around the globe and the peoples of these countries see international aid as their only way to catch up. And with their early commitment to assistance after World War II we can see that these organizations, at least at the start, didn’t have economic exploitation in mind when they sent money to ailing nations.

But as Joerg Rieger succinctly put, “even in a postcolonial age, colonial mentalities have not disappeared; many have simply been pushed under ground and have adapted in other ways, frequently taking more vicious shapes than ever before” (Rieger 2004). Any well-intended program can easily be corrupted by the basic human property of greed. The original colonialism was an economic process by which an attempt on part of ruling classes throughout the world attempted to solve financial crises by seeking and capturing wealth and resources (including labor) from weaker peoples and returning this bounty to the metropole. This left the colonial country poor and subjugated. All of today’s major world powers were former colonial masters, and it seems they’ve developed a method of maintaining this subjugated relationship without having to actually colonize.

By forcing these countries to open their economies and allow foreign investment and trade they’re sealing their fate, they’re allowing the sale and purchase of previously assumed inherent rights (water, forest, air, minerals) lowering the amount of cash flow from the country that stays in the country, which inherently makes them more dependent on foreign aid as the product of their country is exported to foreign powers. This forces the government to abandon government projects of public health and enrichment in favor of paying off their foreign lenders or investing in economic programs that allow more foreign investment. Each element of this process is a cog in the greater machine of neocolonialism, each element works to reproduce a colonial relationship between lender (metropole) and the impoverished nation. And as these countries become more indebted and more impoverished the quality of human life there continues to decline. It truly has become that the right to gain wealth and economic power is paramount even to others’ right to human life.

Belo Monte Dam Complex

Let us take the example of the Amazonian Xingu River in Brazil. In 2005 the Brazilian Government approved the building of the world’s third largest hydroelectric dam called the Belo Monte Dam designed to divert 80% of the Xingu River’s flow. This project, currently under construction, will devastate almost 600 square miles of Brazilian rainforest as well as displacing between 20,000-40,000 people. Obviously the controversy over this dam has been heated, and the project was shelved in 1975 when indigenous groups and environmentalist organizations rose together to fight it. But this time around the $16 billion project has been approved, and the government has to borrow money from the Brazilian Development Bank intended towards paying the public debt to complete it. That is the cost of progress: 20,000-40,000 displaced workers and an even greater public debt for the people of Brazil (Fearnside 2006).

What we are left with is a strange collection of uses of Hardin’s work. He argued against international aid but we’ve used it to further deplete the carrying capacity of foreign countries instead of increasing their population production. He never intended for us to actively deplete another country’s resources, but simply to let nature run its course and regulate itself without our assistance. And the cost of life related to these programs is simply too great to be allowed to continue. Because we’ve essentially forced these countries to become dependent on international aid a restructuring would be difficult. But is ultimately necessary as eventually they’ll have nothing left to sell us (finite resources are just that, finite) and our aid will slow.  Neoliberalism is a short-term fix to a long-term problem, and eventually it won’t hold weight as a beneficial program for the metropole donating its aid. Before that happens we must allow these countries to return to self-sufficiency, to forgive international debt and un-privatize national resources. Without swift reform we cannot hope to raise the quality of life of our third world counterparts, the quality of life our policies directly helped to tarnish.

Bibliography

Fearnside, Philip M. 2006. Dams in the Amazon: Belo Monte and Brazil’s Hyroelectric Development of the Xingu River Basin. Environmental Management 38(1): 16-27.

Hanson, Margaret and Hentz, James J. 1999. Neocolonialism and Neoliberalism in South Africa and Zambia. Political Science Quarterly 114(3): 479-502.

Hardin, Garret. 1974. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor.” Reading the World Ideas that Matter. 2^nd Ed. Michael Austin. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2010. 357-68. Print.

Hodge, Dr. G. Derrick. “Political Economy.” Love, Sex and Globalization. The University of Kansas. Smith Hall, Lawrence. 25 Jan. 2012. Lecture.

Rieger, Joerg. 2004. Theology and Mission Between Neocolonialsm and Postcolonialism. Mission Studies 21(2): 207-08.