Here is the Port-au-Prince of the 1940s. Organized, relatively clean, somewhat prosperous. It looks like a capital city of a forward moving developing country.
<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bRVPoxDgbBo?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bRVPoxDgbBo?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>
But the question now is why? Why was the Haiti of the early to mid-20th century so much more promising than the Haiti of the early 21st century?
Well, let's look at the following quotes:
Apparently, Haiti's bonanza in the 1940s and 50s was due to the inertia created by the American economic advisers that managed the treasury (and consequently, a very important function of any economy) for 26 years (1915-1941).
Of course, the Duvalier regime started in the 1950s.
Needless to say:
Despite that, the 1970s proved to be quite prosperous years for Haiti, in no small part thanks to foreign aid (the US being the main donor), foreign investments, and a boom in commodity prices, especially coffee, sugar, cacao, and essential oils.
But in the end:
And, of course, this can't be ignored:
So the question is as follows:
Does Haiti needs to be managed, at least its economy, by Americans in order for that country to finally get out of its hole?
Sources of quotes: Haiti - GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ECONOMY / Haiti - THE ECONOMY
<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bRVPoxDgbBo?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bRVPoxDgbBo?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>
But the question now is why? Why was the Haiti of the early to mid-20th century so much more promising than the Haiti of the early 21st century?
Well, let's look at the following quotes:
The nineteen-year United States occupation of Haiti (1915-34) brought unquestionable economic benefits. United States administrators controlled fiscal and monetary policy largely to the country's benefit. The United States military built major roads, introduced automatic telephones in Port-au-Prince, constructed bridges, dredged harbors, erected schools, established clinics, and undertook other previously neglected public works. The troops departed in 1934, but economic advisers remained in Haiti to manage the national treasury until 1941. The Haitian economy enjoyed some growth in the 1940s and the early 1950s, partly because of improvements in the country's infrastructure, but mostly because of improved prices for its exports.
Apparently, Haiti's bonanza in the 1940s and 50s was due to the inertia created by the American economic advisers that managed the treasury (and consequently, a very important function of any economy) for 26 years (1915-1941).
Of course, the Duvalier regime started in the 1950s.
Fran?ois Duvalier fashioned the modern Haitian economy into a system dominated by personal patronage, institutionalized corruption, and internal security concerns. Bent on retaining power at all costs, Duvalier heavily taxed the citizenry to finance the military, the paramilitary security forces known as the tonton makouts, and his family's vast expenses. His subordinates, from cabinet ministers to rural section chiefs (chefs de sections), followed Duvalier's example, essentially plundering the peasantry at every level of the economy. The most notorious example of Duvalier's overt corruption was his administration of a tax agency, the R?gie du Tabac (Tobacco Administration), for which no accounting records were kept. Although he proclaimed himself a champion of black nationalism, Duvalier almost completely ignored the impoverished rural black population in his government expenditures. As a result, many Haitians--rich, poor, educated, and uneducated--left the countryside or fled the country altogether. "Brain drain" became a serious problem. In 1969, for example, some observers believed that there were more Haitian health professionals in Montreal than in all of Haiti.
Needless to say:
Overall, Duvalier's policies had no positive effect in Haiti. According to the United Nations (UN), Haiti was the only country in the world that did not experience real economic growth for most of the 1950s and the 1960s, a period when the world economy expanded at its most rapid rate in history.
Despite that, the 1970s proved to be quite prosperous years for Haiti, in no small part thanks to foreign aid (the US being the main donor), foreign investments, and a boom in commodity prices, especially coffee, sugar, cacao, and essential oils.
But in the end:
The most fundamental problems of the Haitian economy, however, were economic mismanagement and corruption. More avaricious than his father, Jean-Claude Duvalier overstepped even the traditionally accepted boundaries of Haitian corruption.
And, of course, this can't be ignored:
Haiti's economy reflected the cleavages (i.e., rural-urban, black-mulatto, poor-rich, Creole-French , traditional-modern) that defined Haitian society. The mulatto elite dominated the capital, showed little interest in the countryside, and had outright disdain for the black peasantry. Disparities between rural and urban dwellers worsened during the twentieth century under the dynastic rule of Fran?ois Duvalier (1957-71) and his son, Jean-Claude Duvalier (1971-86); Haiti's tradition of corruption reached new heights as government funds that could have aided economic and social development enriched the Duvaliers and their associates. By the 1980s, an estimated 1 percent of the population received 45 percent of the national income, and an estimated 200 millionaires in Haiti enjoyed a life of unparalleled extravagance. In stark contrast, as many as three of every four Haitians lived in abject poverty, with incomes well below US$150, according to the World Bank. Similarly, virtually every social indicator pointed to ubiquitous destitution.
So the question is as follows:
Does Haiti needs to be managed, at least its economy, by Americans in order for that country to finally get out of its hole?
Sources of quotes: Haiti - GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ECONOMY / Haiti - THE ECONOMY
Last edited: