The Poverty of Haiti
- Published 07/22/2007
- Haiti
5 May 2007. The Poverty of Haiti and Dominican Development. Julio Ortega Tous, former DR trade negotiator. Listin Diario.
The poverty of Haiti is the main obstacle to Dominican development. Anyone could be lead to believe that is an exaggerated statement. But it is not. Dominicans accomplish very little incorporating development policies if the conditions that generate profound poverty of the eight million that live in Haiti continue. Dominican development is deformed. Our economic growth is a magnet that attracts non-skilled labor force, with precarious sanitary conditions, that pull back the model development of our country to levels that should have been overcome.
Worst is that the Dominican state does not have a pro-active policies regarding the permanent and increasing migration of Haitians to our territory. A recent study on poverty in Haiti carried out by a Norwegian foundation (FAFO), an NGO backed and financed by unions and private business in Norway, determined the following: “Haiti is normally classified as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. But this statement does not enlighten readers that Haiti has experienced a pronounced stagnation and decline of its GDP per capita since it celebrated its 150th anniversary of independence in 1954.”
Economic statistics contained in a previous study by Professor Angus Maddison published in 2001 shows that the Haitian economy has contracted in the past 50 years. In fact, in 1950 the Haitian economy was more or less at the same level as the Dominican economy.
In other words, Haiti has not advanced a bit at least since 1954. On the contrary, it has gone backwards from that date to the present days. Its money crops, such as coffee and sugar, have collapsed.
Its tourism development potential that was recognized in the 70s as greater than that of neighboring Santo Domingo, evaporated between the dictatorship and 20 years of chronic instability after the exodus o the Duvalier family in 1986. More than 50 years of permanent economic and social decline and constant tries at a “transition to democracy” and they still have not achieved a stable regime despite three foreign military interventions head by the United States and the United Nations. Nevertheless, the population pressure has more than doubled.
From 1954 to 2006, the population of Haiti has gone from one of 4 million inhabitants, mostly concentrated in rural areas, to one of more than 8 million inhabitants in 2006, with a city that concentrates more than 2.5 million people (Port au Prince), that is almost two thirds, with only micro-trade and crime providing a way of life for most of the people.
According to the 2006 annual report of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States, at least from a statistical perspective, Haiti had 8.3 million inhabitants living in 27,750 km2. This is a population density of 300 inhabitants per square kilometer. According to the same report, Haiti in 2006 had a GDP, at parity purchasing prices, of the gourde to the US dollar, concept generally referred to as PPP, of US$13.7 billion, and thus a per capita income, at PPP prices, of US$1,700 dollars.
A prevalence of AIDS of 5.6%, the highest in the American continent, as well as of other chronic sicknesses such as malaria, syphilis, and tuberculosis, among others, at pandemic levels.
The migration rate is one of the highest in the world, with 24 persons per 100 inhabitants, concentrated primarily in the Dominican Republic (1.5 M), United States (1 M), Canada (200 thousand), Bahamas (100 thousand), but there are thousands also in the surrounding islands and French-speaking countries. An estimated 3 to 3.5 million Haitians live abroad, and the migration trend continues.
According to the FAFO study on poverty in Haiti, carried out in 2004, there is a prevalence of extreme poverty among 56% of the population, or 4.5 million are defined as people who live with less than a US$1 a day and 20% in poverty (living on less than US$2 a day), for about 76% of the population living in poverty.
Most of these persons, or more than three-quarters of the population of Haiti live either in poverty or extreme poverty in the slums of Port au Prince, Cap Haitien and in the rural areas o the country. Haiti can only maintain a “stable” government regime with the presence of 8,000 United Nations blue helmet peacekeepers, that are not sufficient to maintain the public order. The only “realistic” option for Haiti is to migrate to the Dominican Republic, whose border is as porous as a sieve.
The United States and Canada, as well as France, should assume a more proactive attitude. For example, to allow for orderly migration to their territory of 100,000 Haitians a year, as well as placing at the disposition of international organizations the necessary resources to build infrastructure, schools and hospitals that the neighboring country needs so much. Nevertheless, they do not undertake not even 10% of the effort that would be necessary.
It appears as those that sustain the theory that it has been decided upon that the Dominican Republic, prosperous and tolerant, assume the greateset burden of absorbing the cost of stabilization and reconstruction of Haiti by way of massive migration of unskilled labor from the neighboring country is being imposed.
Because of that it is necessary to have clear the following. If the Dominican Republic does not undertake a more active attitude, the international community will not take decided action. The most effective way to create an awareness among the international community of this is to close the flow of people over the border, with all the measures that this would imply, and deport from Dominican territory the undocumented migrant workers that we know are poor and come seeking to make a living. We cannot assume their plight as ours.
Mercosur, now with Venezuela as a member of full rights, has the best intentions to help Haiti. We should support that attitude.
But under no circumstances should we assume as our the Haitian problem, because we have accomplished nothing by undertaking development policies, investing in health, in education, in social security while we do not resolve the problem of the factory of poor that we have stuck to our porous border.
The poverty of Haiti is the main obstacle to Dominican development. Anyone could be lead to believe that is an exaggerated statement. But it is not. Dominicans accomplish very little incorporating development policies if the conditions that generate profound poverty of the eight million that live in Haiti continue. Dominican development is deformed. Our economic growth is a magnet that attracts non-skilled labor force, with precarious sanitary conditions, that pull back the model development of our country to levels that should have been overcome.
Worst is that the Dominican state does not have a pro-active policies regarding the permanent and increasing migration of Haitians to our territory. A recent study on poverty in Haiti carried out by a Norwegian foundation (FAFO), an NGO backed and financed by unions and private business in Norway, determined the following: “Haiti is normally classified as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. But this statement does not enlighten readers that Haiti has experienced a pronounced stagnation and decline of its GDP per capita since it celebrated its 150th anniversary of independence in 1954.”
Economic statistics contained in a previous study by Professor Angus Maddison published in 2001 shows that the Haitian economy has contracted in the past 50 years. In fact, in 1950 the Haitian economy was more or less at the same level as the Dominican economy.
In other words, Haiti has not advanced a bit at least since 1954. On the contrary, it has gone backwards from that date to the present days. Its money crops, such as coffee and sugar, have collapsed.
Its tourism development potential that was recognized in the 70s as greater than that of neighboring Santo Domingo, evaporated between the dictatorship and 20 years of chronic instability after the exodus o the Duvalier family in 1986. More than 50 years of permanent economic and social decline and constant tries at a “transition to democracy” and they still have not achieved a stable regime despite three foreign military interventions head by the United States and the United Nations. Nevertheless, the population pressure has more than doubled.
From 1954 to 2006, the population of Haiti has gone from one of 4 million inhabitants, mostly concentrated in rural areas, to one of more than 8 million inhabitants in 2006, with a city that concentrates more than 2.5 million people (Port au Prince), that is almost two thirds, with only micro-trade and crime providing a way of life for most of the people.
According to the 2006 annual report of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States, at least from a statistical perspective, Haiti had 8.3 million inhabitants living in 27,750 km2. This is a population density of 300 inhabitants per square kilometer. According to the same report, Haiti in 2006 had a GDP, at parity purchasing prices, of the gourde to the US dollar, concept generally referred to as PPP, of US$13.7 billion, and thus a per capita income, at PPP prices, of US$1,700 dollars.
A prevalence of AIDS of 5.6%, the highest in the American continent, as well as of other chronic sicknesses such as malaria, syphilis, and tuberculosis, among others, at pandemic levels.
The migration rate is one of the highest in the world, with 24 persons per 100 inhabitants, concentrated primarily in the Dominican Republic (1.5 M), United States (1 M), Canada (200 thousand), Bahamas (100 thousand), but there are thousands also in the surrounding islands and French-speaking countries. An estimated 3 to 3.5 million Haitians live abroad, and the migration trend continues.
According to the FAFO study on poverty in Haiti, carried out in 2004, there is a prevalence of extreme poverty among 56% of the population, or 4.5 million are defined as people who live with less than a US$1 a day and 20% in poverty (living on less than US$2 a day), for about 76% of the population living in poverty.
Most of these persons, or more than three-quarters of the population of Haiti live either in poverty or extreme poverty in the slums of Port au Prince, Cap Haitien and in the rural areas o the country. Haiti can only maintain a “stable” government regime with the presence of 8,000 United Nations blue helmet peacekeepers, that are not sufficient to maintain the public order. The only “realistic” option for Haiti is to migrate to the Dominican Republic, whose border is as porous as a sieve.
The United States and Canada, as well as France, should assume a more proactive attitude. For example, to allow for orderly migration to their territory of 100,000 Haitians a year, as well as placing at the disposition of international organizations the necessary resources to build infrastructure, schools and hospitals that the neighboring country needs so much. Nevertheless, they do not undertake not even 10% of the effort that would be necessary.
It appears as those that sustain the theory that it has been decided upon that the Dominican Republic, prosperous and tolerant, assume the greateset burden of absorbing the cost of stabilization and reconstruction of Haiti by way of massive migration of unskilled labor from the neighboring country is being imposed.
Because of that it is necessary to have clear the following. If the Dominican Republic does not undertake a more active attitude, the international community will not take decided action. The most effective way to create an awareness among the international community of this is to close the flow of people over the border, with all the measures that this would imply, and deport from Dominican territory the undocumented migrant workers that we know are poor and come seeking to make a living. We cannot assume their plight as ours.
Mercosur, now with Venezuela as a member of full rights, has the best intentions to help Haiti. We should support that attitude.
But under no circumstances should we assume as our the Haitian problem, because we have accomplished nothing by undertaking development policies, investing in health, in education, in social security while we do not resolve the problem of the factory of poor that we have stuck to our porous border.