The book Enough: Why The World’s Poorest Starve in an Age of Plenty by Roger Thurow and Scott Kilman discusses the causes and solutions to hunger in Africa. The book starts out with the story of Norman Borlaug, a plant pathologist, who was working to create a rust-resistant plant. He eventually created seeds that were very successful in Asia, helping to lift people out of starvation. Because of this, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. However, Borlaug’s seeds did not make it to Africa, where many people were starving. One solution to hunger in Africa would be to take away subsidies from American and European farmers. The subsidies given to these countries farmers puts African farmers at a disadvantage because they do not make as much off of the
…show more content…
This program proved to be very beneficial to their economy. “In 2007, Malawi would sell surplus corn to Zimbabwe for $120 million, and, in a stunning turnaround, would even donate corn to the World Food Program to feed the hungry elsewhere in Africa” (Thurow and Kilman 168). The success that Malawi had with its subsidy program proves the need for African farmers to be subsidized in order to compete with other subsidized farmers in the world. I believe that subsidies are one of the most important things in this book because it shows that the reason African farmers are having a hard time is because of the self-interested countries subsidizing their farmers without caring what happens to African …show more content…
This is important because if the United States would change the way they give aid, then the problem of starvation would be able to be solved much easier. If the U.S. and other countries wanted to help Africa they would purchase African goods to help those starving. The U.S. is benefitting as much, if not more than Africa is, by sending their own food over to Africa. If the U.S. purchased African goods then that would help African farmers to be able to earn money off of their crops so that they will be able to feed themselves. The U.S. sending food makes Africa dependent on the U.S. It is not helping Africa to become more independent because it isn’t providing them with the infrastructure they need to be successful on their own. If the U.S. sent money then Africans would be able to eventually support themselves. A third thing I found important in this book was the lack of irrigation because Africa has water but they do not have the tools to get the water to where they need it. This somewhat connects back to the idea of food-aid. If money were given instead of food then farmers could put in irrigation systems to provide water to their crops, which will allow them to be more successful in growing crops. A better use of American aid money would be to invest in the infrastructure, such as irrigation, in order to truly help
This program proved to be very beneficial to their economy. “In 2007, Malawi would sell surplus corn to Zimbabwe for $120 million, and, in a stunning turnaround, would even donate corn to the World Food Program to feed the hungry elsewhere in Africa” (Thurow and Kilman 168). The success that Malawi had with its subsidy program proves the need for African farmers to be subsidized in order to compete with other subsidized farmers in the world. I believe that subsidies are one of the most important things in this book because it shows that the reason African farmers are having a hard time is because of the self-interested countries subsidizing their farmers without caring what happens to African …show more content…
This is important because if the United States would change the way they give aid, then the problem of starvation would be able to be solved much easier. If the U.S. and other countries wanted to help Africa they would purchase African goods to help those starving. The U.S. is benefitting as much, if not more than Africa is, by sending their own food over to Africa. If the U.S. purchased African goods then that would help African farmers to be able to earn money off of their crops so that they will be able to feed themselves. The U.S. sending food makes Africa dependent on the U.S. It is not helping Africa to become more independent because it isn’t providing them with the infrastructure they need to be successful on their own. If the U.S. sent money then Africans would be able to eventually support themselves. A third thing I found important in this book was the lack of irrigation because Africa has water but they do not have the tools to get the water to where they need it. This somewhat connects back to the idea of food-aid. If money were given instead of food then farmers could put in irrigation systems to provide water to their crops, which will allow them to be more successful in growing crops. A better use of American aid money would be to invest in the infrastructure, such as irrigation, in order to truly help