18th century wetbacks

Update: see end of post

Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion. (Benjamin Franklin (1751)).

In the first half of the 18th century, there was a lot of immigration from the Palatinate region of German (southwestern region around Mannheim and Heidelberg) to the US, mainly through Philadelphia. The Palatinate had been devastated by repeated wars since the Thirty Years War a century earlier, so migrants sought better economic opportunities across the water. They shipped up the Rhine to Rotterdam, then sailed for Philadelphia, often paying for their passage with indentured servitude. Ben Franklin was apparently not a big fan of these immigrants, whom he also labeled "stupid" and "swarthy" (as compared to the genuine "whites," the English, hence the reference above to "our Complexion").

And now for yet another one of those embarrassingly self-indulgent personal connections. One swarthy stupid German migrant who arrived in Philly in 1742 was named Conrad Oesterlen; his last name was later Anglicized to Easterly.

UPDATE : Arizona announces ban on all immigrants who arrived after 1840.

(API) Arizona governor Bobby Lee Jones-Scott announced today that the Arizona law had been fixed to eliminate all inconsistencies by banning any immigrants who arrived after 1840. Jones-Scott explained that after 1840, immigrants started deviating from America's Protestant heritage: "in the 1840s, we started getting them people who was Papists, Jews, Syrian Orthodox, Shinto, Muslim, and all those other religions that I can hardly keep head or tail of, and they had all these weird rules about shellfish, pork, and eating only fish on Fridays." Unconfirmed and frankly fictional sources confirmed that all candidates for public office in Arizona had endorsed the new fully consistent legal framework for Arizona, although a few candidates were rumored to have had to make last-minute conversions to Anglicanism.

Manhattan's Non-Market Economy

Tyler Cowen has a great NYT column today about the harmful distortions caused by "free" parking. Manhattan offers plenty more ammunition to his case. Both sides of most crosstown numbered streets (17th, 18th, etc.) are devoted to "free" parking, which adds to traffic gridlock by creating one-lane streets, frequently blocked by delivery vans or by stopped taxis. Those using those "free" slots have to expend a lot of effort to keep moving their cars to comply with various random restrictions, like opposite side restrictions for street cleaning on different weekdays, or weekend vs. weekday, or work hours vs. night.

In short, just about everybody loses except for the readers of Calvin Trillin.

It also adds to my puzzlement about New York -- how can it be the premier world city it is with so many market distortions and/or breakdowns on providing public goods?

Things that are now officially bad: Slum tourism; donors dissing democracy; bad workplaces

UPDATE Aug 11, 12:45pm : some comments defending slum tourism; I give a new perspective on one of the most heated debates that has kept recurring on Aid Watch (see below). The following bad things are now officially bad because:

(1) NYT oped page gives space to eloquent former slum resident to tell us that slum tourists are indeed really, really offensive (will they get it this time?)

(2) FT Africa editor realizes aid donors not as enthusiastic about democracy as they said they were, really.

(3) somebody finally showed what to do when your workplace is really, really bad: just grab 2 beers, curse at everyone in sight, and slide down the emergency chute. Aid workers: imitate?

UPDATE Aug 11, 12:45pm :

Some commentators defend slum tourism. This same debate keeps recurring on Aid Watch and has been one of our most heated issues ever. If you feel like it, check out the links below for previous rounds of debate. I am going to uncharacteristically step back and try to understand both sides.

Critics of poverty tourism are very sensitive to the dignity of the poor, feel that the rich would NOT be treated in the same way, and don't feel the modest material payoffs  justify a violation of dignity. Supporters stress the economic benefits and believe the poor should not or do not perceive a significant loss of dignity.

I think what the debate has advanced is an agreement that the dignity of the poor is a very important and legitimate consideration in aid.  After that, there is just an almost empirical disagreement about how, when, what or why this dignity is or is not compromised by any given tourism project.  But I'm glad that individual dignity has gotten a much higher profile as a major ideal, principle, and objective.

Should starving people be tourist attractions? Response from tourism operator to “Should starving people be tourist attractions” Response to MV tourism operator on “Should starving people be tourist attractions?”

And Now For Something Completely Different: Davos Features “Refugee Run”

The Sacrifices of the Slain Aid Workers (NYT, and Hilary Clinton video)

Their devotion was perhaps most evident in what they gave up to carry out their mission: Dr. Thomas L. Grams, 51, left a thriving dental practice; Dr. Karen Woo, 36, walked away from a surgeon’s salary; Cheryl Beckett, 32, had no time for courtship or marriage.

Most of all, the 10 medical workers massacred in northern Afghanistan last week — six Americans, one German, one Briton and two Afghans — sacrificed their own safety, in a calculated gamble that weighed the risk against the distribution of eyeglasses and toothbrushes, pain relief and prenatal care to remote villages they reached on foot.

The group that was attacked was returning from a three-week mission in Nuristan that included two veteran aid workers, Mr. Little, 61, an optometrist and the group’s leader, and Dan Terry, 64, both of whom arrived in Afghanistan in the 1970s. Mr. Little and his wife, Libby, raised three daughters there.

Dr. Grams ...in Afghanistan had learned to negotiate the etiquette of the burka so he could work on the diseased teeth of women who may never have seen a dentist. In 2007 he gave up a thriving practice in Durango, Colo., to treat patients for whom an encounter with a dentist meant a life-changing release from pain.

Two years ago, after visiting a friend in Kabul, {Dr. Woo} quit her $150,000-a-year job to move there. ... She was just weeks from her wedding. But it was her medical work that anchored her life. Her fiancé’s mother told The Sunday Times of London that Dr. Woo resolved to do more to promote women’s rights in Afghanistan after she treated a 14-year-old girl who had been burned after refusing to marry an older man.

One of two Afghans killed, Ahmed Jawed, 24, a cook, had been excitedly considering what to do with the $20 a day in overtime he would earn on the trip. Mr. Jawed was the main breadwinner for his wife, three children and extended family, and was known in his neighborhood for the collection of 500 audiotapes he would break out for weddings or parties. The second Afghan victim, Mahram Ali, 51, supported two disabled sons on his salary of $150 a month.

Mr. Jawed’s brother Abdul Bagin said of the killers: “They were infidels; not human, not Muslims. They killed my brother without any judgment, without any trial, without talking to him.”

Find the  full New York Times article here.

Hilary Clinton condemns the murders:

Aid workers murdered in Afghanistan

UPDATE: response to criticisms about mentioning humanitarian neutrality issue (see end of post)

The New York Times reports today

Returning home from a three-week trek on foot to deliver free medical care to the remotest regions of the country, the aid workers — six Americans, a Briton, a German and four Afghans — had just finished eating when they were accosted by gunmen with long dyed-red beards, the police said.

The gunmen marched them into the forest, stood them in a line and shot 10 of them one by one.

...The Taliban claimed responsibility for the killings, accusing the group of being spies and Christian missionaries.

This blog and others have expressed concern about the erosion of humanitarian neutrality in Afghanistan, with one possible contributor the attempt to coordinate aid and the military.

There is no evidence that these particular killings were due to such factors; obviously the immediate responsibility is with the evil and hate-filled men who were the murderers.  Our most sincere condolences to the families and friends of the victims.

UPDATE: Aug 9 4:15pm. On Twitter and on one comment on this blog, there has been criticism of my introducing the humanitarian neutrality issue in discussing this tragedy. If there was anyone personally offended by this, I apologize; I meant no disrespect to the victims of this horrible tragedy. Just as with other tragedies in aid, one wants both to offer condolences to the victims and to discuss ways to lessen the likelihood of future tragedies of the same kind. The second is obviously of no consolation to the victims.

I have many friends who are aid workers;  my family and I sometimes informally act as aid workers ourselves. Discussing prevention of such tragedies is not a partisan debating point, it is very close to home. I believe the erosion of humanitarian neutrality is to be regretted and reversed, both on the grounds of principle and for the sake of protecting aid workers (including those who never moved away from neutrality).

When I said there was no evidence linking these murders to the erosion of humanitarian neutrality, I was making a generic statement that always applies -- we can never tell exactly what caused one particular horrific outcome.

However, there are still plenty of grounds to worry about new risks to aid workers if they are perceived as not neutral -- common sense, case study judgments, and the general trend that attacks on aid workers have increased at the same time as the erosion of humanitarian neutrality.  I admit this is far from a rigorous demonstration, but on whom should be the burden of proof? On those who have moved away from the long-standing principle of humanitarian neutrality, or on those who want to preserve and defend it?

NYT's David Brooks discovers Planners vs. Searchers -- for running your own life

Brooks discusses the Well-Plannned Life vs. the Summoned Life. Could this be a good excuse for those of us who never plan more than 5 minutes ahead?

Is it possible I like Searchers because of my personality type?

Why African women and girls are still manual porters

The Washington Post this morning carries a story on a DC couple who went on safari in Tanzania and then decided to start an NGO to donate bicycles to give relief to the vast number of female manual porters they encountered.  Whether their project fits into the well-populated category of poorly informed good intentions I leave to the readers to judge (although the NGO name is the cringe-inducing Pets Providing Pedals, since one of the couple is a professional dog groomer). Every visitor to Africa is struck by the huge amount of human porterage going on, usually by women and girls. The stereotypical image of an African girl walking long distances with a large load balanced on her head is not just a stereotype.  But the Pets Providing Pedals project raises a different question -- why aren't bicycles already used a lot more already? Or carts drawn by draft animals? Or cars or trucks?

A standard economist's answer could suffice, although it hardly lessons the tragedy of the women condemned for life to porterage. You substitute capital (trucks, bicycles, carts) for labor (head porterage) when labor is scarce. You substitute labor for capital when capital is scarce and unskilled labor is abundant.  Guess which one applies to most African countries.

A sustainable alternative to women being used as draft animals probably requires something that vastly increases the demand for unskilled labor and makes it more expensive ("sweatshops" look positively attractive by comparison). Of course, there are also these little tiny issues about women's rights and gender equality -- but that too could respond to economic forces that gives women many more viable alternatives.

What aid critics could learn from movie critics

The Wall Street Journal yesterday had an article on "2010: worst movie year ever?". Movie critics have a way with words that leaves us aid critics in the dust.

Hollywood is fighting a war on numerous fronts, and losing all of them.

And movie critics are even worse at something aid critics are often accused of: much more focus on the negative than on constructive positive suggestions -- "just stop."

Stop making movies like "Grown Ups," "Sex and the City 2," "Prince of Persia" and anything that positions Jennifer Aniston or John C. Reilly at the top of the marquee. Stop trying to pass off Shia LaBeouf—who looks a bit like the young George W. Bush—as the second coming of Tom Cruise. Stop casting Gerard Butler in roles where he is called upon to emote. And if "Legion" and "Edge of Darkness" and "The Back-up Plan" and "Hot Tub Time Machine" are the best you can do, stop making movies, period. Humanity will thank you for it.

Scorchingly negative movie critics are like aid critics in their social function -- clear away all the bad stuff to make room for the good stuff. Without movie critics, we'll have an octogenerarian Sex and the City 8. With critics, we have some hope of some day having another Godfather or Annie Hall.

The coming end to China's rapid growth

China's remarkable growth rate is unlikely to last. No country in history has managed to grow nearly so fast for so long. "China is defying the law of gravity at the moment," says New York University economist William Easterly, who has tracked economic development for decades. "But that doesn't mean that gravity is wrong."

…

From 1900 to 2000, NYU's Mr. Easterly says, per-capita growth of all countries ranged between 1% to 3% a year. Nearly all the nations on the high end so far, he says, are democratic capitalist countries — and the additional growth over long periods of time made them rich.

"When we make too much of growth spurts," he says, "it like making too much of a basketball player who has a hot hand."

From last week’s Wall Street Journal.

And here is some more substance (possibly spurious) to rationalize why China's growth will slow down, for those of you unhappy with impersonal statistical tendencies.

A spoonful of transparency: good but no cure-all

The New York Times ran a story last week about a five-year-old Indian law that reinforces the right—and sets in place the process—for individuals to request government-held information. Ms. Chanchala Devi, for example, applied for a government grant she had heard was available to help poor people like her build their own houses. After four years of fruitless waiting, she used India’s Right-to-Know law to request a list of people who had received the money while she had not. Within days, the story reported, Ms. Devi’s own funding came through. The story continues:

…it has now become clear that India’s 1.2 billion citizens have been newly empowered by the far-reaching law granting them the right to demand almost any information from the government. The law is backed by stiff fines for bureaucrats who withhold information, a penalty that appears to be ensuring speedy compliance.

Great news. But while the law has empowered individuals (over 2 million of them in the first 3 years of the law’s existence) to seek redress for their grievances, the article also cites critics who complain that the law has not had hoped-for system-wide effects on corruption, and that it acts as a “pressure valve” without posing a serious challenge to the system.

Joseph Stiglitz, among others, has convincingly argued that information gathered and produced by government officials rightly belongs to the public; that people need such information to participate meaningfully in democracy; and beyond these arguments, that openness has an intrinsic value. A 2008 JPAL study gives Stiglitz an empirical assist: giving urban poor people access to published “report cards” about local politicians’ performance and spending influenced those voters to elect incumbents based on issues (rather than caste or religion, for example).

Possibly the most-repeated success story told about information disclosure comes from Uganda, where World Bank researchers found in 1995 that only 13 percent of national government transfers to local schools actually reached the schools. After the Ugandan government began publishing in the newspaper how much money was supposed to go to each school, the proportion of funds “leaking” out of the system decreased dramatically. Four years later, 90 percent of that money was reaching the schools, and the newspaper information campaign was given credit for the change.

Like most simple stories in development, this one is actually not so simple. A paper by Paul Hubbard at the Center for Global Development objects that the plummeting proportion of funds going astray has to be put in the context of comprehensive fiscal and education reforms going on in Uganda at the time. Another study found that information disclosure efforts like the famous newspaper campaign were only effective in communities “that were literate and assertive enough to act when abuse was revealed.” Hubbard observes: “transparency by itself is insufficient if there is no opportunity for collective action.”

Which brings us back to India, where the Right-to-Know law is helping Chanchala Devi—and hundreds of thousands like her—to get what she is entitled to from her government. Why should we want it to be a cure-all for India’s corruption ills? What drives us to search for panaceas and silver bullets? Any expectation that this law alone will tackle an entrenched and corrupt bureaucracy is probably way too much for it to bear.

Rules vs. Norms in Development, or more importantly, Did Uruguay cheat Ghana?

Today there is a great discussion of rules vs. norms because it applies to something people REALLY care about: World Cup football. Uruguayan player Luis Suarez illegally blocked a sure Ghana goal with his hands, a goal in the last seconds that would have won Ghana the game. He was ejected according to the rules and Ghana awarded a penalty kick, which they missed, and then Uruguay subsequently won. Did Suarez cheat? An article on GhanaWeb says yes.  Others say no. A major neutral, the Wall Street Journal (which now has a surprisingly good sports section) backs Ghanaweb: Uruguay cheated "big-time." One side would say Suarez realized his team would surely lose if he let the ball go past his hands and lawfully and rationally chose to take the penalty to give his team a chance; the other side says intentionally breaking the rule to prevent a loss was unforgivably unsportsmanlike.

One possible fix is to perfect the rules. If it pays to break the rules, they must be bad rules. The rule could be changed to give an automatic goal in this situation.  However, it's not that easy --  it's impossible to have perfect rules. (The "automatic goal" rule would have worked here, but general application would  inevitably lead to new disputes about whether the ball would really have gone in.)

The other solution to imperfect rules is to supplement them with norms. With strong norms in business, a businessman who exploits a loophole to cheat another businessman will often find himself ostracized and will lose a lot of future business, so he doesn't cheat. Norms can handle complex situations more flexibly than explicit rules, so they are an essential complement to rules.

Unfortunately for Ghana and for a lot of cheating victims in business, norms have to reflect a wide and deep consensus of what is right and a willingness to punish the cheater. If everyone agreed now that Suarez  had cheated and will ever after see him as the equivalent of a thieving child-beater, then maybe he would not have used his hands in the first place. Unfortunately, as often happens in developing countries, neither the rules nor the norms were strong enough to prevent cheating and we are the worse for it.

How the crisis is making us more aware of the best economists: Alberto Alesina, for example

One small positive side-effect of the current crisis is more public recognition of economists' research. The media frequently gets wrong who are the best economists to quote on any given issue (no names please), but sometimes they get it right. So I want to add my own wee bit to Greg Mankiw's much more high-powered blog-push to recognize Alberto Alesina. Greg cites a new Business Week article on Alesina's research on fiscal stimulus vs. budget cuts.  The Business Week headline was "Alesina Who?" which definitely confirms the theory about the media being clueless on economists.

Of more direct interest to readers of this blog is Alesina's work on political economy and foreign aid (Alesina played a huge role in founding the modern field of political economy). On aid, see in particular his articles on whether corrupt countries receive less foreign aid, and who gives aid to whom and why. If you are still not satisfied, check out his web site at the Harvard Economics Department. (Full disclosure: I have known Alberto for many years, have learned a lot from him, and co-authored several papers with him.)

Globalization is even better than you thought: detective novels!

Today's Wall Street Journal carries an article on the international spread of best-selling detective novels, including authors from developing countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Turkey, Korea, Argentina, Cuba, and Italy. This shows that globalization and development foster yada, yada, yada, yada, yada. A certain Aid Watch contributor can now feel less ashamed about revealing that he unwinds from the stress of aid criticism by reading detective novels.  I'm part of a secret circle that exchanges tips on the great detectives from all over the world with others whom you would not suspect of being crime novel fanatics. Long before Stieg Larsson, we were all reading the Great One, Henning Mankell, the master of Tartan Noir, Ian Rankin, and the Great Russian Boris Akunin (all of whom go curiously unmentioned in the WSJ article).

Why don't we broaden the circle to include the readers of this blog -- what mystery thrillers did you hide in your luggage on your last long-distance trip? What are your all time favorites? Extra points for authors from developing countries.

Congolese stubbornly insist on celebrating 50th anniversary of their independence...

...despite the extreme negative images by which DR Congo is known exclusively in the Western media.  See also the great video at Texas in Africa.

Do only democracies have anti-immigrant movements?

This great picture on changing share of foreign-born residents in the NYT today (showing countries with largest increase): You can see why anti-immigration sentiment is a big deal in the European countries shown and in the US. (This is a descriptive statement, I myself hate xenophobia.)

But what about the countries at the top of the graph? Let's exclude the special and controversial case of Israel from all the following statements.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have not heard of prominent anti-immigration movements  in any of these countries.

Is that because these are non-democracies in which immigrants can be treated as second-class citizens with little or no rights?

Again, this is just descriptive speculation -- I would certainly NOT recommend that approach to the democracies.  But it does show the complicated political economy you get when you mix xenophobia, democracy, equality before the law, and immigration.

Here's what reporters would really like to say about G20 summit

...at which ministers from around the world gather to wring their hands impotently about the most fashionable issue of the day. The organisation has sought to justify its almost completely fruitless existence by joining its many fellow talking-shops in highlighting whatever crisis has recently gained most coverage in the global media. By making a big deal out of the fact that the world’smost salient topical issue will be placed on its agenda ...it hopes to convey the entirely erroneous impression that it has any influence whatsoever on the situation.

From the brilliant Alan Beattie some time ago here in the  FT.

Failure to award

Can you imagine an aid-disbursing agency that refused to disburse? How often do you hear of a donor that decides not to give grants at all for lack of good candidates to receive them?

While donors do occasionally cut funding to a particular government or program, such a radical move usually requires either repeated and unrepentant corruption, or overwhelming international reprobation.

So the announcement from the Mo Ibrahim Foundation last week that it would award the 2010 Excellence in African Leadership prize to no one at all created a little bit of a stir. The prize, worth $5 million over the first three years plus $200,000 a year after that to the right former African head of state, is going unclaimed for the second year in a row.  (It went to Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique the year it was announced in 2007, and to Festus Mogae of Botswana in 2008.)

But consider the Ibrahim prize eligibility requirements. Candidates have to be 1) democratically elected heads of state who 2) served within their country’s constitutional term limits (Sorry, Museveni and watch out, Kagame) and 3) have left office within the last three years. There were only three candidates seriously considered for the 2009 prize (Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, John Kufuor of Ghana and Nigeria's Olusegun Obasanjo) and none were judged worthy of the prize. Since no leader left office in the months since, no new candidates have emerged. With this in mind it seems perfectly reasonable—in fact necessary—that no winner would be chosen for this year.

In an editorial in the Financial Times, Mo Ibrahim explained:

Whether there is a winner of the prize or not, the purpose of the foundation is to challenge those in Africa and elsewhere to debate what constitutes excellence in leadership. The standards set for the prize winner are high, and the number of eligible candidates each year is small. It is always likely there will be years when no prize is awarded.

Consider also that if we were expecting Ibrahim to make an award every year, perhaps we’re simply not used to an international organization setting high standards and sticking with them even in the face of apparent failure. Maybe aid agencies could even take a cue from Mr. Ibrahim and start setting higher standards for non-humanitarian aid that goes to governments rather than just doling it out again year after year regardless of whether improvements are made or conditions are met. How unfamiliar, how refreshing, for someone to actually enforce the conditions of the award, not robotically disburse aid because it has already been earmarked and budgeted for.

Still, it is discouraging that no good candidates can be found. And this year’s African presidential elections will not produce a wealth of better retirees for the 2011 or near-future prize. Ethiopia’s Meles who “won” recent elections has disqualified himself many times over. Leaders in Burkina Faso and Niger have altered their constitutions to extend their term limits, and leaders in Madagascar and Niger weren't democratically elected in the first place. Rwanda’s Kagame will likely win another seven-year term, while President Nkurunziza is currently the only candidate participating in Burundi’s elections.

We may be in for a much longer wait than just two years if Ibrahim and his foundation stand their ground.

Department of Lame International Action: Blood Diamond Division

From the Wall Street Journal today on the comeback of Blood Diamonds:

The Kimberley Process says well over 99% of the world's rough-diamond trade is now "conflict-free."

But critics say there's a big loophole in that definition: It doesn't take into account human-rights abuses in diamond territory controlled by governments themselves.

...

In Angola ... the Kimberley Process appears to have little appetite for human-rights issues. Last August, when a Kimberley Process peer-review team arrived to check the country's compliance procedures, Angolan forces were just mopping up a major operation to expel some 30,000 illegal Congolese miners from Angolan territory near here. According to a U.S. State Department report citing local media and nongovernmental organizations, military and police "arbitrarily beat and raped detainees" and forced them to march to the border without food or water.

...

A confidential Kimberley Process report on the review visit makes no mention of alleged human-rights abuses... The group spent just two days in Lunda Norte, an area near the Congo border that has become a flashpoint for clashes between diggers and security forces. According to a draft of the internal report, the delegation intended to visit the site of a large illegal mining operation but was thwarted by "a last-minute decision to participate in a graduation ceremony for new border patrol security officers."

Africa: land of wildebeest and child soldiers

UPDATE: response to criticisms at end of this post.

(Apologies to the great blog Wronging Rights for stealing one of their headline templates.)

Big attention grabber in the NYT with this picture splashed all over the front page.

The usual mixed emotions: (1) compassion and sorrow for these and other children caught up in horrific wars, (2) alarm at exploitation of the child soldier stereotype for Africa.

Very crude data that I checked a while ago suggested that about 0.2 percent of African teenage boys were child soldiers.

UPDATE: Response to critical comments below: thanks for pointing out where I was too terse or unclear on this post. I did not mean to say the NYT should NOT do a story about US taxpayers financing child soldiers in Somalia, of course that is big news and should lead to a backlash correcting the problem.

I was worried more about the emotional buttons that are pushed by the large picture dominating the front page. These pictures obviously provoke a visceral response: how horrific to see a child with a gun. For this reason, they are used awfully often by the media (see new pictures inserted into this update). A Google images search for "child soldiers Africa" returned 2 million hits. The frequency of repetition of these photos perpetuate the stereotype of Africa as a barbaric place awash in child soldiers. Newspapers would be more likely to be sensitive in other areas, especially domestic ones, like say not frequently showing scary pictures of young black males toting guns in US cities.

The statistic I gave was not meant to imply "hey it doesn't matter because the number is small," just like it would be of no comfort to someone paralyzed by a gunshot to be told that the incidence of gunshot-paralysis is low. The statistic was meant to correct the perception that child soldiers are more widespread than they really are in Africa, I think most people would have guessed a higher number.

Sorry, Africans, you are no longer allowed to have your own countries

An imaginative proposal in a column by Pierre Englebert in today's NYT:

the international community must move swiftly to derecognize the worst-performing African states.

The problem of Africa that Professor Englebert is nicely fixing was that 50 years ago:

these countries were recognized by the international community before they even really existed.

So because the Western powers (affectionately called here "the international community") supported with abundant aid dollars the tyrants who oppressed their own citizens, those same citizens are going to be further punished by those same Western powers who will turn them into stateless persons without a country.

Characteristically for most grand schemes to "fix Africa" from outside, the column does not consider how this proposal might affect individual Africans; it only offers highly speculative hopes for how erasing countries from the map might make the rulers behave better after they no longer have a state to rule.

I have a couple of random thoughts on this for Professor Englebert:

(1) shouldn't you have considered an intermediate step of stripping the tyrants of just the aid dollars, while allowing the citizens to keep their own countries?

(2) do you really think the World Cup was the best time to propose such a scheme? I myself had not noticed the phenomenon of Africans not caring about the football teams of their non-existent nations.