I'll spell out some of more of my views. Quite simply China and India have succeeded by basically getting Government out of the way of enterprise, large or small. Let people's "animal spirits" roam and they turn out to generally be pretty enterprising. The cliche runs "trade not aid", but again that's a variation of the theme - Government distortions of markets hold economic progress back. It certainly is not about different nationalities having better propensities to work...witness the many differing cultures within Asia that have achieved economic success.

Certainly there are problems with the China model. I'm not a fan of the trickle down effect, but a rising general standard of living can hide massive inequalities. That is the problem the CCP now faces, but it's a hell of a better problem than how to feed 1.3 billion people.

I'm also unsure about the rule of law aspect, given China's patchy respect of it. It's tied up with respect of property rights, and again here China's record is mixed.

The basic lessons would be:
1. Get the Government out of the way. That includes not running massive deficits, reforming tax systems, cutting subsidies to special interests, having a flexible foreign exchange system.
2. Have known and enforced rules and laws and truly clampdown on corruption.
3. Encourage trade and the free movement of goods and services, both internally and exports.

Note there's no mention of aid. As should be clear from my main post, I see little benefit in most aid with the obvious exception of humanitarian relief efforts.

My late father, who worked in public health in (south) Asia and (west) Africa in the period 1950-70, believed that the greatest difference between the two regions was that Asian societies were much better organized at the local level.

It's also clear that the most successful Asian economies have been in places where literacy was widespread before development (which has now, at a different level, become the Irish model as well).

These are fundamental matters of social development, and have very little to do with issues such as international debt and trade. I am not aware of any shortcuts ("soviet power plus electrification"?) that have worked on anything like a continental scale.

Simon,

Today is the Trial of Nancy Kissel. The SCMP has started and will cover it. Also they have given the exact facts of what happened. For example it was Nancy Kissel who had an affair and not Robert Kissel. Get the facts straight and research and little more on it. But nice try...

Simon,

Today is the Trial of Nancy Kissel. The SCMP has started and will cover it. Also they have given the exact facts of what happened. For example it was Nancy Kissel who had an affair and not Robert Kissel. Get the facts straight and research a little more on it. But nice try...

Well Charles, I guess anything worth saying is worth saying twice, eh?

Charles, pointng out erros can be helpful, but it helps if the error you are pointing out actually exists.... I'll quote Simon's piece here:

"he intended to tell her he was filing for divorce in the belief she had an affair"

May I suggest you do a little more fact checking of your own next time?

Africans lack of intelligence is the reason why it's a hellhole. IQ studies support this claim.

The answer is so simple yet you cannot accept it. Why?

I am against giving aid to Africa. The rest of the world should leave them alone and let natural selection do it's work. The Africans who cannot help themselves don't deserve my tax money.

There were long discussions about this in our house. Both of us feel that regarding the majority of African charities, not enough of the donation money actually makes a difference to the situation there. I would happily donate £5 a week/month if I knew my £5 was actually going to aid Africa, as opposed to paying the rent on a prestigious London office that the charity feels it must have. Show me a charity that is run out of a shed in Bracknell and in which £4.99 of my £5 is going to build water treatment plants and schools in Africa, and I will be signing up.

But I support Bob Geldoff's idea-it's not about throwing money into the rent of a swish London pad. It's about the world figuring out that there is a problem and we can't all sit around and expect someone else to fix it. I texted in for tickets. I won't get any. But at least I can hope I won't be paying money towards a charity that has forgotten who it needs to be charitable to.

Simon,

Andre got it right when he pointed out the difference between China and Africa on the social level. Many of the African people sitll live in the rural areas, where aid or development is hard to reach. Social mobility is also very different in Africa. The other important difference is one of geography.

Of course, African countries can follow various Asian countries as a model for battling poverty. However, there are countries in extreme poverty that they can hardly implement the reforms that China has implemented in the past.

The people in the poorest nations in Africa are stuck in a poverty trap and these are the people we should give a helping hand.

All I'm saying is that we should not expect the same methods to work in Africa just because it worked in Asia. Even Asia has its own different models from the West in its struggle to fight poverty.

On your comment that financial aid should not be given anymore, I would like to ask if you would agree that if the West cut aid, they should just drop their debts as well - so as to give them a fresh start?

Would you also agree that without aid, developed nations should also cut all susbsidies to their agricultural products and allow true fair trade with African countries?