Work and travel often are markedly more dangerous in poor countries than in rich ones. Visible pollution often is far worse. Are such differences a result of cultural differences that place a lower value on human life or the environment? Are they a result of corrupt or ineffective government? Or are they rational responses to different economic conditions?
The answer is that all these factors play a role, but rational economic considerations are more important than many think. This has implications not only for health and environmental policies in poor countries but also for global issues like climate change.
Tuesday’s airplane crash at Congonhas airport in Sao Paulo, Brazil, has provoked some finger-pointing because of a short runway. Although the crash is still under investigation and rain appears to have been a factor, the airport has long been deemed dangerous because of runway limitations. The runways were resurfaced recently, but the crucial step of grooving the new pavement was not yet done.
Brazilian newspapers and blogs are filled with charges of government ineptitude and underfunding. Many note that Brazil’s air-traffic control facilities are meager in comparison to those in the United States or Europe.
Traffic control at Argentina’s Ezeiza airport, serving Buenos Aires, has been hampered for months since a motor on a key radar antenna burned out with no replacement available. No accidents have occurred but there are allegations of near collisions because of the inoperable radar.
Air-traffic control infrastructure in Africa generally is much worse than in South America. Nigeria stands out as a country with high air-traffic volumes but terrible infrastructure.
Popular anger at government failure in the wake of such tragedies is on-target to the degree that governments of poor countries often waste money or spend it ineffectively. Adequate funds had been appropriated to groove the pavements at Congonhas, but administrative fumbling had delayed the process for months.
On the other hand, if countries like Brazil or Nigeria want to use public funds to save lives or improve health, investing in air-travel infrastructure has a very low payoff. Clean water systems and other public sanitation or vaccinations and other public-health services for children still have much more bang for the buck.
What’s true about air-safety infrastructure in poor countries is true in spades for highways. Unsafe roads and bridges are the norm. But while residents decry inadequate facilities, most also see more important national priorities.
Many developing countries, including China, India, Brazil and Mexico have severe pollution problems. But if one wants to reduce such pollution, there are far cheaper ways to do it than by mandating the latest generation of devices used in Europe or North America.
One can attribute dangerous infrastructure in a poor country to government ineptitude, but it often follows the priorities of the general populace, even in dictatorships.
People who have plenty of food, clothing, houses and health care with money left over for recreation are more likely to be concerned about unsafe streets or dirty air than those on the edge of daily starvation. Even when incomes are rising, as in China and Brazil, most households have more pressing priorities than safer travel or environmental preservation.
This long was true in our country. We spend much more now on workplace safety than we did 50 years ago. Death and injury rates have dropped substantially.
Yes, this is due in part to government regulation. But it also reflects broader spending priorities. It has long been noted that self-employed people are not willing to spend a lot on their own safety. But today’s self-employed farmers and carpenters earning $40,000 a year are more willing to spend on safer tractors and scaffolds than were their grandparents who earned $1,500.
As average incomes rise, governments generally allocate more resources to transportation safety and environmental protection. But as long as incomes fall below those of the wealthy countries, a fundamental difference in priorities continues.
President Bush and many others argue that wealthy countries like the United States should not spend money to limit greenhouse-gas emissions if poor countries like China and India do not make similar efforts.
If these countries continue to increase emissions at rapid rates as their industrial output and energy use grows, it will be hard to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. But the hard fact is that long-term global pollution problems like climate change inherently are a lower priority for poor nations and poor people than for rich nations with well-off citizens.
© 2007 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.