What the data say about Mobutu's and Kabila's regimes
The world bank has some data (http://data.worldbank.org/country/congo-dem-rep) on the years of both Mobutu and Joseph Kabila in power. Analyzing these data may give an understanding of how human and natural resources were used.
One resource that the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has in abundance and for which data are available is the arable land. I plot the agricultural land as a percentage of land area to portray how Congolese have used their natural resources.
Figure 1 shows a positive trend from 1961 to 1994, a negative trend between 1994 and 2001, and a positive trend again from 2002 to 2013. It is easy to associate the negative trend with the beginning of the democratic transition initiated by Mobutu in April 1990, the armed conflicts in the Kivu, and the power shift in Kinshasa in may 1997. Figure 2 shows that the proportion of rural people has steadily declined since 1960. Less people live today in the countryside than it was in 1960. At the end of 2013, 58.3% of the population was still living in the countryside. It follows that a declining rural population has not reduced the use of the agricultural land at least for the years 1961-1994.
Can we establish a statistical relationship between the use of land and the rural population?
I run a simple regression model, where the logarithmic change in the use of land is a function of the logarithmic change in the rural population. The relationship is positive, but not significant. A positive relationship is counter-intuitive as a decline in rural population should reduce the use of land. Unless there is a variable that we cannot observe but compensating for the decline in the rural population. Economists call such a variable, a latent variable. I will call it a compensatory variable. This could be technology or healthier people. Although, we cannot say much about the positive relationship as the coefficient is not statistically significant. This is probably because taking a first log difference dilutes information in the use of land and the rural population. A co-integration model must be something to think about. But this is not what I want to discuss here. I have simply to conclude that changes in the use of land cannot be explained in terms of changes in the rural population.
Still I have to ask myself a simple question. Do a declining rural population associate with a rising (declining) agricultural output? Think about technology. As the country uses a better technology less people are needed in the countryside. Think also about the output as a combination of inputs (land and rural people). If the output increases more than the rural population decreases, it will show that the country is more effectively using its land resources. However, as the output increases, the quality of both air and drinkable water may deteriorate. So social and environmental costs must be taken into consideration when evaluating of the production efficiency.
I will in my next post look at the relationship between the use of land and the crop and the corn production using the same database.
I did not yet say a think on the performance of the two presidents. My next post will expand my analysis a little further.
Bernard, Ben Sita
The world bank has some data (http://data.worldbank.org/country/congo-dem-rep) on the years of both Mobutu and Joseph Kabila in power. Analyzing these data may give an understanding of how human and natural resources were used.
One resource that the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has in abundance and for which data are available is the arable land. I plot the agricultural land as a percentage of land area to portray how Congolese have used their natural resources.
Figure 1 shows a positive trend from 1961 to 1994, a negative trend between 1994 and 2001, and a positive trend again from 2002 to 2013. It is easy to associate the negative trend with the beginning of the democratic transition initiated by Mobutu in April 1990, the armed conflicts in the Kivu, and the power shift in Kinshasa in may 1997. Figure 2 shows that the proportion of rural people has steadily declined since 1960. Less people live today in the countryside than it was in 1960. At the end of 2013, 58.3% of the population was still living in the countryside. It follows that a declining rural population has not reduced the use of the agricultural land at least for the years 1961-1994.
Can we establish a statistical relationship between the use of land and the rural population?
I run a simple regression model, where the logarithmic change in the use of land is a function of the logarithmic change in the rural population. The relationship is positive, but not significant. A positive relationship is counter-intuitive as a decline in rural population should reduce the use of land. Unless there is a variable that we cannot observe but compensating for the decline in the rural population. Economists call such a variable, a latent variable. I will call it a compensatory variable. This could be technology or healthier people. Although, we cannot say much about the positive relationship as the coefficient is not statistically significant. This is probably because taking a first log difference dilutes information in the use of land and the rural population. A co-integration model must be something to think about. But this is not what I want to discuss here. I have simply to conclude that changes in the use of land cannot be explained in terms of changes in the rural population.
Still I have to ask myself a simple question. Do a declining rural population associate with a rising (declining) agricultural output? Think about technology. As the country uses a better technology less people are needed in the countryside. Think also about the output as a combination of inputs (land and rural people). If the output increases more than the rural population decreases, it will show that the country is more effectively using its land resources. However, as the output increases, the quality of both air and drinkable water may deteriorate. So social and environmental costs must be taken into consideration when evaluating of the production efficiency.
I will in my next post look at the relationship between the use of land and the crop and the corn production using the same database.
I did not yet say a think on the performance of the two presidents. My next post will expand my analysis a little further.
Bernard, Ben Sita
No comments:
Post a Comment