
Why is Haiti so poor?
Inspired by Tyler Cowen’s 2010 post, Why is Haiti so Poor?, and my own recent trip to Haiti, here’s another attempt at the question –
1. Strong leader theory: once a country’s on a bad path, it needs a benevolent dictator to “shock” it onto a better one. Haiti has had strong, bad leaders but no one like a Lee Kuan Yew, Paul Kagame, or even Rafael Trujillo.
2. Double whammy of colonialism theory: Haiti got it particularly bad; French reign in Saint Domingue coupled the worst of French rule (brutality) with the worst of British rule (divide and conquer.) The combination left Haiti worse off than “more standard” French or British colonialism would have.
3. State accountability theory: the Haitian state’s been accountable to everyone except its citizens — a political elite, the military, the Americans, its president for life, the international community — which isn’t conducive to growth.
4. Comparative capital stock theory: the country’s suffered from persistently-low levels of FDI for moral reasons (can’t recognize Haiti as a state, can’t trade with it without France’s permission, can’t let their (black) ambassadors in our capitol, its belief system is weird/bad) and practical ones (politics too unstable, state doesn’t have a monopoly on violence, underdeveloped roads/infrastructure.) Other investment options in the West Indies often look better.
5. Role model theory: for the past 1–2 generations, “success” in Haiti has meant emigration, while “getting by” has meant moving to the capital – but Port au Prince hasn’t been able to feed, house, or employ its existing residents for at least a generation.
6. American exceptionalism theory: there was never a strong articulation of the Haitian state as a fundamentally moral, inclusive, or emancipatory force, so Haitians never believed it worth investing in. Religion and rebel groups were instead more likely to hold that high ground; religion remains a salve today, while the rebels never articulated what they were for.
7. Incomplete globalization theory: Haiti removed tariffs (famously for rice) but did not develop something/anything the world wanted in exchange. This resulted in nominally cheaper goods but little money with which to purchase them.
Overall, my 2 is similar to Tyler’s 2 (comparing colonial regimes is comparing gradations of “really bad”), my 3 is a variant on Tyler’s 3 (a resource curse often obviates accountability), and my 4 is a generalization of Tyler’s 8 (all foreign investors, not just the Chinese, have other/better options.)
Of those that remain, my 5 is likely effect more than cause, and 6 strikes me as distinctly American, so it might explain little. 1 challenges most of today’s (articulated) conventional wisdom; 7 might explain some of the last 20 years, but what about before?
What else?
