General

Countries may ban the exportation of certain commodities from time to time. It is not an altogether uncommon thing to do, and it may occur for several different reasons.  The length of time a commodity may remain banned is entirely relative to the reason or reasons it was banned for, or to the special conditions that may have provoked causing it to be banned in the first place.  What precisely does it mean to ban the exportation of a commodity, why may it happen, how may it be done, should it even happen and what steps can producers and governments take to mitigate its possibly negative socio-economic repercussions?  Reading onwards, you will discover what arguments exist for and against this practice and what that may mean for you (whether or not you are directly involved). Where national or domestic commodities are concerned, we are mostly all of us involved or affected in one way or the other.  Why do we ban food exports (or imports) Banning the exportation of certain foods or agricultural commodities may happen for a myriad of reasons. The practice dates back thousands of years even, as we may observe in the famous Bible story in which Joseph, Prime Minister of Egypt, levied restrictions on grains for the purposes of saving the nation of Egypt from the oncoming famine that was to plague the then-modern world.  We often share several similarities when this practice extends to us even in these current times. You have heard that Ghana recently placed a ban on the exportation of grains. These grains included the staples such as soybeans, maize, rice, and others.  This is understandable, as the ban has been in place since September 2021 in order to help fortify Ghana’s domestic production of poultry and livestock. This new extension (of the ban) is now a consequence of the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine are the largest exporters of wheat (and also heavily export other grains). The following are some facts about Russia and Ukraine’s contributions to the global grain market (according to this Forbes article):  “Grain exports from Ukraine are down 64% so far in May compared to the same timeframe last year, the country‘s agriculture ministry said Thursday according to Interfax Ukraine. Known as one of the world‘s breadbaskets for its agricultural production, Ukraine accounted for 10% of global wheat exports in 2021, according to the United Nations, while Russia produced about 17% of all wheat globally.” (Saul, 2022) With grain exports down 64% (from Ukraine), we can see how much of a global strain this would cause on the market. With no proper way of determining just how much longer the unrest may carry on, the ban is unfortunate but arguably necessary. Further, Russia not only exports a lot of wheat but is also the world’s largest exporter, as this synopsis from an Aljazeera news article states: “Russia is the world’s largest exporter of wheat, accounting for more than 18 percent of international exports. In 2019, Russia and Ukraine together exported more than a quarter (25.4 percent) of the world’s wheat, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).” (Duggal & Haddad, 2022) So on one hand, we understand that food export (and import) bans are imposed for the purposes of food security and safeguarding livelihoods. There are, however, arguments from some very prominent authorities and bodies that argue strongly against this, citing also that banning the export or import of these grain commodities is ridding the world of at least 10% of its calories, and thereby increasing the risks of food insecurity.  An article on the matter published by The Economist cites the bans and actions against food imports that were taken by at least 20 countries including India and Malaysia, and how this action may be hurting the world instead of healing it:  “On May 23rd Malaysia banned the export of poultry. Earlier this month, India banned wheat exports. According to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), a think-tank, at least 20 countries have imposed some sort of limit on exports since the war began. Taken together the restricted exports account for 10% of calories on the global market. The United Nations has urged countries to reconsider. Keeping calories flowing across borders, it argues, is the best way to ensure global food security and less-volatile prices.“ (The Economist, 2022) Both the arguments for and against are worth looking into, as they undoubtedly both have sound grounds backing them.  What goes into setting the right domestic market prices So what exactly goes into determining food prices? Who decides how they are set? What are the rules of engagement? What is the modus operandi? Domestic food prices (in Ghana) are mostly set based on the demand for that particular food commodity within the domestic market. Food prices are also often inflated and influenced by seasonal farming, and the lack of adequate food preservation and processing facilities. According to Forbes, the following reasons may also influence the price of food within domestic markets:  “Prices are set by either retail category managers or pricing analysts according to their category role (competitive, destination, innovation, etc.), market intel, demand elasticity and the corresponding gross margins and sales targets. Any given retailer will have dozens of product categories based on particular purchase occasions, such as milk, yoghurt, snack bars, citrus, berries, etc. These staff who negotiate prices with suppliers are accountable to financial targets set by executives. Pricing strategy is a major tool these workers use to achieve or exceed these expectations, lest they lose their jobs.” (Schweizer, 2022) We understand the domestic market sets the domestic prices, but the average Ghanaian is forced to bend over backwards to be able to afford basic common foods. Hausa Koko is now selling for 1.50 Cedis a bag in some neighbourhoods. It appears the government needs to intervene and provide some form of economic agricultural commodity respite for citizens before things truly go out of hand. Inflation is on the rise and is on its highest in the past 18 years. Bloomberg reported the following:  “Ghana’s inflation

Governments around the world have indeed taken on more and more functions over time. As a result, they now guarantee the operation of many services once provided by the private sector. They also collect massive amounts of taxes and often demonstrate inefficiencies in their operations. However, it is essential to remember that government expansion has not always been wrong. In many cases, government intervention has improved the lives of citizens and made societies better overall. For example, establishing public education systems and developing social safety nets have helped reduce poverty and improve economic opportunity. It is also important to note that the private sector is not always efficient or effective in providing certain services, such as infrastructure or defence. In the end, whether government expansion should be reversed is complex. There are pros and cons to both sides of the argument, and there is no easy answer. However, any decision on this matter must be made with care and thoughtfulness, as it could have significant implications for society. The role of the government in society There is no doubt that the government plays a vital role in society. It is responsible for providing essential services, protecting citizens from harm, and ensuring that the country functions smoothly. However, there is a debate over whether or not the government should continue to expand its role in society. Some believe that the government should be limited in scope, while others believe it should play a more active role. (Noryigitovich, 2022) Those who support a limited government argue that the government should only be responsible for those things that are necessary. They believe that the government should stay out of healthcare and education, which are better handled by private entities.  They also believe that an expansive government creates more bureaucracy and red tape, stifling innovation and entrepreneurship. (Bedell, 2014) Those who support a more expansive government argue that the government plays an essential role in providing for the common good. They believe that the government should be involved in healthcare and education because these are essential to ensuring that all citizens have access to basic needs.  They also believe that the government can play a positive role in promoting economic growth and opportunity for all. The debate over the role of the government is likely to continue for many years to come. There is no easy answer, and each side has valid arguments. Ultimately, it is up to society to decide how much involvement the government should have. (Lee et al., 2022) The benefits of a limited government The ever-expanding role of government is a cause for concern for many people. They see governments as collecting more taxes, becoming more bureaucratic, and taking on functions that are best left to the private sector. There is some merit to these concerns. There are advantages to having a limited government. A limited government has restricted powers compared to an unlimited or absolute government. This type of government is typically associated with constitutional democracies like the United States. (“What Is a Limited Government?”, 2022) Some of the benefits of a limited government include: – Protection of individual rights: A limited government is more likely to protect the individual rights of its citizens than an unlimited government. This is because a limited government has less power and thus is less able to infringe on the rights of individuals. – Checks and balances: A limited government is also more likely to have checks and balances in place, which help to prevent abuse of power. For example, in the US, the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are designed to check and balance each other. – Greater accountability: A limited government is typically more accountable to its citizens than an unlimited government. This is because a limited government has less power and thus is less able to act without accountability. – More efficient: A limited government is typically more efficient than an unlimited government. This is because a limited government has fewer powers and thus can focus on a smaller number of tasks. Overall, there are many advantages to having a limited government. A limited government protects the individual rights of its citizens, has checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of power, is more accountable to its citizens, and is more efficient. Arguments for the continued expansion of government Arguments can also be made in favour of continued government expansion. First and foremost, government expansion can lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness in delivering public goods and services. This is because larger governments can pool resources and talents and better coordinate their activities. Additionally, government expansion can help reduce social inequalities by providing more resources to disadvantaged groups. Finally, government expansion can promote economic growth by providing additional opportunities for investment and employment. Of course, there are also arguments against government expansion. Some worry that larger governments will be less responsive to citizens’ needs and more prone to corruption. Others believe that government expansion will lead to higher taxes and an enormous bureaucracy, which can be burdensome for taxpayers and businesses. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to expand government depends on the weighing of these pros and cons. Conclusion Conversation on the topic is a good thing. There is no easy answer regarding whether the government should continue to expand its role in society. Each side of the debate has valid arguments. Ultimately, it is up to society to push on how much involvement the government should have. However, a few general conclusions can be drawn about the role of government in society, which are arguably non-arguable. First, a limited government is more likely to protect the individual rights of its citizens than an unlimited government. This is because a limited government has less power and thus is less able to infringe on the rights of individuals. Then, a limited government is typically more efficient than an unlimited government. This is because a limited government has fewer powers and can focus on a smaller number of tasks.

Political parties rely heavily on financial assistance to sustain their activities. This has led to a situation where financiers of a party can unduly influence the outcome of elections and the policies of political parties. The question we ponder over is whether the state should sponsor political parties or whether the state should not sponsor political parties. There are arguments for and against this practice. Those who argue in favour of state sponsorship of political parties say that this is necessary to ensure that all parties have access to the resources they need to participate in the political process.  They also argue that state sponsorship helps to ensure that parties are accountable to the electorate and are not unduly influenced by private interests. Those who argue against state sponsorship of political parties say that this practice leads to undue influence by the state over the political process.  They also argue that state sponsorship of political parties is unnecessary and that private donations should be used to finance party activities. (Adra, 2022) The question of whether the state should sponsor political parties is a complex one. There are valid arguments for and against this practice. Ultimately, the decision must be made case-by-case, considering each country’s specific circumstances. What are the benefits of state sponsorship of political parties? State sponsorship of political parties has several potential benefits: Thus, state sponsorship of political parties can play an essential role in ensuring that parties can function effectively and democratically.  While some risks are associated with state sponsorship, such as the possibility that parties may become excessively dependent on state support, these risks can be minimized through careful regulation and oversight. (Onyinkwa, 2017) Overall, state sponsorship of political parties can positively influence democracy and good governance. How can state sponsorship curb the monetary syndrome in our politics There are several ways in which state sponsorship can help to curb the monetary syndrome in our politics. One way is by providing financial support to political parties and candidates who espouse sound economic policies.  Countries need to fairly back candidates who espouse sound policies now more than ever. This will help to ensure that these parties and candidates can compete effectively against those who advocate for unsound economic policies. Another way state sponsorship can help curb the monetary syndrome in our politics is by providing educational resources to the public on sound economic policies.  This will help to ensure that voters are informed about the implications of different economic policies and can make more informed choices when voting for political candidates. Still another way state sponsorship can help curb the monetary syndrome in our politics is by working with the private sector to promote and explain sound economic policies.  This can involve, for example, providing tax incentives or other forms of financial support to businesses that adopt sound economic policies. So state sponsorship can play a vital role in curbing the monetary syndrome in our politics. By promoting sound economic policies, state sponsors can help ensure our politics is more stable and prosperous. The pros and cons of state sponsorship of political parties There is no one answer to whether or not states should sponsor political parties. The pros and cons of state sponsorship of political parties depend on the specific context in which the question is asked.  Some arguments in favour of state sponsorship of political parties are that it can help to ensure more stable governments, promote democracy, and provide a check on the power of special interests.  Some arguments against state sponsorship of political parties are that it can lead to corruption and cronyism, entrench incumbents, and undermine competition. Ultimately, whether or not states should sponsor political parties is a decision that must be made on a case-by-case basis. Arguments in favour of state sponsorship of political parties typically centre around the idea that it can help to ensure more stable governments. In countries with weak or fragmented political parties, state sponsorship can help to provide the resources and organization necessary for these parties to be viable contenders in elections.  This, in turn, can lead to more democratic and representative governments. Moreover, state sponsorship of political parties can help to check the power of special interests. In many countries, it is common for special interest groups (such as businesses or religious organizations) to sponsor particular political parties. This can give these groups undue influence over government policy. State sponsorship of political parties can help to level the playing field and ensure that all voices are heard. Another argument against state sponsorship of political parties is that when the state sponsors a particular political party, it can create a situation in which that party might get excessively dependent on government resources.  This, in turn, can lead to corruption and favouritism as politicians seek to repay the debt they owe to their sponsors. Moreover, state sponsorship of political parties can entrench incumbents and make it difficult for new parties to emerge.  In many countries, state-sponsored parties are extensions of the existing government bureaucracy. This makes it difficult for opposition parties to compete and ultimately undermines democracy. The decision of whether or not states should sponsor political parties is a complex one. There are arguments to be made both in favour and against state sponsorship. Again, ultimately, the decision must be made case-by-case, considering the specific context in which the question is being asked. Conclusion I know I’ve made some impractical points that besides in theory wouldn’t be as smooth to implement. But I’ve made some good points that can be incorporated now. For instance, the state educating the general public on what a sound economic atmosphere looks like is a great idea. Singapore is a relatively small country but has done well in ensuring its electorate is relatively much more in on the what’s and the whys of their elected officials’ decision-making. Still, there is no one answer to whether or not states should sponsor political parties. The pros and cons of state sponsorship of