This was an interesting and well-written piece, but unfortunately, I think most of it is not relevant to the fundamental problems of this region.
The endemic problems in Central America generally and the Northern Triangle specifically predate climate change and US meddling and would exist even if the US zeroed out carbon emissions tomorrow. And the root problem is weak governance that has allowed space for corruption and competing governing institutions, including the gangs.
Well-intentioned programs that purport to improve some metric by "x" percentage by doing "y" are not new, but such ivory-tower estimates always crashed into the reality of the fundamental issues of governance and corruption. Money and effort are sapped away and even when projects are completed, there is very rarely follow-through in terms of sustainment. US development efforts in the region end up very much as they have in Afghanistan - another country with weak governance, endemic violence, rampant corruption, and a low-trust society.
Weak governance in this region goes back to the mid-19th century when these countries became independent. Many local governments cannot provide basic services and are under the influence of organized violent groups. The notion that what local governments need is "better planning strategies" assumes a level of capacity, capability, independence, and influence that few local governments actually have.
These are problems the US can't really solve. The best things we could do are end the drug war and focus on efforts designed to improve governing capacity in these countries. But we shouldn't expect that even these things will do much considering the history of failure of historic US efforts to improve governance.
Climate change is a global problem. But, what if the root problems causing immigration are escaping poverty, violence, political oppression and lack of opportunity? I'm not sold on cause and effect here. Florida has hurricanes, California has fires, pollution and other climate change issues too, but every one of these Northern Triangle immigrants would much rather live in either state. I would suggest that most people want to come to the US because of economics, safety and freedom.
These countries are poor, and they aren't poor because of climate change. I have no doubt climate change isn't helping them, but it isn't why those countries are poor. And people in poor countries are moved to desperate measure, including emigrating to richer countries, even in violation of the law.
History has shown over and over that the best way, and perhaps only sustainable way, to reduce poverty is the adoption of market economies, in most cases accompanied with respect for private property, representative government and the rule of law. Until these places, with or without outside assistance, move toward an economic culture that is more consistent with those norms, we will be fighting illegal border crossings for the foreseeable future.
This article seems rather thin. We probably could’ve asked the average left-leaning highschooler what we should do, and they would’ve said the same thing. Take in refugees, give them money, build solar farms.
Quite frankly, if the root cause really is climate change, which I am not at all convinced it is. (I’m not saying that climate change is not happening, I’m just saying that these countries were poor and have been poor for a long time), Then any localized fix of building clean energy there won’t even make a dent to the global contributions of the issue.
As far as TPS goes, it’s almost never temporary, and should probably be reserved for immediate natural disasters. Perhaps we should allow more refugees and immigration from Central America, in a organized way, but I don’t see how this will really help the region. The latest studies show that 33%, or 10 million people would move to the United States if they could. Any TPS program would be looked upon as a permanent visa. We need to be real about these numbers. They are regions in the world which have it even worse than Central America.
I think we can do more, and I know it will take money, but I want to see concrete proposals. I suspect we should probably help them with their infrastructure as a whole. How to do this, technically in specifically is what I want to know.
I went down to Honduras when I was in the military, to help build roads with the army reserve. The poverty was striking. It would probably take one or two decades of enormous educational and infrastructure improvements to fix the problems.
And yes the United States is capable of that, but probably not at the same time as our haphazard efforts to try and fix Afghanistan or Iraq.
I think Noah Smith has the best solutions. We need to put massive amounts of research into new technologies, especially clean energy, and then license this to other countries for free.
Anyway, I’m hanging out in South Bend. Have to go to work at 1 PM to inspect a power plant that is having issues. I did spend the morning driving around the campus. It is beautiful, and I say that is a USC fan that doesn’t like Notre Dame.
It’s only 33 million people in those 3 countries; let’s just get settled into some high-density housing and be that much closer to 1 billion Americans.
These are good ideas but I'm not aware of cases where direct aid and subsidies like this had more than a marginal effect around the edges, in contrast to the power of private investment and trade. So in addition to this, it seems that we should review our trade policies to make sure that US companies have stronger incentives for trade with Central American countries than with low wage countries elsewhere, such as in Asia. There are many national security and strategic reasons why a "pivot to the Americas" like that would be beneficial for the US.
As per usual more thoughtful and knowledgeable commenters have added great thoughts already.
So I'll chime in on the margins to ask why on earth poor countries would need or want fitness trails, when we are also talking about people in these areas having to sell their land to survive? Am I being patronizing and shuttered in thinking that fitness trails are not a priority? What do I not know about these countries and situations that turns this comment of Claire's into something other than absurd?
If the problem you're solving for is "reduce the suffering of Central Americans" then increasing the use of TPS would help. If your aim, however, is to reduce the flow of migrants here by reducing the "push" factor, then, it doesn't help at all. If anything, it increases the pull factor.
Glad to see more discussion of CA, thank you for writing this.
In Biden's plan he mentions 4 billion over 4 years? Is fixing these issues really that cheap? Could Bezos throw whatever he made last month at it and solve this? Do we have an idea of the total amount of investment needed?
As some not overly familiar with Carbon Tax policy what does a 200% carbon tax look like? What is it 200% of, the price of any carbon producing good?
Are there some solid estimates of what "...sustainable farming and land-use practices, cutting carbon emissions, increasing green cover in areas that have been deforested or over-developed, and fortifying and earthquake-proofing structures." would do in terms of the disaster risk? How much of it can be mitigated? Is that what the term "welfare" means in this context?
Is there a sense of how welcoming of US intervention these countries will be? I imagine financial aid would be acceptable but do they want the US to play a part in trying rebuild some of their infrastructure?
As people continue to leave is there worry that it could cause destabilization of the countries affected?
Also, can we just have open borders instead of waiting for these people to get hit with a natural disaster?
And it just turns out agroforestry, a high carbon sequestration land use method, works really well in the Central American climate and the crops grown natively there. Stable income and food while drawing some carbon down.
That climate change affects the region seems worth emphasizing. However, climate change is a global phenomenon, and focusing on (for example) reducing greenhouse gas emission in the Northern Triangle would have very modest effects on climate change and no special impact on this region. In contrast, better land management, including controlling zones of dense habitation and controlling erosion, especially via reforestation, could directly impact the region.
There is a saying that "What are the causes of poverty?" is the wrong question. The better question is "What are the causes of prosperity?". Certainly a prerequisite is a reasonably honest and competent government that can protect life and property and enforce contracts. The Central Americans countries in question lack this prerequisite.
So what's the answer? As a libertarian, I will pivot me from a conservative complaint to a progressive solution. Open borders. Let people leave countries that don't work. Contrary to Janet Yellin, I believe that governments should have to compete for the allegiance of individuals as well as industries.
This was an interesting and well-written piece, but unfortunately, I think most of it is not relevant to the fundamental problems of this region.
The endemic problems in Central America generally and the Northern Triangle specifically predate climate change and US meddling and would exist even if the US zeroed out carbon emissions tomorrow. And the root problem is weak governance that has allowed space for corruption and competing governing institutions, including the gangs.
Well-intentioned programs that purport to improve some metric by "x" percentage by doing "y" are not new, but such ivory-tower estimates always crashed into the reality of the fundamental issues of governance and corruption. Money and effort are sapped away and even when projects are completed, there is very rarely follow-through in terms of sustainment. US development efforts in the region end up very much as they have in Afghanistan - another country with weak governance, endemic violence, rampant corruption, and a low-trust society.
Weak governance in this region goes back to the mid-19th century when these countries became independent. Many local governments cannot provide basic services and are under the influence of organized violent groups. The notion that what local governments need is "better planning strategies" assumes a level of capacity, capability, independence, and influence that few local governments actually have.
These are problems the US can't really solve. The best things we could do are end the drug war and focus on efforts designed to improve governing capacity in these countries. But we shouldn't expect that even these things will do much considering the history of failure of historic US efforts to improve governance.
Climate change is a global problem. But, what if the root problems causing immigration are escaping poverty, violence, political oppression and lack of opportunity? I'm not sold on cause and effect here. Florida has hurricanes, California has fires, pollution and other climate change issues too, but every one of these Northern Triangle immigrants would much rather live in either state. I would suggest that most people want to come to the US because of economics, safety and freedom.
These countries are poor, and they aren't poor because of climate change. I have no doubt climate change isn't helping them, but it isn't why those countries are poor. And people in poor countries are moved to desperate measure, including emigrating to richer countries, even in violation of the law.
History has shown over and over that the best way, and perhaps only sustainable way, to reduce poverty is the adoption of market economies, in most cases accompanied with respect for private property, representative government and the rule of law. Until these places, with or without outside assistance, move toward an economic culture that is more consistent with those norms, we will be fighting illegal border crossings for the foreseeable future.
This article seems rather thin. We probably could’ve asked the average left-leaning highschooler what we should do, and they would’ve said the same thing. Take in refugees, give them money, build solar farms.
Quite frankly, if the root cause really is climate change, which I am not at all convinced it is. (I’m not saying that climate change is not happening, I’m just saying that these countries were poor and have been poor for a long time), Then any localized fix of building clean energy there won’t even make a dent to the global contributions of the issue.
As far as TPS goes, it’s almost never temporary, and should probably be reserved for immediate natural disasters. Perhaps we should allow more refugees and immigration from Central America, in a organized way, but I don’t see how this will really help the region. The latest studies show that 33%, or 10 million people would move to the United States if they could. Any TPS program would be looked upon as a permanent visa. We need to be real about these numbers. They are regions in the world which have it even worse than Central America.
I think we can do more, and I know it will take money, but I want to see concrete proposals. I suspect we should probably help them with their infrastructure as a whole. How to do this, technically in specifically is what I want to know.
I went down to Honduras when I was in the military, to help build roads with the army reserve. The poverty was striking. It would probably take one or two decades of enormous educational and infrastructure improvements to fix the problems.
And yes the United States is capable of that, but probably not at the same time as our haphazard efforts to try and fix Afghanistan or Iraq.
I think Noah Smith has the best solutions. We need to put massive amounts of research into new technologies, especially clean energy, and then license this to other countries for free.
Anyway, I’m hanging out in South Bend. Have to go to work at 1 PM to inspect a power plant that is having issues. I did spend the morning driving around the campus. It is beautiful, and I say that is a USC fan that doesn’t like Notre Dame.
Hope everyone is having a good weekend.
It’s only 33 million people in those 3 countries; let’s just get settled into some high-density housing and be that much closer to 1 billion Americans.
These are good ideas but I'm not aware of cases where direct aid and subsidies like this had more than a marginal effect around the edges, in contrast to the power of private investment and trade. So in addition to this, it seems that we should review our trade policies to make sure that US companies have stronger incentives for trade with Central American countries than with low wage countries elsewhere, such as in Asia. There are many national security and strategic reasons why a "pivot to the Americas" like that would be beneficial for the US.
As per usual more thoughtful and knowledgeable commenters have added great thoughts already.
So I'll chime in on the margins to ask why on earth poor countries would need or want fitness trails, when we are also talking about people in these areas having to sell their land to survive? Am I being patronizing and shuttered in thinking that fitness trails are not a priority? What do I not know about these countries and situations that turns this comment of Claire's into something other than absurd?
“Back in 1998, we — well, not really me, because I was an infant”
Damn. Saturday morning sucker punch :/
Cool post yo.
If the problem you're solving for is "reduce the suffering of Central Americans" then increasing the use of TPS would help. If your aim, however, is to reduce the flow of migrants here by reducing the "push" factor, then, it doesn't help at all. If anything, it increases the pull factor.
Thanks, Claire.
I wish that doing this were more obviously compatible with the imperative to "do popular stuff."
Thanks for the interesting article on this important topic, Claire. Looking forward to future articles
Glad to see more discussion of CA, thank you for writing this.
In Biden's plan he mentions 4 billion over 4 years? Is fixing these issues really that cheap? Could Bezos throw whatever he made last month at it and solve this? Do we have an idea of the total amount of investment needed?
As some not overly familiar with Carbon Tax policy what does a 200% carbon tax look like? What is it 200% of, the price of any carbon producing good?
Are there some solid estimates of what "...sustainable farming and land-use practices, cutting carbon emissions, increasing green cover in areas that have been deforested or over-developed, and fortifying and earthquake-proofing structures." would do in terms of the disaster risk? How much of it can be mitigated? Is that what the term "welfare" means in this context?
Is there a sense of how welcoming of US intervention these countries will be? I imagine financial aid would be acceptable but do they want the US to play a part in trying rebuild some of their infrastructure?
As people continue to leave is there worry that it could cause destabilization of the countries affected?
Also, can we just have open borders instead of waiting for these people to get hit with a natural disaster?
And it just turns out agroforestry, a high carbon sequestration land use method, works really well in the Central American climate and the crops grown natively there. Stable income and food while drawing some carbon down.
That climate change affects the region seems worth emphasizing. However, climate change is a global phenomenon, and focusing on (for example) reducing greenhouse gas emission in the Northern Triangle would have very modest effects on climate change and no special impact on this region. In contrast, better land management, including controlling zones of dense habitation and controlling erosion, especially via reforestation, could directly impact the region.
Great article - enjoyed it and look forward to the next one!
There is a saying that "What are the causes of poverty?" is the wrong question. The better question is "What are the causes of prosperity?". Certainly a prerequisite is a reasonably honest and competent government that can protect life and property and enforce contracts. The Central Americans countries in question lack this prerequisite.
So what's the answer? As a libertarian, I will pivot me from a conservative complaint to a progressive solution. Open borders. Let people leave countries that don't work. Contrary to Janet Yellin, I believe that governments should have to compete for the allegiance of individuals as well as industries.