What a typical way for the New York Times to reduce a complicated issue like farming and trade in Africa to a single phrase: "the free market failed".<p>There is little free about markets in Africa, with or without subsidies for fertilizer in a particular country.<p>We can certainly blame ourselves though, if not the experts advocating open markets and no subsidies: the West's tariffs, restrictions on imported agricultural products, and subsidies for rich farmers are directly related to problems in Africa. Farmers in Africa have a much harder time penetrating our markets because of these.<p>Considering one of the first steps past subsistence farming is selling produce to global markets, these restrictions are a very big hurdle to development.<p>The free market advocates, the "experts" derided in the article, have the most coherent ideas on this topic.
I doubt that this article gives the whole story. <p>One question: why could the farmers not afford the fertilizer? Seems to me that if using it yields more than it costs, it should be possible to afford it (loans?)? On the other hand, if it doesn't make sense economically, giving it to the farmers for free just ensures that they will never have profitable businesses (ie perhaps instead of farming, they should do something else).<p>Also, weren't many soils in Africa destroyed by the use of the wrong kind of fertilizer?<p>I know that is too simplistic either, as for some reason they might have no choice but to be farmers. But then I suppose politics would be to blame, not the experts.