The Nexus between the Leadership Question and the Poverty Trap in Africa
This paper examines the nexus between leadership question and the increasingly persistent poverty incidence in Africa, taking into consideration the effects of globalization. It argues that the dearth of an authentic knowledge leadership that is infused with patriotism, conscience, knowledge and transformational interest with Africa as centre of its foreign policies has been the bane of socio-economic development in Africa. The paper investigates this submission by examining the issues of how Africa got into the poverty trap, the leadership challenges in relation to globalization and poverty trap. It suggests how the challenges could effect a transformation out of this poverty trap. The development of knowledge leadership, Afro-centric foreign policies, diversification of the economy, industrial entrepreneurship revolution and internal generation of development funds are some of the recommendations out of this poverty trap.
A psychological re-appraisal of the impacts of colonialism and imperialism on African development
The road to African's self-development and economic emancipation is made rough by low technological advancement, foreign-dependent economy, political instability, social insecurity, and religious gullibility. At the centre of these factors is the human element. Despite the realization of the pivotal role of the human element in the development of any society, Africans are yet to initiate and implement programmes for the development of the continent. This paper implicates colonialism and imperialism in Africans' inadequate zeal for self-determination. It explores how the colonialists (and to a large extent the neocolonialists), methodically, tailored their activities, through psychologic imperialism, toward making negative indelible marks in the perceptions of Africans. Consequently, Africans have a negative impression of themselves and their abilities to solve their problems independently. This re-appraisal of the methods and processes of colonialism reveals a long-term African subservience plan. It is, therefore, suggested that Africa can only develop when the citizens think positively of themselves, conceive common goals, and galvanize the available human and material resources to achieve such national and continental goals.
 Ife Psychologia Vol.13(1) 2005: 113-122
Livestock Aspects of Feed Grain Policy
It is a signal event that our topic should be included on this program. In recent years, the livestock and poultry economy has scarcely been considered in the making of price and income policy for feed grains. It has been disregarded by pragmatic policy makers. It has been almost equally bypassed by theoretical economists, who usually kibitz freely. Policy for support and target prices for corn, grain sorghums, and other feed grains has been made with an eye almost exclusively fixed on the producers of those crops. The target price has been set relatively high in order to protect crop farmers' income. The latest (and current) loan rate policy has been to hold the rate low. Although a low rate facilitates moving grain into livestock and poultry consumption when crops are abundant, it does nothing to provide buffer stocks for years when crops are short. In addition, a couple of years ago it became administrative policy to dispose of the stocks inherited from an earlier period, even subsidizing their sale abroad. But the foremost example of one-sidedness is the attitude toward release prices. In all the rhetoric heard recently about the peril of holding corn or sorghums in reserve, the scold has been that release prices would not be set high enough. What group can the spokesmen have had in mind? Feed producers, of course! Not feed consumers, that is, livestock and poultry men. It has been a one-sided consideration of a two-sided issue. If all groups are to have equal voice in policy making, how can livestock and poultry interests be so ostracized? The one-sidedness has more impact now that so much livestock and poultry production has become detached from feed supply on individual farms. The livestock-poultry economy is therefore more sensitive to the availability and price of feed. It is in fact a contradiction that historically, livestock and poultry got more attention when they were still closely connected with feed production on the farm. In the early years of farm programs, the "ever-normal granary" was consciously designed to level out the supply and price of feed for livestock and poultry. Now that livestock and poultry have become more commercial and more vulnerable to a volatile feed situation, feed price stabilization has been progressively removed from the councils of farm policy. And the ultimate contradiction is that the alleged price-depressing perils of a feed reserve have been proclaimed in disregard of the fact that the main defense of feed grain producers' incomes is the target price-direct payment mechanism, not support prices. If grains on reserve should cause market prices to be reduced below target level, producers would get bigger direct payments, that is, producers with a base on their farm are protected in that way. Admittedly, production outside such a base would not be eligible for payment.