Malawi Less Developed Countries Essay

Malawi is one of the orbs patheticest countries, ranking 160th out of 182 countries on the Human ontogeny Index. Progress towards reaching the Millennium kat onceledge Goal of eradicating extreme meagerness has been express. According to the United Nations Development Programmes Human Development Report for 2009, about 74 per pennyime of the population still lives below the income poverty line of US$1.25 a day and 90 per cent below the US$2 a day threshold. The proportion of unforesightful and ultra-poor is highest in rustic areas of the southern and northern parts of the country.Country indicatorsgross national product per capita average annual growth rate (%), 1990-2012 1.2 Underweight (%) 2008-2012*, moderate & complete(a) 12.8 alternative school participation, Net attendance ratio (%) 2008-2012*, male 9.7 Secondary school participation, Net attendance ratio (%) 2008-2012*, female 10.4 GNI per capita 2012, US$ 320 Literacy rate, bragging(a) total (% of people ages 1 5 and above) 74.77 Infant mortality rate 71HDI( human development index) 0.388All these indicators show Malawi is a LDC according to the UN criteria for the identification of an LDC.Reason for the low levels of development in MalawiDespite the availability of mitigate technologies, the productivity of most crops has not improved since the 1970s, largely as a result of declining soil fertility. Also contributing to the low yields are poor b new(prenominal) to financial function and markets, unfavourable weather, broken landholdings andnutrient-depleted soils, coupled with limited use of fertilizers. The use of improved varieties, together with fertilizers, better crop husbandry and irrigation, has the potential to greatly improve yields. Post-harvest losses are estimated to be or so 40 per cent of production. The recurrence of shocks frustrates attempts to escape rural poverty. The most putting surface shocks are weather-related, such as crop failures and increases in the pr ice of food. unsoundness or injury is also very common, as are shocks associated with finis of family members, heightened by the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which has affected 11.9 per cent of the population.Shocks often drive households to sell assets, thereby undermining their ability to engage in productive activities. As a result, poor households have to adopt costly coping strategies such as selling assets, withdrawing children from school and reducing food consumption. Poor rural people in Malawi are unable to diversify out of agribusiness and tend to remain underemployed for part of the year. More than a threesome of rural households earn their livelihood only from farming or fishing. An special 25 per cent combine work on their farm with otherwise jobs, largely in land. Other income sources tend to be limited to seriously paid agricultural labour. Few frugal opportunities combined with the marked seasonality of rainfed agriculture leads to labour shortages during the seari ng phases of the cropping season, with underemployment for the rest of the year. Access to education, a major driver of relative wealth, is highly inequitable as well.Almost 30 per cent of poor children do not even start primary school, which is disengage in Malawi. Secondary and higher education is largely confined to non-poor households, mainly due to the required enrolment fees. Limited access to markets and services is another(prenominal) constraint. Poor rural people tend to live in out-of-door areas with few roads and means of transport, which limits their economic opportunities. Access to financial services is severely restricted, especially for smallholder farmers. Only 12 per cent of households have access to credit. What is being done to tackle Malawis problems?In May 2002, the judicature launched the Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy (MPRS), with the goal of achieving sustainable poverty decrement through empowerment of the poor over a three-year period. The MPRS ac hieved a small-scale decline in poverty levels while real gross domestic product (GDP)growth averaged only 1.5 per cent per annum. In 2005, the MPRS was reformulated as the Malawi increment and Development Strategy (MGDS), which remains the overarching policy framework for social and economic development. Under the MGDS, real GDP growth for 2006-09 averaged 8.4 per cent and is expected to come up to be strong, helped by increased revenue from mining. While growth was passably lower during 2009-10, it seems that Malawi will weather the global financial crisis. The fiscal shortfall has been brought down, and debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative has greatly reduced the burden of debt service. Notwithstanding good recent performance, the ability to manage a level of economic growth to consider poverty lessening remains limited bythe narrow economic basethe small domestic marketpoor infrastructure/high transport costerratic power supply and heavy reliance on goose egg importsthe presence of the State in the business sectorGovernment incumbrance in key marketsand weak management capacity in the worldly concern and private sectors.Agriculture provides over 80 per cent of exports and contributes some 34 per cent to GDP services make up 46 per cent of GDP and industry 20 per cent. The performance of agriculture is therefore critical for the economy. Average growth in the sector is highly dependent on climatic factors, and reached nearly 7 per cent during the 1990s and 9 per cent between 2002 and 2006, with a drop to -9 per cent in the 2005 drought. Growth has afterwards recovered with improved seasonal conditions, boosted by the Farm Input tribute Programme. The Farm Input Subsidy Programme was launched in 2005-06 to increase agricultural production and ensure food security, by providing government-subsidized agricultural inputs to smallholding farmers.The scheme has coincided with a significant jump in maize production, a lthough it is unclear how much of this is imputable to the subsidy and how much to improved seasonal conditions. The subsidy programme is now a firmly established pillar of agricultural policy. However, it presents a consider of policy dilemmasthe cost of the programme is so high that mostother initiatives have to be sidelined, including the extension and research services needed to ensure optimal use of the inputsthe programme has tended to displace commercial input purchases by farmers and the distribution of inputs has tended to favour the more food-secure households.