Or
• After windfall more leisure and less investment.
• Growth slows down.

Problem
• Tend to imply people not worse off.

Voracity effect model
• There are two sectors: oil and everything else. Price of oil fixed at p.
• One unit of non-oil good invested in oil-producing equipment yields α
units of oil (hence pα in non-oil good).
• One unit of non-oil good invested in non-oil-producing equipment
yields β units of non-oil good.
• The oils sector is more productive:
β < pα.
• Two groups in the economy. Group i starts out with ki units of oil-
producing equipment and group 2 with bi
units of non-oil-producing equipment.
• Each group i maximizes Zσ1 − σc(σ−1/σ)ie−δ(s−t)
where ci is units of non-oil good (so let’s call it consumption good).
• Each group i is entitled to a transfer ri of its own choosing from the
government in units of the consumption good.
• These transfers must be financed from proportional taxes τ on the
revenues of the oil sector: r1+ r2= ταpK = ταp(k1+ k2) where K is oil-producing equipment.
• Some additional technical assumptions.

Some properties of the model
• If groups cooperate, only invest in oil-producing capital (since αp > β).
• Without cooperation, each group has incentive to overtax oil income because the tax hits partially the other group as well.
• As a result, each group will now invest in both oil-producing and non-oil-producing equipment (at least under a certain choice of parameter values). This is inefficient of course.
• Still, oil-rich countries should do no worse than oil-poor ones, or not yet clear why growth rates should fall after windfalls.
• Surprising result of paper is that growth of K falls when pα goes up.
• Key arbitrage equation for each group ipα − xi= β
where xi is effectively chosen by other group. So xi= pα − β.
• Growth is ˙K = (pα − x1− x2)K= 2β − pα.
• So higher pα countries/periods have lower growth.

Possible problems
• Damn unintuitive!
• Oil sector shrinks following oil-price boom!

Sala-i-Martin and Subramanian
• Cross-country empirical analysis
— First-stage institutions (or rather policies) on resources.
— Second-stage growth on institutions and resources.
— Resource curse works through institutions.
— Fuel and minerals particularly bad.
• Nigeria
— No growth in per capita GDP since oil discovery, despite enormous
cumulated revenues from oil sales.
— Public investment boom, but very low subsequent capacity utilization.
— Huge increase in inequality.
— Would growth have been positive without oil? Would inequality not have fallen?
• Proposal: pay out oil revenues directly to Nigerians.

Is there an aid curse?
• Very hard to find empirical evidence that aid has been helpful.
• Evidence that aid may have been unhelpful at least as solid (e.g. work
by P. Boone here at LSE).
• Calls into question recent renewal of emphasis on aid (e.g. UK’s Africa
initiative)

Are debt forgiveness and aid perfect substitute?
• Common wisdom says yes (money saved on debt service is freed up).
• Arslanap and Henry say no: aid is better, at least for the HIPCs.
• Very important as relief vs. aid decision is critical current policy issue.
• Arslanap and Henry argument 1: Net Resource Transfer (aid+debt
relief) to HIPCs has declined since program inception.
• Arslanap and Henry argument 2: Debt relief skews NRT towards bilateral aid, which might be less effective than multilateral aid. Argument is: debt relief leads to dollar-for-dollar decline in overall aid, but bilateral aid is constant. Multilateral aid falls.
• Whether or not their argument is convincing, debt relief is no better than aid: is there then a debt-relief curse?

The prosaic view expressed by the author about neo-colonial 'aid', as a developmentally neutral to minimally subversive influence of bootstrap development, does not reflect that of SoACT.

March 18, GNA - Mr Kwame Tay, 'Ghana' National Coordinator for Inclusive Education of Special Education on Thursday called on communities to accept disabled children in ordinary schools located in their areas.

Mr Tay was speaking at a day's seminar for 24 heads of schools in the Volta Region at Ho on the theme: "strategising for effective service delivery for all children in special needs".

He said globally, the new trend of education of children with special needs had become necessary due to the way society tend to look mean upon them, adding that this affected their integration into the society.

"This is the only way children will not consider the disabled as evils and fear them", he said.

Mr Victor Bansah, Volta Regional Co-ordinator of Special Needs Education, asked special educators to work assiduously as potential advocates for people with activity limitation.

Mr Samuel Donkor Gyang, Regional Director of Education, also cautioned participants to be imbued with human qualities such as patience and good human approach.