The_Open_Door_deel1

-349-
Under the revised Plan total domestic funds available for
development purposes were estimated at only $ 129 million whereas
foreign funds available for projects were projected at $ 366
million (of which $ 30 million only were grants). Of this amount
of $ 366 million foreign funds, however, only $ 234 million had
been committed by foreign donors by December 1977. Even at an
optimistic estimate there remained a gap of f 217 million in the
revised Four Year Development Plan (83). The high priority given
to O.A.U. related projects, together with this financial gap
makes the ultimate achievement of the more urgent socio-economic
development objectives of the Plan very unlikely. Given the
unrealistic nature of the revised Plan there appears to be no
point in dealing with it at great length. Instead it may be more
instructive to have a brief look at the structure and trend of
actual expenditures during the Tolbert Administration.
Structure and Trend of Expenditures During The 1970's
One o"f the most remarkable features, of Public Expenditures during
the years 1970 through 1977 is t&© obviously low priority which
the Tolbert Administration attached to Agriculture. This did not
differ fundamentally from the view of their predecessors. During
the last full year of Tubman's reign (1970) even less than 2 per
cent of the total budgetary expenditures was actually disbursed
for the improvement of the country's agricultural status. (The
even lower priority attached to the encouragement of its
industrial development is hardly surprising in view of the goals
of the abortive Four Year Development Plan of the 1960's, which
did not include any specified allocation for the promotion of
industrial development). Apparently, in President Tubman's view
it was not necessary or appropriate to promote the agricultural
and industrial development (in short, economic development) of
the country by any means other than the providing of incentives
to (mainly foreign) investors. The Government's main
responsibility in his eyes was to provide for the infrastructure
(roads, communication facilities, power facilities) which are
basic to any industrial or agricultural development. The
relatively small amounts which were spent on Agriculture
represented virtually all recurrent expenditures. These were the
recurrent costs of foreign financed agricultural projects,
- only few in number - and the recurrent expenditures of the
Department of Agriculture- One of the most serious consequences
of this short-sighted policy was the disregard for the
modernization of the production methods of the rural population.
This caused these people to persist in their traditional ways
of farming and fishing and to maintain the vicious circle of
low productivity, low income, low savings, low investments, low
productivity etc.
After the Tolbert Administration came to power this policy
underwent a slight change though the expenditures for
agricultural development remain among the lowest. Upward trends