Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
I think it's worth differentiating when they say "especially in extractives and #agriculture." "Extractive" growth in Afghanistan is likely to benefit only the rich and fuel corruption. More infrastructure to support agriculture on the other hand could produce more even growth.
You are both right but I can't get past the premise. That estimate is bracingly out of touch with the most likely security and economic scenarios. This not helpful at a time when donors need to be thinking rationally, not overly optimistically
Almost feels like the premise has guided the analysis, working backward: "what rates/measures of growth would it take for Afghan economy to reach 'stable'/'successful'?" Proposals are then designed to get there. ...rather than asking, "given where we are, where to start?"
Aaaannnndddd that would be the status quo formula for scenario planning and predictive analysis in Afghanistan. (Or: what do we need to tell donors to calm their fears so they keep investing and don't think they'll be stuck here forever?)
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
