Perhaps there are cultural reasons that explain this, such as attitudes towards work, entrepreneurship, private ownership etc?

I have no idea if Rwanda and Malawi have difference there, but globally one can see clearly see the impact of culture. Just look at how well Japan did despite losing WW2 and having little natural resources, or how badly Russia has done despite its huge landmass and resources, because the political culture always seems to lead to really bad autocratic governance.

In my country (Finland) areas where Swedish speaking people are the majority do consistently better than neighbouring areas with Finnish speaking majority - lower unemployment, less health and social issues and so on. Some of that may be due to historical accumulation of wealth, but I'm convinced that mostly it's because of differences in cultural values and attitudes. Some studies indicate that the Swedish speakers tend to have better social life, which improves life outcomes in many ways.

I think just you can get a glimpse by what they export (from Wikipedia):

- Malawi: tobacco (55%), dried legumes (8.8%), sugar (6.7%), tea (5.7%), cotton (2%), peanuts, coffee, soy (2015 est.)

- Rwanda: Gold, tin ores, coffee, malt extract, rare earth ores

I can easily see why one has a higher GDP than the other. Very little mistery to me.

> It ranks 107th out of 180 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, which is middling, but not especially bad, roughly comparable to Indonesia and Brazil.

I would still guess corruption is a major reason. Sometimes the way it’s measured and how it’s reported is not accurate. People internalize corrupt practices as normal and stop viewing it as corruption. A bribe is a gift, a nepotistic appointment is “taking care of one’s family”.

It also doesn’t always make sense to compare only corruption with other countries. Some may be more corrupt but they have enough positive factors that they develop better despite the corruption.

> The fertilizer subsidy program (FISP) consumes up to three-fourths the agriculture budget in some years to subsidize maize inputs for smallholders. It is politically untouchable because rural maize farmers are the median voter. Several administrations have made some attempt to reform it and backed down. Resources that could go to roads, irrigation, or diversification go to propping up the existing structure.

Idk, this one doesn't seem super difficult to diagnose. The political system has been captured by a special interest with consolidated control.

Rwanda has prospered for the past three decades while Malawi has floundered because Rwanda is run by an effective dictator engaging in developmentalist nation-building. Malawi has no equivalent power center, and certainly none with the beneficence to try and raise up their countrymen.

"70% of Malawians live on less than $2.15 a day. Under the World Bank’s revised $3-a-day poverty line, it’s 75%."

This sounds like an extremely bimodal distribution -- a 40% increase in the cut-off line only captures 5% more of the population, so only a small number of people are in this "poor but survivable" zone, with most well under and some well over, I assume. Does this map to the usual rural/urban divide?

> “Malawi is poor because its agricultural productivity is low” is closer to a tautology than an answer.

I used to make the same error. Thing is in the natural sciences this looks like circular reasoning, but in the humanities quite commonly things just hang in thin air. Case in point, the banker looks at the poor farmer and denies credit because the guy doesn't have capital, and the farmer doesn't have capital because he can't get credit. Thing is, both sides understand that.

I'm left wondering what people in Malawi think about this. I have no idea whether they'd be better than this outside perspective at analysing the factors behind slow growth, but the comparison might be interesting regardless.

I honestly think the lack of education is a major issue. Malawi has a relatively low literacy rate compared with many other countries in Southern Africa.

The Central African Republic, which has a low population density, lots of water and arable land is also very poor. As is South Sudan. It must be very hard to trade your way out of poverty if you are landlocked in a poor continent. All the countries in Europe are well off by world standards because there's an enormous market next-door.

If one wants to vote with one's wallet:

https://www.heifer.org/our-work/where-we-work/malawi

Currently being matched 5 to 1.

Rwanda serves as the occident's proxy to extract minerals from the kivu soil, it has been occupying it since the end of the genocide on the pretence of pursuing the genocidal troops that fled there. There is absolutely no surprise here, it's rich becaus it plunders the richest soil on earth.

Malawi needs to drop tobacco as their main export. Tobacco is hard on the soil and requires more fertilizer and acidifies the soil. Swapping out tobacco for something like a specialty coffee would be far better (and Rwanda has done that) Bringing some hard specie with Coffee would really help and the foreign aid could help them make the transition, which would take a few years to get going.

The conclusion of the article is interesting:

> 'The unit of analysis for "why is X poor" may be the political coalition, not the country.'

So maybe the real question here is not about the absolute poverty, but the derivative: "Why hasn't Malawi seen meaningful growth for 30 years?" — And the answer could be surprisingly related to first-world countries like Finland that also have experienced decades of stunted growth.

Like Malawi, Finland has functional and stable multiparty politics. Like Malawi, Finland's politicians have spent decades locally optimizing for minor benefits towards their preferred flavor of the median voter (right wing cuts taxes a bit, left wing improves benefits a bit, nobody offers anything transformative).

Too much stability at the wrong time might be a slow curse.

Regarding Rwanda, I think we're forgetting that a large part of their success comes from their plundering of the Congo's resources, mineral and otherwise.

There have been two gigantic continent-wide wars over the Congo, for fuck's sake.

> Malawi has also long been a darling of donors. Malawi’s aid per capita in 2023 was roughly 2.5x the global average.

Maybe the population doesn't feel like it needs to be productive, if they're continuing to receive such generous largesses. Isn't that the goal of UBI for developed nations? People should be able to pursue their passions and not have to worry about the necessities of life?

Malawi is poor because there is no reason for it to grow above the normal growth rate. Countries usually find themselves in a high growth situation if they are at the cross-road of major trade or geopolitics (ie: Singapore, UAE, korea, Taiwan, etc.) Of course the opportunity has to be cultivated but it has to be there in the first place.

There isn't much in Africa especially in the part of Malawi. They are not even coastal (they are landlocked) which makes their situation even worse.

It's very strange what they don't discuss, especially when it seems to answer supposedly unanswerable questions.

I rooted around in wikipedia and Malawi has FAR more people than the land can support. They have a top down demand they must grow maize although the land and climate are very unsuited for maize. Why? Unsurprisingly they have had severe recent famines unlike Rwanda. If they had capacity they could survive a minor shortfall in rain but they have more people than the land can support so the famines are very rough. They have about 3x the agricultural land as Rwanda but its not suited to maize but its demanded they grow maize. Maize will only grow with massive fertilizer imports which they cannot afford and occasionally politically/economically manage to totally screw up, alongside Maize is traditionally dependent on very reliable rainfall or post industrial era advanced irrigation which they don't have.

I would estimate the geography of Rwanda will support about 20M people, luckily they have about 14M. They can coast thru some rough agricultural times and they've developed enough industry and trade that they can import their way thru short term minor local problems.

On the other hand Malawi can only support maybe 15M people reliably, unfortunately they have about 22M. When the rains don't come or the politicians screw up the fertilizer imports, they die.

Its very difficult for them to "advance" beyond subsistence ag without enough to feed everyone and ag policies seemingly intended to be self destructive.

I don't know why they "have to" grow maize despite it resulting in starvation. Historically this type of thing is caused by someone making a huge profit or attempting to maintain control. Regardless of cause, until they can eat, they will not advance.

After eating dinner tonight they can dig a mine or build a factory. Oh wait there is no dinner tonight. Well then. And so they remain very poor, permanently.

The country, as a plot of land, is quite wealthy. $22B is a lot of money. If they had, say, 3M people as a population they'd be in position to become the next Taiwan. Taiwan's GDP per capita was about there in the mid 80s before they really took off. But they have over 20M people probably 30M soon, so they'll live in poverty, permanently.

In Rwanda an unusually good harvest means a new mine can be opened and they will "permanently" be richer. In Malawi an unusually good harvest means the people who would have starved to death this year now won't starve to death until next year. There will be no permanent improvement of anything in Malawi.

Poor? They're just minding their own business. smh.

This is a dumb take that highlights the common lack of experience with Africa that arises with anyone who writes about it - Malawi was always much poorer than the rest of East Africa as can be seen by the 1990 HDI [0].

Starting from a lower base as well as weak institutions, weak capital markets, and political instability during the transition to democracy lead Malawi to underperform.

Additionally, Rwanda received massive amounts of foreign aid to a degree that Malawi and other African nations never saw [1]

Unsurprising that this is an OpenPhilanthropy blog.

[0] - https://countryeconomy.com/hdi?year=1990

[1] - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ODAT.GN.ZS?locat...