A child in Mexico City earns his wage cleaning windshields. Photo: Beto (Kuh) (Flickr)

So far, more than 4 million Mexican families have benefited from a government program aimed at combating some of the country’s toughest problems: poverty, illiteracy and poor health.

Oportunidades, which began in 2002, takes the innovative approach of paying these families to go to school, eat well and stay healthy. Eight years later, the concept is gaining international momentum.

The program is based on a “conditional-cash” idea, whereby eligible adults are given money for achieving specific goals, including regular medical checkups, taking classes on healthier eating habits, and making sure their children are enrolled in school.

Santiago Levy, a social economist and one of the men credited with implementing the “conditional-cash” approach in Mexico, recently spoke about Oportunitidades with PBS. Levy said that he wanted to focus on lasting ways to bring people out of poverty.

These families were trapped in … some kind of an intergenerational mechanism, by which parents were poor, children were poor, and the next generation were also poor. The kids were so poor, they had to be picking coffee in the fields, and they couldn't go to school ... [Through Oportunidades,] what you are saying is, your kid will be equally valuable to you if he's in the school, as opposed if he is in the street begging for money.

One of the most intriguing aspects of Oportunidades is its rigorous evaluation process. The program uses an outside firm to review every aspect of its impact, and so far the results have been convincing. In some affected regions, school enrollment is up 20 percent for girls and 10 percent for boys, according to a World Bank report.

The unique evaluation process has also offered Oportunidades a certain degree of credibility and international recognition. PBS reports that more than 30 counties — many in South America and Southeast Asia — are developing their own "conditional cash" programs.

Angola has an estimated 13 billion barrels of oil. Photo: Kaysha (flickr)

Angola is consistantly ranked as one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world. But a recent Economist article suggests that thanks to Angola's extensive oil reserves, things are starting to improve. In fact, Angola's economy is expected to grow by 8 percent this year, which would make the country one of the top five economic performers worldwide.

But having an economy dependent on oil can have its downsides, the Economist points out. For example, after several years of ever-increasing oil prices, the price of oil rapidly declined in 2008 — dragging Angola's economy down with it.

Despite this volatility, Angola's economy has recently gotten back on track. And thanks to new government initiatives, the Economist reports that the people are starting to see the benefits.

The government plans to build one million homes for shack-dwellers by 2012. Teachers and doctors are being trained, children sent back to school, clinics opened, water-purification plants installed, electricity brought to villages and urban slums. José Eduardo dos Santos, Angola's autocratic yet popular leader for the past 30 years, has even pledged — for the first time — to reduce corruption.

A Chicago bucket drummer illegally plays his tunes for a little cash. Photo: grendelkhan (flickr)

The term “shadow economy” tends to invoke images of sly back-alley business deals. But in reality, the term encompasses everything from bucket drummers on the streets of Chicago to the woman who sells tamales at my workplace. Because of the recession and layoffs, a growing number of Americans and illegal immigrants have been forced to try and make ends meet in this informal market.

It is staggering to learn how large the shadow economy really is: about a trillion dollars and rising, according to a recent Christian Science Monitor article that explores many aspects of the informal market. Economists are curious about where all this money is ending up, and what it is doing to the economy as a whole.

Some argue that a rise in the shadow economy unfairly increases the competition with local small businessmen — people who are already struggling with a damaged economy, reports the Monitor. But others from the International Monetary Fund claim that the competition actually increases the efficiency of both markets. They believe that the shadow economy makes goods and services more available and affordable than in formal markets. Their studies also show that roughly two-thirds of the money illegally generated in the shadow economy is actually spent in the official economy.

In the end, it boils down to the fact that the majority of those working in the shadow economy are the same ones who have been excluded from the official economy — typically because of socioeconomic status. In October, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate had reached a 26-year high of 10.2 percent nationwide. For many Americans and illegal immigrants who have been the hardest hit by this recession, the shadow economy is often the only way to get by. The trillion-dollar size of the informal market is yet another signal that people everywhere are struggling.

In 1978, the poor West African country of Liberia borrowed $6 million from a New York bank. The Liberian government promised to use the money to buy and develop an oil refinery, and to pay the money back in seven years.

Today it's not clear if either of those things ever happened.

Two years after the loan, the Liberian government was overthrown in a coup, which later led to a 14-year civil war. Meanwhile, the loan was bought and sold several times, according to allAfrica.com.

But now two investment funds say they hold the note and are entitled to $20 million from the current government of Liberia — a claim upheld by a London court. Today Liberia is led by a democratic government whose president is working with the IMF and World Bank to settle old debts. The Guardian says Liberia struck deals with most of its private-sector creditors, but these two funds are refusing to settle, demanding full payment through the courts.

A representative for the Jubilee Debt Campaign, a coalition fighting for debt relief for the world's poorest countries, accuses funds like these of "profiting from poverty."

As Al-Jazeera's Barbara Serra reports:

So-called vulture funds have been condemned by several governments for preying on the world's poorest states. They buy up the debt of near-bankrupt nations at a cheap price from financial institutions. They then sue those nations in international courts for the full value of the debt, plus steep levels of interest and penalty charges. Every year, developed countries spend billions of dollars to help pay off the debts of poorer nations, but vulture funds siphon off that money for themselves.

Even the lawyer for Liberia says this is a moral issue as well as a legal one. Get the full scoop from this Al-Jazeera video:

Severe unemployment threatens security gains made in the last few years. Photo: Dogon56 (flickr)

Security in Iraq is undoubtedly improving, but rising unemployment threatens to increase instability and worsen corruption, according to Iraq expert Frank Gunter.

Gunter, who's done two tours in Iraq as an economics adviser, points out in a recent op-ed in the New York Times that 51 percent of the population — and an even greater percentage of young people — is either unemployed or underemployed.

Almost half of the country’s labor force is paid by the government from its revenues from petroleum exports. With the exception of agriculture, legitimate private-sector employment is small — by my calculations, about 6 percent of the labor force. Most of the remainder of the Iraqi labor force is either unemployed or working in the underground economy.

Gunter further laments that any business faces either the inefficiencies of the underground economy or the corrupt ministries that regulate them. (Iraq was just listed among the top five most corrupt countries in the world.) The process to register a new business is expensive and complicated — a license costs $2,800 and requires approval from 12 different ministries.

"The potential for private sector job growth is great," Gunter writes. So what needs to be done? The number-one thing, Gunter says, is to make it easier and less expensive to register a new business. He also recommends that provinces, rather than Baghdad, set rules for regulating businesses.

But whatever is decided, the government of Iraq is running out of time. It must either end its hostility toward private businesses — or accept that a sharply growing mass of unemployed will nullify the progress of the last three years.

Transparency International's 2009 Corruption Perception Index is out. Where does your country rank?

What will the growth of the Mongolian mining industry mean for the country's nomadic herders? Photo: Thatcher Cook for Mercy Corps

Mongolia could soon be home to the largest copper mine in the world.

After years of negotiations, Western mining companies Rio Tinto and Ivanhoe are close to reaching an agreement with the Mongolian parliament to develop significantly the Oyu Tolgoi mine. Mineweb reports that the untapped deposit contains 78 billion pounds of copper and 45 million ounces of gold. If all goes to plan, the massive investment would double the size of Mongolia's economy and create thousands of jobs, according to NPR.

The economic crisis has hit Mongolia harder than most countries in East Asia. One in four people are out of work, NPR reports. The country’s nomadic herders – 40 percent of the population – are struggling after the price of cashmere dramatically declined earlier this year (see Manasi Sharma’s Downturn in the Gobi). Now, some are hailing Oyu Tolgoi as an immediate economic fix.

But there are several obvious challenges. First, Mongolia is highly corrupt. It is ranked 102 out of 180 countries in the latest Transparency International index, an annual rating of perceived levels of corruption (defined as the abuse of public office for private gain). Additionally, the editorial in Mineweb suggests that Russia and China may have inordinate influence over Mongolia’s mining industry. Given these two factors, how much will the average Mongolian gain?

Lastly, there are the social implications of this investment to consider. For many nomadic herders, shifting to industrial mining jobs is far from ideal, but there isn’t much else to turn to. People are desperate now that raw cashmere and other materials do not provide a reliable way to feed and clothe families. "They are losing their land, their animals, and even their culture," reported NPR’s Louisa Lim, "for a few specks of gold."

The G-20 is meeting this week in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Chaired by President Barack Obama, the purpose of the summit is to, “review the progress made since the Washington and London Summits and discuss further actions to assure a sound and sustainable recovery from the global financial and economic crisis.” I’ve heard of the G-8, but the G-20? I began to wonder about this alphanumeric soup of organizations. Who are they and what are they concerned with? The following scorecard should help interested followers of this subject keep track of the major players.

The G-6: Organized in 1975 by the finance ministers of Germany and France who were frustrated with the formality and structure of larger international meetings, the G-6 and subsequent evolutions of this body are strictly informal bodies that meet to discuss economic issues of mutual interest. After the creation of the G-8, the term G-6 is now used to refer to the six most populous members of the European Union. The member countries are: the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan

The G-7: Formed in 1976, this is an informal forum for the finance members of seven big industrial economies to discuss economic issues and seek agreement. Member countries include: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States. Now also includes the European Union.

The G-8: An evolution of the G-7, membership grew to include Russia. The European Union is a limited member; it cannot host a meeting or hold the presidency of the body. Members are: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, Russia. European Union (limited member)

The G-8 plus Five: Recognizing the growing influence of other countries, the original group sometimes broadens their meetings by including the Outreach Five. As with all meetings, other countries are sometimes invited to attend. Members: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, Russia. European Union (limited member) Plus: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa.

The G-20: According to their website, “[t]he G-20 was created as a response both to the financial crises of the late 1990s and a growing recognition that key emerging-market countries were not adequately included in the core of global economic discussion and governance.” Where the earlier groups (G-6 through G-8) were organized around the industrialized countries of the world, the G-20 begins to bring emerging economies into the dialog. Their first meeting was in Berlin, Germany. The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the President of the World Bank, plus the chairs of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank, also participate in G-20 meetings on an ex-officio basis.

The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, European Central Bank

The G-33: The name for a group of developing countries that coordinates on trade and economic issues. It was created in order to help group countries which were all facing similar problems and give a unified voice to countries that were traditionally excluded from discussions among the industrialized countries. Members: Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guyana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Laos, Mauritius, Madagascar, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Senegal, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

There are other groups variously labeled as G-8, G-20, G-33, and even N-11 (countries which Goldman Sachs considered in 2005 to have a high potential of becoming the world’s largest economies this century: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam).

One of the best, reliable, sources of information about these groups and their members may be found on the websites of the World Trade Organization and the previously mentioned G-20.

You can Track the ongoing discussions of the Pittsburgh G-20 Summit here. But be prepared for slow page loading. It is a very busy website.

Not a lot is known about North Korea. Westerners are rarely granted permission to enter the country. And we almost never get to see images other than those from state-coordinated photo ops.

But in May, Foreign Policy magazine published seven photos of North Korea taken by documentary photographer Tomas van Houtryve. Pretending to be a businessman looking to open a chocolate factory, van Houtryve toured Pyongyang under the watchful eye of his state-assigned guides. Despite his escorts, van Houtryve covertly snapped photos of life in and around Pyongyang.

The resulting photo essay, "The Land of No Smiles," shows empty streets, somber faces and dimly lit subways. They also offer a glimpse of what van Houtryve calls “emergency capitalism” — factories set up in special economic zones along the North-South border that allow South Korean companies to hire cheap North Korean labor.

Click here to see the photos — and don't forget to read the captions, which are nearly as fascinating as the images they describe.

Tourists snap photos of St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow, Russia. Photo: Fenst (flickr)

A major objective of Global Envision is to explore the relationships between market economies and poverty alleviation. I founded Global Envision because of my own experiences in developing countries where I saw economic development working to create wealth and benefit the people in both Latvia and Poland. These countries had previously been behind the iron curtain and part of the communist world. I have a strong belief that the failure of communism as an economic strategy is testimony to the superiority of a market oriented approach. Consequently, it was with great anticipation that I set out on a trip to visit Russia two weeks ago. I wanted to see what Russia looks and feels like today. What I learned was different from what I expected.

Starting in late July 2009, my wife and I embarked on our first visit to Russia. We were to spend four days in St. Petersburg, five days on the waterways towards Moscow, and three more in Moscow. All of it was on a ship which gave us a single base for the experience. We saw not only the two major cities of Russia but some smaller cities and a couple of villages.

This will not be a travel log, but rather a summary of what I learned about the economic and social changes that have taken place in Russia over the last twenty years. This is based on what I observed and what I heard from the several guides and lecturers that spent the two weeks with us.

It seems that the majority of people in Russia today favor what they had before to what they have today. While a recent poll indicated that 77 percent of Russians acknowledge that the freedom that they have today is a great improvement and to be cherished, they focus more on the lack of a significant safety net. They point to the great disparity between the rich and the poor and the fact that the poor were taken better care of in the past. Until we heard this expressed many times we would not have anticipated it, because what we saw in the streets, particularly in St. Petersburg and Moscow, appears to indicate significant prosperity. There are lots of products on the store shelves, both necessities and very extravagant things. BMW, Lexus, Tiffany and other luxury brands, are prevalent in Moscow. There is a fair amount of new construction of homes, businesses and offices. There appeared to be a great disparity between what we were being told and what we observed. Is a more market based economy helping the Russian people to prosper or is it hurting them?

The answer appears to be that it has benefited a small group immensely but not done much for the majority. Why hasn’t the movement towards a market economy been more generally effective? How they got from where they were twenty or so years ago with virtually no private ownership and an economy run by the government, to one where private ownership prevails was very poorly navigated. They distributed vouchers, worth 10,000 Rubles to the citizens, which they could use however they chose. But there was no education about what the options might be. One of our lecturers, who seemed to be a rational man, said that he ended up selling his voucher to a man for a single U.S. dollar. In the end, the vouchers ended up in the hands of a limited number of folks, who, along with the managers of the state owned businesses, and others in places of power in the bureaucracy, created an oligarchy that controls the government and the economy to this day.

Theoretically, they have a market economy and some small businesses can be started up. But bureaucracy and corruption are so prevalent that I don’t think that people have the sense that they can really participate in the economy. The few in power make it so difficult for others to become entrepreneurs that it isn’t even something that they think about. Opportunities are so limited that they are forgotten.

What they do see and seem to focus on is the impact of all this on the poor, especially older people. There is not much of a social safety net, and those who would have been taken care of under the prior system are struggling under the present one.

Another factor that seems to have a significant impact on why the majority favors the old system over the new one is the disintegration of the Soviet Union. When the cold war was going on the Soviet Union was clearly one of the two super powers in the world. When that all fell apart, starting with the declarations of independence by the Ukraine and Belarus, the position of Russia in the world is not nearly as important. Russians are a proud people and this loss of respect is deeply felt. While this major change in their world is not directly related to the change in their economic system it does seem to impact the majority’s preference for the old over the new.

It was a disappointment to me to learn that the potential for a free market to benefit their country and all of their people does not appear to be seen by most people in Russia today. As is true for all countries, what the situation is today is not fixed. It is obvious to me that Russia is still in a period of major flux and it could move towards more favorable opportunities for their people in the future. However, from all that I have learned, I am not very optimistic.

Many African countries, like Madagascar pictured here, are increasingly leasing land to foreign firms, but critics argue the deals are exploitative. Photo: goukley (flickr)

A million hectares in Uganda. Some 690,000 hectares in Sudan. And 500,000 hectares in Tanzania. These are just a few of the numbers that have appeared on the bargaining table in the past year as foreign firms scramble for land leases in Africa.

The Independent takes a look at the phenomenon known as "land grabbing," or the recent trend of foreign governments and corporations leasing or purchasing large swaths of land in poorer countries to grow food or other crops for export back to their home country. The phenomenon is most prevalent in Africa, but leases have been sought elsewhere, including the Philippines and Pakistan.

[The sudden increase in "land grabbing"] has its roots in the food crisis of 2007/8, when prices of rice, wheat and other cereals skyrocketed across the world, triggering riots from Haiti to Senegal. The price spike also led food-growing countries to slap export tariffs on staple crops to minimize the amounts that left their countries. That tightened the supply still further, meaning food prices were driven up more by a situation of policy-created scarcity than by supply and demand.

This situation also made many rich countries that are reliant on massive food imports question one of the fundamentals of the global economy: the idea that every country should concentrate on its best products and then trade. Suddenly having unimaginable quantities of cash from oil was not enough to guarantee you all the food you needed. The oil sheikhs of the Gulf states found that food imports had doubled in cost over less than five years. In the future it might get even worse. You could no longer rely on regional and global markets, they concluded. The rush to grab land began.

Investors say they will bring needed infrastructure, technology and employment, but in some cases, these investments have been met with resistance. Riots erupted earlier this year in Madagascar, where almost half the children under age five don't get enough to eat. The riots were driven in part by the news that the government had given South Korean firm Daewoo a 99 year lease over 1.3 million hectares of land. On an area amounting to half the island's arable land, Daewoo planned to grow maize and palm oil solely for export to South Korea. The deal fell through when the riots forced the president, Marc Ravalomanana, out of office, BBC News reports.

Nevertheless, land grabbing is poised to continue at a rapid pace, according to The Independent:

The government of President Ravalomanana became the first in the world to be toppled because of what the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization recently described as "land grabbing." The Daewoo deal is only one of more than 100 land deals which have, over the past 12 months, seen massive tracts of cultivable farmland across the globe bought up by wealthy countries and international corporations. The phenomenon is accelerating at an alarming rate, with an area half the size of Europe's farmland targeted in just the past six months.

Critics question the truthfulness of the investors' promises. The head of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Jacques Diouf, warned that land grabbing is simply neo-colonialism, and Africa will again be exploited for its resources while seeing little direct revenue.

The Independent offers an analogy from international development policy consultant Mark Weston for understanding the current nature of the leases and what makes them magnets for controversy:

Imagine if China, following a brief negotiation with a British government desperate for foreign cash after the collapse of the economy, bought up the whole of Wales, replaced most of its inhabitants with Chinese workers, turned the entire country into an enormous rice field, and sent all the rice produced there for the next 99 years back to China.

Imagine that neither the evicted Welsh nor the rest of the British public knew what they were getting in return for this, having to content themselves with vague promises that the new landlords would upgrade a few ports and roads and create jobs for local people.

Land grabbing is just one aspect of the current discussion about agricultural development in Africa. When U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Kenya earlier this month she voiced interest in Africa's agricultural potential: "More and more, the world will look to Africa to be its breadbasket, and I hope that when the world looks ... it is Africans and African farmers who will profit from becoming the world's breadbasket."

Photo: blentely(flickr)

We may be in the midst of global recession, but if countries react by curbing their trade with each other, it will only hurt the poorest among them.

That's the gist of the message delivered by Pascal Lamy, director-general of the World Trade Organization, in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

History tells us that no poor country has ever become wealthy without trade, Moreover, many developing country success stories — Singapore, South Korea, Chile, China and Malaysia, to name only a few — have, in recent decades, seen their national incomes grow by a percentage point or more per year as a result of open trade policies than would [not] have been the case had they remained closed. The extra funds generated during this period have enabled them to respond to the crisis with stimulus packages that have prevented the crisis from turning into a protracted recession with its inevitable human costs.

In 2005, the WTO adopted an initiative called "Aid for Trade" to support and encourage trade. The initiative does two things: It funds infrastructure projects like roads and electrical grids, and trains exporters on how to comply with the safety and quality standards of other countries.

This week the WTO is convening in Geneva with select development banks and aid organizations for Aid for Trade's annual review. In his Wall Street Journal opinion piece Lamy tells us that, "we have to make sure [Aid for Trade] is more and more effective in helping developing countries overcome their economic difficulties. It's what people expect from us today."

The collapse of Iceland's three largest banks earlier this year sent ripples through the country's economy. In time the bank's collapse led to high inflation rates, protests, rising unemployment, and eventually, a resignations by many government officials. This Wall Street Journal video takes a closer look at Iceland's economic crisis, and how Icelanders are fairing under the country's new economic reality.

"Greed is ok when you let others profit from it, but greed for oneself is bad, it makes you ill," the Dalai Lama said in an interview with Welt Online. Photo: Giandomenico Ricci (flickr)

At the beginning of July, two influential religious and spiritual leaders made statements within days of each other about the financial crisis and the responsibility of the wealthy to help the poor: Pope Benedict XVI and the Dalai Lama.

In the past month we have watched the world's wealthiest and most powerful meet to discuss the economic crisis and the future for the international community's poorest members. The WTO warned of the dangers of protectionism while meeting in Geneva. The UN announced that the number of hungry people now exceeds one billion worldwide. And the G-8 announced a $20-billion commitment to fight hunger when they convened in Italy for their annual summit. The comments by the Pope and the Dalai Lama seem particularly relevant considering these recent events.

On July 7, a letter written by Pope Benedict XVI was sent to all Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, entitled "Charity in Truth." In the letter the Pope questioned the value of today's corporations.

Today's international economic scene, marked by grave deviations and failures, requires a profoundly new way of understanding human enterprise. Without doubt, one of the greatest risks for business is that they are almost exclusively answerable to their investors, thereby limited in their social value.

Earlier in that same week, the Dalai Lama was interviewed by the German news site, Welt Online. In the interview the Dalai Lama talked about the role he sees for corporations and the wealthy to make a positive difference for the world's poor. When questioned about globalization, the Dalai Lama responded:

I am essentially a supporter of globalization. In the past societies and countries could seal themselves off from the rest of the world, but today this has become impossible. When we search for organizations that have the capacity and ability to improve our world, global companies are at the top of the list. In particular integrated global corporations are in an ideal position to support developing countries to close the gap to leading national economies.

He also talked about greed as a root cause of the financial crisis, but was careful to note that wealth on its own "is not necessarily a bad thing."

Wealth is not necessarily a bad thing when it has been earned in an honest manner and neither other individuals nor the environment suffered for it. As Buddhists we recognize that wealth is a basic prerequisite for a happy life. But a billionaire also only has ten fingers. He can fit three or four rings on each finger, but that would look weird. The satisfaction many millionaires who don’t share their wealth have in their heads is fictitious and not real. Rich people should help reduce poverty.

Amid the flurry of black suits, interpreters and diplomatic cordiality we might usually associate with discussions of trade and economic policy, the sentiments expressed by Pope Benedict XVI and the Dalai Lama offer additional views about wealth and responsibility that are worthy of reflection.

A group of boys fish beside the resident garbage dump in Equatorial Guinea. Photo: John & Mel Kots (Flicker)

Equatorial Guinea is, to most, a relatively unknown country squeezed between Cameroon and Gabon on Africa’s eastern coast. But this tiny country with a spotty past is a rarity in today's economic climate. The New Yorker's Steve Coll recently traveled to Equatorial Guinea and reports that somewhat amazingly, Equatorial Guinea's economy is relatively stable.

Coll’s short piece is accompanied by photos, which are perhaps the most effective way to communicate his point: That the citizens of Equatorial Guinea are finally reaping the benefits that 20 years of oil revenue — wealth that had only been shared among the country's political elites until very recently.

Equatorial Guinea is by no means a success story yet, as many citizens still don’t have access to potable water and more than 70 percent live below the poverty line.

Perhaps Coll is prematurely hopeful, but the modest economic gains made Equatorial Guinea amid a global economic downturn are worthy of notice nonetheless.