Haligonian Barb Stegemann has been in the media a lot lately talking about her initiative to save the world one perfume bottle at a time by encouraging farmers to produce perfume ingredients for her company The 7 Virtues.
Having recently expanded into Rwanda, Stegemann emphasizes that, although she runs a for-profit business, not a charity, her efforts represent unequivocal progress for Rwandans. Members of the media appear uninterested in asking whether this is actually the case.
Though I fully support assisting people plagued by violence, I find Stegemann’s approach typical of situations when uninformed Western interests enter low-income countries like Rwanda.
According to Stegemann, for example, the country’s leadership is “extraordinary.”
Yet a multitude of recent scholarship on Rwanda paints a dramatically different picture.
The current regime is authoritarian at best, dictatorial at worst. Predications about Rwanda’s political future range from quite cautious to downright pessimistic. One scholar sees worrisome similarities between the current leadership and those who ruled the country when violence erupted in the 1990s.
The country’s rural poor tend to view their government and its commitment to unity and reconciliation with suspicion. There is far too little sharing of political power, and economic resources are being concentrated in fewer hands.
Also according to Stegeman, Rwanda’s women have become pivotal in the political process. And this is exactly what the still male-dominated leadership wants outsiders to believe.
In reality, Rwandan women have worked hard and achieved some gains, including increased respect from family and community members, but there has been little in the way of improvement regarding formal political participation.
Women have better representation in government, but given the authoritarian nature of the state, they appear to have very limited power in these new roles. The legislative gains that Stegemann purports have been few.
And because most women who took such positions had previously been leading women’s civil society organizations, these once relatively powerful pro-women groups are now less effective.
The still male-dominated government, moreover, regularly uses the façade of a pro-women movement to gain support both internally and abroad to further its agenda of heavy-handed, elite-focused development as it harasses the media, suppresses dissent and crushes political opposition.
Stegemann appears to have big plans in Rwanada. During a recent interview, she explained that when she goes to “nations with serious war and strife,” her goal is to “shine a light on them and empower them.” A tall order, to be sure.
The anthropological perspective highlights that such an undertaking should be based on in-depth knowledge of a country. So, if her vision is more than marketing-speak, then Stegemann needs to know a lot more about Rwanda before deciding whether to play a role in shaping its future.
There is already reason to think that Stegemann has failed to recognize one major pitfall. Rwanada is a food-deficit country. It has great difficulty feeding itself, which is why chronic childhood malnutrition remains at 43 percent.
A primary cause of food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa is the use of productive farmland to grow non-food crops for export—the exact model Stegemann utilizes. As she explained in a recent CTV interview, Rwandans are better off producing patchouli for her than potatoes to feed themselves.
A bottle of “Patchouli of Rwanda,” furthermore, sells for $70 at Hudson’s Bay. What percentage of that likely ends up in the hands of Rwandan farmers?
I welcome a correction from Stegemann on this, but if I’m correct, anthropologists call this wealth extraction. Only the wage remains in Rwanda, which is meager compared to the global market value of what is being taken out of the country.
In short, the media’s adoration of Stegemann needs a little counterbalance. My hope is that readers will understand that good intentions are simply not enough when Western entrepreneurs take their ideals abroad.
Rylan Higgins is an assistant professor of anthropology at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax.
Related Stories
On Rwanda
This article appears in Sep 25 – Oct 1, 2014.
Good article! These businesses need to stop exploiting people in impoverished countries to gain profits under the guise of charity. I agree, potatoes, not patchouli.
Growing patchouli provides an income to the farmers, thats been established. Now if these same farmers switched to potatoes then where are their pay checks going to come from? From the poor starving masses that can’t afford to buy food at the local markets hence them being starving.
“A bottle of “Patchouli of Rwanda,” furthermore, sells for $70 at Hudson’s Bay. What percentage of that likely ends up in the hands of Rwandan farmers?”
Good question- Maybe one that should have been addressed in the article? So is this an actual example of wealth extraction or is it just a fictionalized opinion?
“One scholar sees worrisome similarities between the current leadership and those who ruled the country when violence erupted in the 1990s.”
One scholar, eh? One whole scholar.
I did enjoy this article but am still left with the opinion that Barb Stegemann is doing much more good than harm and will continue bringing positive change to a country that certainly needs it.
And Mr Higgins, do you enjoy coffee or tea?
How about we let the Rwandan farmers make the decision for themselves to grow whatever crops they choose? Aren’t they adults capable of making their own decisions? Did it occur to Mr Sociology Professor that perhaps the farmers voluntarily chose to deal with this perfume company because they can make more money dealing with her than they could by growing potatoes? No, nobody is allowed to make money, Rwanda farmers should stay poor, subsistence, hand-to mouth peasant serfs, that’s “sustainable” development right? God forbid we should have foreign investment, trade and capitalism.
Two of Rylan Higgin’s misunderstandings involve the positive net social benefits of most businesses and the malleable role of land in farm production. For a good African perspective on the former see Ann Bernstein’s “The Case for Business in Developing Economies.” If businesses had to take the anthropological approach he is suggesting then poor countries would likely remain poor for a very long time.
Regarding land, Rwanda has the same area of arable land as the Netherlands but only two thirds as many people. The Netherlands are the World’s second largest exporter of food and agricultural products yet on a per capita basis the Dutch only have 60% as much agricultural land as Rwanda.
Rwanda has difficulty feeding itself? So does the rest of the World. We don’t grow bananas in Nova Scotia, instead we work jobs, (like that of assistant professor ) to earn money. We use the money to buy the bananas from other countries, like those with a tropical climate. Rwanda has the ability to use their capital ( land, workforce, etc), to produce perfume, thereby enabling it to buy food instead of producing it. This is called comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is how the World standard of living increases, someday maybe enough to end poverty. So, should Nova Scotia start growing bananas, and let Rwanda produce ships, lumber and seafood? We can’t feed ourselves, so we had best take up growing food? No, that would be silly. I understand the author has concern for the greater good, but governments controlling food production has had a rotten history. Communism didn’t work to supply food. The farmers got lazy and let the land go. They grew only enough for themselves to live, and had no concern for others. Profit drives people to contribute in positive ways toward the community,and comparative advantage increases profit, both as much here as in Rwanda. Is SMU offering some free Anthropology courses? No? Any computer scientists at Google tilling fields in California? Let Rwanda use the best of what it has, as the rest of the World does.
Ryan
bang on. somehow the spin doctor makes it seem like a charity case and she is saving the world and such a great person by HELPING out these farmers around the world. when anyone else does it they line up around the block to complain about exploitation. She is a great PR spin doctor. 100 years ago I think they travelled with the circus or sold snake oil
I welcome counter balance, and challenge. For some reason, Ms. Stegemann isn’t challenged on anything. I’m not exactly sure why? Maybe because she’s a woman? Not totally sure. But what she’s doing isn’t charity. Empowering? Maybe, but to what degree? And empowerment does little if you are starving.