2005 has placed global poverty higher up the political agenda than at any time since Bob Geldof launched Band Aid in 1984. But apart from the high profile banging of drums have we made any real progress?The conventional wisdom about global poverty goes in cycles. 30 years ago, improving agriculture and food yields was the craze, along with large scale infrastructure projects. Then in the 1980’s it was market liberalisation and privatisation. Now the focus is on health and education, although wiser heads are already starting to talk again about agriculture and infrastructure.There is however one elephant in the poverty debate chatroom. The three pillars to the Make Poverty History campaign were “trade justice”, increased aid and debt relief. But none of the countries that have successfully attacked poverty have done so following this recipe. Take China, Thailand, India or even Bangladesh. All have made huge strides in reducing poverty. But economic growth and not “debt, aid and trade” has made this possible. The hard figures bear this out. In 1975 GDP per capita was higher in Sub-Saharan Africa than East Asia. Since then it has grown by over 6% per annum in the latter, whilst contracting at 0.2% per annum in the former. Over approximately the same period, the number living in extreme poverty has risen to nearly half the population in Africa whilst falling from 58% to 15% in East Asia.Achieving economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa is not easy. Corrupt post-colonial leadership and geographical conditions have undeniably made it much harder for the growth “miracles” that have sprung up in much of Asia to take root. But despite these disadvantages, there have been some successes. Landlocked Botswana has been second only to China in GDP growth per head in the last 20 years.Agriculture is a key factor. Most countries that have been successful economically have done so on the back of agricultural sectors that have been strong enough to feed their people. China’s growth started with the dismantling of the communes by Deng Xiaoping after Mao’s death. Freed to grow and keep their own crops, Chinese peasants generated massive improvements in agricultural productivity. Countries which have had the most “pro-poor” economic growth have also tended to be those where the growth has been in sectors such as agriculture that are actually used by the poor. Here Africa faces some real disadvantages. As Jeffrey Sachs points out, even as far back as 1980 harsh geography has meant that cereal yields in Africa were half those in East Asia. Whilst a large proportion of crop-growing land is irrigated in Asia, in Africa more than 90% of crops depend on rainfall. Climate change is making this problem worse. A less densely populated population living in relative isolation from coastal trading ports has also made it harder for African countries to benefit from global trade.The biggest danger in this year’s debate on Africa has been the way that some of the language of “trade justice” has been so hostile to free trade. There is indeed evidence that over-hasty liberalisation, often as part of World Bank conditions, has damaged infant industries and agriculture in countries like Ghana. It is also true that many Asian tigers protected their markets in the early stages. But none of this contradicts the fundamental truth that the countries which have achieved the best economic growth (and made the biggest strides in combating poverty) have been those that have had more integration with the global trading system rather than less.Trade “justice” campaigners ignore the fact that African countries already benefit from generous trade preferences which mean that, for many agricultural products, they can export to the EU on privileged terms which means they do not have to compete with more efficient South American or Asian exporters. For many years this has meant African sugar exporters can get three times the world price on suger exports to the EU, a benefit that will ironically end following a WTO ruling in favour of Brazil.The benefits of liberalisation can also be seen from Lesotho, known as Africa’s economic growth tiger. It has had one of the best growth performances in Africa, thanks partly to being able to attract Taiwanese investors into its clothing and textiles sector. Contrast this to North Korea or Burma, the two most closed economies in the world, which manage the unique feat of being the only Asian countries that compete with those in sub-Saharan Africa to be the poorest in the world.Aid workers in sub-Saharan Africa say that improving economic opportunities is the only long term way to tackle poverty. Anti-retroviral drugs for AIDS sufferers don’t work unless the patient is receiving proper nutrition. But proper nutrition isn’t possible unless people have an economic (often agricultural) livelihood. I have seen drug distribution programmes in Africa hampered because food given out to HIV positive children, necessary for the medicines to work, is taken away from them by mothers to share out amongst a hungry family.In August I visited a village in Northern Kenya where they are managing to reduce poverty. How? By massively increasing the yields on the maize they grow. Proper use of fertiliser and improved fallows have more than doubled their yield. Farmers there are giving part of the extra crop to the local school to make sure children are fed properly, because concentration is difficult when stomachs are empty. The reality of development is that although it is intellectually easier to find simple themes and trumpet them as “the answer”, in fact a complicated web of things need to be put right to reduce poverty. Economic opportunity, including food productivity, is at the heart of this alongside the need for clean water, roads, schools and basic healthcare.For the poorest, secure contract and property rights are also necessary to create the climate for domestic economic growth. In rural areas, allowing ownership of land to be easily registered and securely enforced is critical. Along with stable economic policies, these factors have been at the heart of Botswana’s success.Elimination of debt, increased aid and fairer trade terms for the developing world can of course make a contribution to development. But without getting the basics of running a modern, open economy none of these will work. For this it is necessary to see genuine long-term commitment to creating the conditions fro stable economic growth from governing elites in Africa, something Western governments can influence but not control. If struggling African countries really want to break out of poverty, they should look less to well-intentioned Western campaigners, and more to Asian tigers like China or African tigers like Botswana.