(Click the map to see a bigger version.)
Surely one of the oddest things about disparities between poor countries (where "they have less") and rich countries (where "we have more") is that -- from fresh produce in India (40% of which rots before it gets to market) to energy in Nigeria (which leads Africa in oil exports but struggles to keep the power on) -- the poorer countries often supply the richer. Such patterns make me dissatisfied with an approach to global development that focuses on disparity of resources; rather, it seems that the biggest need is for institutions (government, business or otherwise) to transform resources into income.

Nowhere does this seem more obvious than in places like Afghanistan, a terribly poor, underserved place where even its basic crop -- opium -- is not a legal option. At the same time, as profiled in the New York Times yesterday and at the Center for Global Development today, the developing world is woefully undersupplied with morphine and other legitimate painkilling opiates to ease suffering for those with chronic health problems. Despite the potential for massive, cheap supply from Afghani farmers, this option is denied (or at least highly discouraged). Rather than building institutions, know-how and supply links between Afghani opium farmers and end-users in poor countries, U.S. agencies like the DEA and USAID have instead concentrated on destroying poppy crops.

To my mind, this is a prime example of misplaced, wasteful aid priorities. Suppressing a local livelihood that could lead to development at home (Afghanistan) while easing suffering abroad, officials in Afghanistan hurt their own efforts while closing off a potential solution for global health needs elsewhere. We can't expect to make much progress while burning the candle on both ends.