100 Book Reviews 
some degree of coherence is retained by the fact that authors often refer to 
points made in previous chapters,and by the well-ordered layout of the 
book. 
The Third World does not feature as an area of interest in this book — 
despite the fact that the majority of the world's major conflicts are fought in 
diis arena! This probably has to do with the backgrounds of the 
contributors, who are predominantly American, with many having held 
senior positions in governmental agencies in the United States. However it 
is also likely that some of the authors would contend that Third World 
conflicts are primarily symptomatic of global super-power conflicts in any 
case. Yet the book still has much to offer us in this part of the world as it 
provides a great deal of insight into the processes and mechanics of conflict 
generation and ways to seek its resolution. It is a useful and practical 
contribution to the serious task of seeking solutions and alternatives to the 
often violent conflicts that continue to plague our world. 
Reviewed by Nigel Hall, School of Social Work, Harare. 
Social Welfare in Africa, John Dixon (ed), Croom Helm, London, 1987 
(358pp, £27,50 hbk). 
I approached die review of diis publication, advertised as a comparative 
social welfare volume focusing on Africa, with some anticipation and 
interest. There is no doubt about the need for more published and 
accessible information about social security and personal social service 
systems in Africa. In addition the need for more comparative analyses from 
which models can be derived and built and used for future planning is more 
man dear. 
Social Welfare in Africa is the third volume of a six volume series, edited 
by John Dixon, which looks at comparative social welfare in Africa, Asia, the 
Middle East, Latin America, under socialism and in developed market 
economies. In this volume on Africa, for each of the ten country studies 
presented, the overall format for each chapter is the same and includes the 
welfare system environment, die welfare system an overview, the aged, 
children and youdis, die handicapped, needy families, die sick and injured, 
die unemployed, an assessment of die welfare system, and references and 
further reading. Each country is presented as a separate chapter and the only 
point of active comparison undertaken is this common framework of 
presentation of information — and even diis framework is only die very 
general framework in which specific approaches to information are men 
taken by each chapter audior. 
As noted earlier, ten countries are presented using the framework 
indicated, all of diese countries are from sub-Saharan Africa, only one is a 
Francophone country and none are Lusophone. In the absence of any
Book Revieios 101 
explanation of the reasons for the choice of countries included I seriously 
doubt the wisdom of calling this collection of country studies Social Welfare 
in Africa. Would it not be more honest to call this collection Social Welfare 
in Sub-Saharan English Speaking Africa? It certainly would, with the 
exception of the Ivory Coast and possibly Ethiopia, have been a more 
accurate indication of what is contained in the volume. This general point is 
even more important because of the lack of an active comparative analysis, 
as mentioned earlier. Were these countries to be seen as atypical, or typical 
of certain systems, are they die ones which have definitive policies, or on 
which information of a coherent nature is available, or was it simply that the 
editor could identify resource people in these countries? Or does the 
explanation lie in a sentence from die Preface (no page number) 
"It is pointless to attempt to compare countries that are fundamentally 
different, hence the regional focus of this tighdy structured andiology." 
The lack of any odier explanation of die choice of countries is a serious 
ommission — furthermore I wonder if die editor means to imply diat there 
are no fundamental differences within the 'region' of Africa? What is the 
point of comparative analysis if we cannot compare different approaches, 
and their effects, as they emerge from different histories and ideologies? 
The ten countries presented here — Ethiopia, Ghanajvory Coast, Kenya, 
Mauritius, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe — are 
presented with a wealth of information, almost in too much detail in some 
cases. This weakh of information is very valuable, but a litde difficult to 
digest in die manner presented, particularly in die absence of any odier 
comparative framework than die common chapter outline. I am forced to 
wonder what the role of the editor is in a publication of this kind, as the 
editor seems hardly to impinge on the publication after defining die initial 
oudine. At the very least I would have expected an introduction and 
conclusion diat assisted the reader to develop a framework for the analysis of 
die contents, pointing out similariries and differences, particularly successful 
or problematic areas, the influence of ideology and history, the different 
options recognised in view of similar histories, emerging trends for social 
welfare in Africa, and so on. How much more valuable would this 
publication have been if this had been done, and how much more seriously 
comparative in its nature (and in terms of its promise). Can we seriously call 
a selection of contributions by different authors on different countries (in die 
editor's words an 'andiology') a comparative study simply because the 
articles are included in one publication, and are presented using a common 
framework? Does not the notion of comparison imply that some 
conclusions or trends would be drawn out, and indeed compared. Doesn't 
die notion of social welfare in Africa imply that die selection of countries to 
be included would have defined criteria and run the full gamut of 
backgrounds and present positions in Africa? Indeed in other writings by
102 Book Reviews 
Dixon (for example, Dixon and Schuerell, 1987) the comparative element 
has been much more pronounced and the information presented, therefore, 
that much more useful. 
There are also a number of smaller items of format that need attention 
and were distracting to this reviewer. In particular a map of Africa showing 
the geographical location, and perhaps other graphic information, of the 
countries presented was missed. The length of the presentations varied quite 
considerably, and widi litde relation to die size or (dare I say it) importance 
of the country — for example, Mauritius and Ghana use well over 40 pages 
each while Nigeria and Ediiopia barely 20 pages each. The appendices too 
are presented in a rather strange manner, widiout any explanation or real 
reference to diem, and using whole and half pages widiout any explanation 
for mis. Happily, however, die volume is indexed quite dioroughly. 
In brief dien, diis volume of writings on die social welfare systems of a 
selection of African countries is useful and valuable in die wealdi of 
information it presents. However, diere are serious limitations to its being 
presented as being of a comparative nature and a more explicit drawing out 
of some diemes, trends, conclusions, etc in an introductory and concluding 
chapter (at die very least) would have made die publication, in my opinion, a 
more useful text 
Reviewed by Brigid Willmore, Journal of Social Development in Africa, 
Harare. 
References 
Dixon J and Schuerell R (1987) "Social Security in Australia and die 
United States: A Comparison of Value Premises and Practices" in The 
Journal of International and Comparative Social Welfare, Vol HI, 1 
and 2, Spring and Fall, 1987. 
Plantations and Plantation Workers, J P Sajhau and J Von Muralt, ILO, 
Geneva, 1987 (207pp, Sfrs 27,50). 
This book has been written by two senior members of ILO and published by 
mat organisation. It follows the previous approach of ILO reports on 
plantations and is basically descriptive, depending on questionnaires sent to 
countries combined widi case studies. The book reviews die origins and 
concepts of plantations but skirts around controversy. 
The trends in production, consumption and die price of plantation crops 
are well described. The general pattern of increasing production combined 
widi static or declining consumption leading to declining prices is 
documented. The export dependency of countries on primary commodity 
plantation crops is described, but die vulnerability diese countries face due 
to die vagaries of international prices is neglected. The efforts to stabilise 
prices dirough International Agreements are described, diough die oudook