That sentence is just more question begging. "Running things the way it is done in the West (i.e. encouraging 'investment' by Western firms) is good, therefore a program which furthers that end is a good one."
The burden of proof is on the individual claiming that agricultural investment by Western firms into Africa is a negative, given that it's commonly believed that FDI is a good thing and African governments routinely and actively seek out FDI as part of their policy. So I don't believe that to be question begging.
The program is supposed to improve agricultural yields and they claim it did not. Is the program just about helping Western investments? So the investments result in unchanged yields?
What I have said was that the measures taken are means of attracting direct investments from Western countries. As an example, I've given the Sakhalin-2 project, where the Russian state essentially raided away billions of Western investments to the benefits of their chosen oligarchs.
What I have implied here, in case it is not clear, was that the Jacobin either willfully misinterprets facts or makes constant pleas to emotion of sheltered Westerners to sell their store-brand let-them-eat-cake progressivism.
1. I didn't say they were wrong, I said facts are being misinterpreted. That means that even if we assume the facts in the article are true, the interpretation of those facts isn't being done objectively.
2. If you are going to talk quantitative, please start with a concrete definition of the KPI and how you calculate utility and cost.
If you are looking for concrete examples of how you are being manipulated by the article, then to name just a few example:
- The article drops analytical rigor just at the exact moment when it benefits their narrative. For example, the 2020 goal of the initiative was a projection based on certain assumptions. To say if the project has failed or not according to those projections, the assumptions must hold. Funnily enough the article doesn't list those assumptions anywhere or address whether those assumption still hold true, or even if they were valid to begin with.
- The article uses language to imply malice, where there is none. For example: "Moreover, freedom of choice is restricted: in AGRA projects in Kenya, small-scale farmers are not allowed to decide for themselves which corn seed they plant and which fertilizers and pesticides they use on their fields." Gasp, horror. An investor wants you to follow their rules. How dare they. Jacobin should be on the barricades that VCs don't allow you to spend their money on a new Porsche, because that limits your startups freedom of choice!
- The article talks about agroecology as if it's as of now a viable alternative. Unless there's tons of investor capital lined up behind it, it really isn't. In fact, these aren't even comparable things.