Friday, March 12, 2010
Diminishing development
The Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University is asking the perfectly reasonably question of what the recent financial crisis – along with the trend to increasing food and fuel prices – means for development. Unfortunately its reimagining development project moves even further away from the notion of development as economic transformation. Instead it emphasises such factors as behaviour, values and individual resilience.
Labels: development
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Top UN panel savages me on green economy
Most people find watching themselves on video odd but this item from BBC World television (only broadcast outside Britain) is truly weird. It holds me up as a critic of the “green economy” (which is fine) only to have me knocked down by a top panel at a United Nations conference in Indonesia including a Nobel peace prize winner, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme, the Indonesian trade minister and the Norwegian environment minister. Sadly I was filmed in London rather than Bali and I had no chance to reply to the critics.
Labels: development, economics, environment
Thursday, March 04, 2010
On missing baby girls
In 1990 Amartya Sen, who has since won the Nobel prize in economics, wrote an article in the New York Review of Books arguing there were 100m “missing” baby girls in the third world. From an examination of statistics that many baby girls in poorer countries died as a result of poorer medical care or even deliberate infanticide. It is strange that two decades later the same story should make the cover of the Economist with both the lead editorial and a substantial feature.
It is of course right that girls should have the same access to public health resources as boys and that men and women should have equal rights. However, something odd is going on with the recent heavy emphasis by establishment figures on gender equality in poorer countries.
As I argued in my recent spiked review defending abundance something odd seems to be going on. The aspiration to achieve material equality between the rich countries and the poor has become subdued. Instead there is a widespread discussion of gender inequality - and this in turn is often understood in terms of the authorities intervening in family life to stop men abusing women.
As a result tackling inequality is redefined as a problem of male abuse rather than one of a lack of economic development. From this perspective the relatively recent mainstream preoccupation with gender inequality is more problematic than it first appears.
It is of course right that girls should have the same access to public health resources as boys and that men and women should have equal rights. However, something odd is going on with the recent heavy emphasis by establishment figures on gender equality in poorer countries.
As I argued in my recent spiked review defending abundance something odd seems to be going on. The aspiration to achieve material equality between the rich countries and the poor has become subdued. Instead there is a widespread discussion of gender inequality - and this in turn is often understood in terms of the authorities intervening in family life to stop men abusing women.
As a result tackling inequality is redefined as a problem of male abuse rather than one of a lack of economic development. From this perspective the relatively recent mainstream preoccupation with gender inequality is more problematic than it first appears.
Labels: development, inequality, review, spiked, women
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Global success in information technology
The global statistics on information and communication technology give some of the clearest indications of the benefits of economic growth for the mass of humanity. According to a flyer on The World in 2009 (PDF) from the International Telecommunications Union some 4.6 billion people, two-thirds of the world’s population, had a mobile phone by the end of the year. This compares with about 10% in 2000. Also last year: more than a quarter of the world’s population were using the internet, more than a quarter of the world’s population had access to a computer at home and three quarters of households had a television. Of course it would be even better if access to such technologies was universal but the trend is clearly in the right direction.
Labels: consumption, development, technology
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
For sprawling cities
James Heartfield has an article on the newgeography website celebrating what he calls dispersed settlements and others deride as urban sprawl. He concludes that:
“Far from being necessarily de-humanising, dispersed settlements are an opportunity for an enlargement of the human spirit. To imagine that there is anything in physical proximity that is essential to community is to confuse animal warmth with civilisation, and an unfortunately deterministic view of architecture’s relationship to society. But worst of all it misses out the great alternatives that are waiting to be made in new communities across the country.”
This is a welcome contrast to the romanticised vision of slums contained in a recent article (truncated) on “how slums can save the planet” by Stewart Brand in Prospect. Brand’s argument was in turn similar to Kevin McCloud’s recent documentary on Mumbai which I suggested might be the dumbest programme ever (see 15 January 2010 post).
“Far from being necessarily de-humanising, dispersed settlements are an opportunity for an enlargement of the human spirit. To imagine that there is anything in physical proximity that is essential to community is to confuse animal warmth with civilisation, and an unfortunately deterministic view of architecture’s relationship to society. But worst of all it misses out the great alternatives that are waiting to be made in new communities across the country.”
This is a welcome contrast to the romanticised vision of slums contained in a recent article (truncated) on “how slums can save the planet” by Stewart Brand in Prospect. Brand’s argument was in turn similar to Kevin McCloud’s recent documentary on Mumbai which I suggested might be the dumbest programme ever (see 15 January 2010 post).
Labels: cities, development, footprint, television
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The anxious elite
Anyone who still believes the global elite consists of fire-breathing market fundamentalists should look at the programme for this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos. One of the main themes of this year’s event at the exclusive Swiss ski resort was sustainability with other sessions on business ethics, the economics of happiness, rethinking values and the Millennium Development Goals. Among the speakers were staunch critics of growth, including Jim Wallis and the Archbishop of Canterbury, while Stewart Wallis, the executive director of the New Economics Foundation, chaired a session on rethinking economics.
An account of the event by Jeremy Warner of the Daily Telegraph can be found here.
An account of the event by Jeremy Warner of the Daily Telegraph can be found here.
Labels: development, ethics, happiness, sustainability
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Global poverty "plummeting"
A new study by two prominent economists argues that global poverty has plummeted since 1970. Maxim Pinkovskiy of MIT and Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia university use the percentage of the population living on less than $1 a day (in 2000 dollars adjusted for purchasing power parity) as their benchmark. According to their article on the Vox website:
“World poverty is falling. This column presents new estimates of the world’s income distribution and suggests that world poverty is disappearing faster than previously thought. From 1970 to 2006, poverty fell by 86% in South Asia, 73% in Latin America, 39% in the Middle East, and 20% in Africa. Barring a catastrophe, there will never be more than a billion people in poverty in the future history of the world.”
Economists may argue over inequality but in relation to absolute poverty it seems hard to deny the long-term trend is for a substantial fall.
“World poverty is falling. This column presents new estimates of the world’s income distribution and suggests that world poverty is disappearing faster than previously thought. From 1970 to 2006, poverty fell by 86% in South Asia, 73% in Latin America, 39% in the Middle East, and 20% in Africa. Barring a catastrophe, there will never be more than a billion people in poverty in the future history of the world.”
Economists may argue over inequality but in relation to absolute poverty it seems hard to deny the long-term trend is for a substantial fall.
Labels: development, inequality
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Haiti needs development
Rob Killick explains on his blog how economic development could have hugely reduced the human impact of the earthquake in Haiti. Rich countries are far better able to cope with such events than poor ones.
Labels: aid, development, Latin America
Friday, January 15, 2010
The dumbest TV programme ever?
After last week’s vilest ever television programme here is a contender for dumbest ever. Kevin McCloud, know in Britain for presenting television programmes on architecture, finds wisdom and happiness in Dharavi, the Mumbai slum reputed to be the largest in Asia.
He argued in his Channel 4 documentary that despite the poverty he sees it as a haven of community, safety (sometimes), high employment, sustainability and low impact living. In this he follows Prince Charles who said last year that: “I strongly believe that the West has much to learn from societies and places which, while sometimes poorer in material terms, are infinitely richer in the way in which they live and organise themselves as communities.”
One example of McCloud’s foolishness should suffice. The first part of the programme looks at Dharavi’s vast recycling operation and marvels at how people who are so poor can be so environmentally aware. Does he think Mumbai’s slum-dweller’s have been attending Greenpeace meetings or reading Guardian columns?
What should have been clear is that recycling is so big in Dharavi because of its poverty rather than despite it. Many people are so poor they have little choice but to make a living doing the dirty and back-breaking work of sorting garbage.
He argued in his Channel 4 documentary that despite the poverty he sees it as a haven of community, safety (sometimes), high employment, sustainability and low impact living. In this he follows Prince Charles who said last year that: “I strongly believe that the West has much to learn from societies and places which, while sometimes poorer in material terms, are infinitely richer in the way in which they live and organise themselves as communities.”
One example of McCloud’s foolishness should suffice. The first part of the programme looks at Dharavi’s vast recycling operation and marvels at how people who are so poor can be so environmentally aware. Does he think Mumbai’s slum-dweller’s have been attending Greenpeace meetings or reading Guardian columns?
What should have been clear is that recycling is so big in Dharavi because of its poverty rather than despite it. Many people are so poor they have little choice but to make a living doing the dirty and back-breaking work of sorting garbage.
Labels: Asia, cities, development, india, sustainability
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Beware “human development”
The Human Development Report 2010, to be published later this year, will be important to monitor to see how far it goes in redefining development. According to the report’s website:
“The 2010 report aims to take this contribution significantly further by showing how placing human development at the center of our priorities changes the ways in which we think about, formulate, implement and monitor development policies designed to promote empowerment, address inequality and tackle sustainability.”
Twenty years ago the Human Development Report 1990 published by the United Nations was a path-breaking document. It essentially took the work of Amartya Sen, an Indian economist who later won the Nobel prize for his work, and adapted it for policymakers.
Development was no longer primarily about economic growth. It was about people. What this meant in practice was giving up on economic transformation and increasingly intervening in the personal lives of individuals.
The definition is discussed in more detail in chapter one of the Human Development Report 1990 available here.
Sabina Alkire, the director of the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, has written a useful review of the concept of human development based on the numerous global and national reports on the subject. It is available here (PDF).
Duncan Green of Oxfam has also written on this topic on his blog.
“The 2010 report aims to take this contribution significantly further by showing how placing human development at the center of our priorities changes the ways in which we think about, formulate, implement and monitor development policies designed to promote empowerment, address inequality and tackle sustainability.”
Twenty years ago the Human Development Report 1990 published by the United Nations was a path-breaking document. It essentially took the work of Amartya Sen, an Indian economist who later won the Nobel prize for his work, and adapted it for policymakers.
Development was no longer primarily about economic growth. It was about people. What this meant in practice was giving up on economic transformation and increasingly intervening in the personal lives of individuals.
The definition is discussed in more detail in chapter one of the Human Development Report 1990 available here.
Sabina Alkire, the director of the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, has written a useful review of the concept of human development based on the numerous global and national reports on the subject. It is available here (PDF).
Duncan Green of Oxfam has also written on this topic on his blog.
Labels: development
Saturday, January 09, 2010
American development policy
Those interested in American development policy should read the recent speech (PDF) by Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, on the subject. Although the significance of various concepts has to be decoded she made six main points:
* Development should be based on partnership not patronage. This seems to mean that poorer countries should strive for good governance and root out corruption. Although she did not say this it seems to suggest more western interference in the running of poorer countries.
* Development should be integrated more closely with defence and diplomacy. This suggests America is more concerned with threats to its own social cohesion than development as a good in itself.
* Improving coordination of America’s development efforts across different agencies.
* Focusing on key areas such as agriculture, education, energy, health and local governance.
* Investing in innovation. In addition to technology this apparently includes microfinance.
* Focusing more on women and girls.
She also pointed out the Obama administration is in the middle of two reviews of its development policy.
* Development should be based on partnership not patronage. This seems to mean that poorer countries should strive for good governance and root out corruption. Although she did not say this it seems to suggest more western interference in the running of poorer countries.
* Development should be integrated more closely with defence and diplomacy. This suggests America is more concerned with threats to its own social cohesion than development as a good in itself.
* Improving coordination of America’s development efforts across different agencies.
* Focusing on key areas such as agriculture, education, energy, health and local governance.
* Investing in innovation. In addition to technology this apparently includes microfinance.
* Focusing more on women and girls.
She also pointed out the Obama administration is in the middle of two reviews of its development policy.
Labels: America, corruption, development, health, science
Friday, January 08, 2010
The vilest story ever?
In the three and a half years I have written this blog I have come across many vile stories on growth sceptic themes. But this one from the BBC, one of the world’s most prestigious news organisations, is a contender for title of the worst ever.
According to a BBC news report rising prosperity is leading Ugandans to engage in child sacrifice. The story is based on an item on Newsnight, a premium programme broadcast by the network.
The report says:
“The Ugandan government told us that human sacrifice is on the increase, and according to the head of the country's Anti-Human Sacrifice Taskforce the crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity, and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly.”
Not only is this view left unchallenged it is explicitly endorsed in the BBC’s coverage.
It does not explain how, if affluence leads to child sacrifice, why such practices are not prevalent in Britain as it is far richer than Uganda. Or if rapid growth is key then presumably it should be more pervasive in China which has a much higher growth rate.
It looks like the BBC would prefer it if Africans accepted dire poverty as their lot.
If anyone knows of any other contenders for vilest story ever please let me know.
According to a BBC news report rising prosperity is leading Ugandans to engage in child sacrifice. The story is based on an item on Newsnight, a premium programme broadcast by the network.
The report says:
“The Ugandan government told us that human sacrifice is on the increase, and according to the head of the country's Anti-Human Sacrifice Taskforce the crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity, and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly.”
Not only is this view left unchallenged it is explicitly endorsed in the BBC’s coverage.
It does not explain how, if affluence leads to child sacrifice, why such practices are not prevalent in Britain as it is far richer than Uganda. Or if rapid growth is key then presumably it should be more pervasive in China which has a much higher growth rate.
It looks like the BBC would prefer it if Africans accepted dire poverty as their lot.
If anyone knows of any other contenders for vilest story ever please let me know.
Labels: Africa, development, television
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Linking development to security
Development is increasingly discussed in relation to security. Rather than considering how to promote economic growth much of the debate is about how external actors should intervene to help resolve conflict.
In line with this trend the World Bank’s World Development Report 2011 will be on the theme of conflict, security and development. The bank has also recently launched a blog on the same subject.
In line with this trend the World Bank’s World Development Report 2011 will be on the theme of conflict, security and development. The bank has also recently launched a blog on the same subject.
Labels: development, growth
Sunday, December 13, 2009
The poverty conundrum
Ravi Kanbur, a professor of economics at Cornell, tries to explain a contradiction in poverty statistics in an article in Finance & Development. Although the official statistics show that poverty is falling there is a widespread perception that the opposite is the case:
“Setting aside the effects of the crises of the late 2000s and looking back two decades from the mid-2000s, the broad facts can be classified into the following stylized patterns (Kanbur, forthcoming). Where there has been no economic growth, poverty has risen. This is true of many African and some Latin American countries. In a large number of countries, including the biggest ones, such as India and China, and even in some African countries, such as Ghana, there has been fast growth by historical standards, and poverty—the percentage of the population below the poverty line—has fallen, as measured by official data.
“What is interesting, however, is the disconnect between the optimistic picture painted by these official data on poverty and the more pessimistic view of grassroots activists, civil society, and policymakers more generally.”
Kanbur tries to explain this gap in terms of the limitations of the official statistics. He says part of the explanation lies in the limitations of household survey data. For example, they do not account for the value of public services of inequalities within households. He then goes on to endorse the non-material approach to poverty proposed by the Stiglitz-Sen commission (see 15 September 2009 post). For Kanbur it is necessary to look at “nonmarket services, gender inequalities within households, and non-income dimensions of well-being”. His forthcoming paper cited above will be published by the commission.
However, it seems to be that a key element of the “disconnect” he talks about is the prevalence of a profound social pessimism. This is not something he seems to consider.
“Setting aside the effects of the crises of the late 2000s and looking back two decades from the mid-2000s, the broad facts can be classified into the following stylized patterns (Kanbur, forthcoming). Where there has been no economic growth, poverty has risen. This is true of many African and some Latin American countries. In a large number of countries, including the biggest ones, such as India and China, and even in some African countries, such as Ghana, there has been fast growth by historical standards, and poverty—the percentage of the population below the poverty line—has fallen, as measured by official data.
“What is interesting, however, is the disconnect between the optimistic picture painted by these official data on poverty and the more pessimistic view of grassroots activists, civil society, and policymakers more generally.”
Kanbur tries to explain this gap in terms of the limitations of the official statistics. He says part of the explanation lies in the limitations of household survey data. For example, they do not account for the value of public services of inequalities within households. He then goes on to endorse the non-material approach to poverty proposed by the Stiglitz-Sen commission (see 15 September 2009 post). For Kanbur it is necessary to look at “nonmarket services, gender inequalities within households, and non-income dimensions of well-being”. His forthcoming paper cited above will be published by the commission.
However, it seems to be that a key element of the “disconnect” he talks about is the prevalence of a profound social pessimism. This is not something he seems to consider.
Labels: development, inequality
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Redefining development
A paper by Ha-Joon Chang (PDF), a development economist at Cambridge University, makes a valuable point about the redefinition of development: “the currently dominant discourse on ‘development’ really lacks any real notion of development in the sense of transformation of productive capabilities and structure (and the accompanying social changes”. However, to my mind he still concedes too much ground to, for example, the notion of environmental sustainability and to Amartya Sen’s “humanistic” redefinition of development.
Labels: development, inequality, sustainability
Friday, November 27, 2009
Poverty reduction and growth
The Economist has an article on poverty reduction which suggests there is no correlation between economic growth rates and eradicating hunger. It is based on studies by ActionAid and by Martin Ravallion of the World Bank.
Such studies can lead to naïve conclusions. No doubt there is no simple correlation between economic growth and poverty reduction in individual countries. Many factors can influence the precise outcomes in each nation. But the long-term historical trend is for economic growth to drive economic development.
For anyone who has the perspective of development as transformation – poor countries becoming rich ones – economic growth has a central role. In contrast, those who want to tinker with the figures for individuals slightly above or below the poverty line will be content for things to stay more-or-less as they are.
Such studies can lead to naïve conclusions. No doubt there is no simple correlation between economic growth and poverty reduction in individual countries. Many factors can influence the precise outcomes in each nation. But the long-term historical trend is for economic growth to drive economic development.
For anyone who has the perspective of development as transformation – poor countries becoming rich ones – economic growth has a central role. In contrast, those who want to tinker with the figures for individuals slightly above or below the poverty line will be content for things to stay more-or-less as they are.
Labels: development, economics, inequality
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Parody of Bono on Africa
William Easterly brilliantly parodies U2’s support for western intervention in Africa. Many of the comments are worth reading too.
Labels: Africa, celebrities, development
Monday, November 23, 2009
Poor countries need fossil fuels
Nigel Lawson, a climate change sceptic and former British chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister), has a comment piece in today’s Times (London) predicting the failure of the Copenhagen climate change summit. In it he makes the sensible point that the world’s poorer countries cannot afford to decarbonise their economies:
“Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable for us in the developed world. But in the developing world, there are still tens of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of preventable disease, malnutrition and premature death. So for the developing world, the overriding priority has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available form of energy: carbon-based energy.”
Lawson is also the chairman of the board of trustees of the Global Warming Policy Forum, a think tank that was launched today.
“Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable for us in the developed world. But in the developing world, there are still tens of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of preventable disease, malnutrition and premature death. So for the developing world, the overriding priority has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available form of energy: carbon-based energy.”
Lawson is also the chairman of the board of trustees of the Global Warming Policy Forum, a think tank that was launched today.
Labels: climate, development, energy
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Explanations for inequality
Daron Acemoglu, a professor of economics at MIT, summarises contemporary theories of global inequality in an article in Esquire (of all places). In broad terms two main lines of thought are popular nowadays: those that emphasise environmental factors such as geography and weather (such as Jeffrey Sachs) or natural endowments (such as Jared Diamond) or whose which emphasise “institutions” (which essentially means market incentives and stable politics).
Theories which look at society more broadly, such as Max Weber’s Protestant ethic, are summarily dismissed as superficial.
Theories which look at society more broadly, such as Max Weber’s Protestant ethic, are summarily dismissed as superficial.
Labels: corruption, development, environment, growth, inequality
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Rare common sense on climate change
Some all too rare common sense on climate change from Nancy Birdsall and Arvind Subramanian of the Center for Global Development in an opinion piece in today’s Financial Times. The two authors go against the conventional wisdom in arguing against the primacy of cutting carbon emissions in the developing world:
“But emissions are not the primary issue. People do not consume emissions, they consume basic energy services. In the developing world, billions of people are now cooking over health-harming wood fires in shanty towns (rather than receiving piped gas and electricity), doing backbreaking hoe farming (not operating tractors) and walking or cycling to work (not driving small cars, let alone gas-guzzlers). Cutting emissions would push them from just above subsistence back, literally, to the dark ages.”
I do not agree with the entirety of their article but in rejecting the overwhelming priority given to reducing carbon emissions they deserve a loud round of applause.
“But emissions are not the primary issue. People do not consume emissions, they consume basic energy services. In the developing world, billions of people are now cooking over health-harming wood fires in shanty towns (rather than receiving piped gas and electricity), doing backbreaking hoe farming (not operating tractors) and walking or cycling to work (not driving small cars, let alone gas-guzzlers). Cutting emissions would push them from just above subsistence back, literally, to the dark ages.”
I do not agree with the entirety of their article but in rejecting the overwhelming priority given to reducing carbon emissions they deserve a loud round of applause.
Labels: climate, development, energy, environment
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Oxfam introduction to development
Although I fundamentally disagree with the views of Duncan Green, the head of research at Oxfam GB, he always proves a lucid exponent of the mainstream approach to development. Therefore anyone interested in the subject could benefit from looking at the Powerpoint slides for eight introductory lectures on development he gave to students at the University of Notre Dame.
Interesting that Green’s starting point is risk and vulnerability. This leads smoothly to the conclusion that the poor need protection – with non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam playing a key role in helping them achieve it. My approach, in contrast, would focus on the need to achieve economic growth and strive for global equality in the sense of raising the level of the poor to western levels of affluence.
Interesting that Green’s starting point is risk and vulnerability. This leads smoothly to the conclusion that the poor need protection – with non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam playing a key role in helping them achieve it. My approach, in contrast, would focus on the need to achieve economic growth and strive for global equality in the sense of raising the level of the poor to western levels of affluence.
Labels: development
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Towards a critique of microfinance
An article in today’s Sunday Times (London) suggests that microfinance fails to spread wealth. It cites studies by Dean Karlan and Jonathan Zinman of Yale as well as another by Esther Duflo, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For example, it quotes Karlan as saying: “Microcredit is not a transformational panacea that is going to lift people out of poverty”. He goes on “There might be little pockets of people who are made better off, but the average effect is weak, if not non-existent.”
From this and previous posts there are several possible lines of attack against microfinance:
• Muhammad Yunus, probably the most influential figure in microfinance, is strongly in the growth sceptic tradition (see 24 May 2009).
• Interest rates on microfinance loans are often exceedingly high (see 8 December 2008).
• Microfinance institutions are often highly profitable, their schemes focus on the poorest of the poor rather than promoting broader development and they often impose highly intrusive conditions on borrowers (see 15 October 2006 post).
• It is also probably also worth exploring the divisive character of microfinance: often lending to women and refusing to lend to men.
From this and previous posts there are several possible lines of attack against microfinance:
• Muhammad Yunus, probably the most influential figure in microfinance, is strongly in the growth sceptic tradition (see 24 May 2009).
• Interest rates on microfinance loans are often exceedingly high (see 8 December 2008).
• Microfinance institutions are often highly profitable, their schemes focus on the poorest of the poor rather than promoting broader development and they often impose highly intrusive conditions on borrowers (see 15 October 2006 post).
• It is also probably also worth exploring the divisive character of microfinance: often lending to women and refusing to lend to men.
Labels: development, food
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Billionaires against humanity
I have belatedly stumbled across an article from the Times (London) published on 24 May on how prominent billionaires fear global overpopulation. It describes a meeting at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5 involving Bill Gates among others:
“Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.”
It goes on to say:
“The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.”
This is interesting for two reasons:
* At least some of these billionaires, most notably Bill Gates, have a reputation for supporting development causes.
* The billionaires sound extremely coy about expressing their ideas of overpopulation openly. This is despite the fact such views are increasingly seen as respectable.
Perhaps they are concerened that they could come across as trying to defend their own wealth and privelege against the teeming masses.
“Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.”
It goes on to say:
“The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.”
This is interesting for two reasons:
* At least some of these billionaires, most notably Bill Gates, have a reputation for supporting development causes.
* The billionaires sound extremely coy about expressing their ideas of overpopulation openly. This is despite the fact such views are increasingly seen as respectable.
Perhaps they are concerened that they could come across as trying to defend their own wealth and privelege against the teeming masses.
Labels: consumption, development, Malthus
Sunday, September 20, 2009
More climate change-ification
A couple more examples of the trend to interpreting questions through the prism of climate change:
* Some 18 of the world’s professional medical organisations argue that the failure to reach agreement at the climate change summit in Copenhagen will lead to a “global health catastrophe”. In this case health is not only being linked to climate change but to a specific conception of how the problem should be tackled. It is also worth noting that Michael Marmot, one of the instigators of the medical initiative, has also played a key role in arguing that well being and affluence should be separated.
* The Marie Stopes International, a London-based sexual and reproduction health organisation, argues that a shortage of condoms in Africa is leading to runaway population growth which will in turn cause climate change. Leo Bryant, an advocacy manager for the organisation and the lead author of a World Health Organization report on the subject (PDF), was quoted as saying: “It’s time to start looking at the environmental relevance of family planning,” in a telephone interview. “Reproductive health services ought to be integrated into the climate adaptation strategy.”
* Some 18 of the world’s professional medical organisations argue that the failure to reach agreement at the climate change summit in Copenhagen will lead to a “global health catastrophe”. In this case health is not only being linked to climate change but to a specific conception of how the problem should be tackled. It is also worth noting that Michael Marmot, one of the instigators of the medical initiative, has also played a key role in arguing that well being and affluence should be separated.
* The Marie Stopes International, a London-based sexual and reproduction health organisation, argues that a shortage of condoms in Africa is leading to runaway population growth which will in turn cause climate change. Leo Bryant, an advocacy manager for the organisation and the lead author of a World Health Organization report on the subject (PDF), was quoted as saying: “It’s time to start looking at the environmental relevance of family planning,” in a telephone interview. “Reproductive health services ought to be integrated into the climate adaptation strategy.”
Labels: climate, development, environment, health
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Against green growth
In the run-up to the Copenhagen summit in December there is no doubt going to be more of an obsession with climate change than ever. One area in which this is clear is in relation to development. A couple of key recent reports on the subject have made a concerted effort to redefine it in relation to climate change:
The World Development Report 2010 from the World Bank on Development and Climate Change The. There is also an accompanying World Bank blog combining the two topics.
- From the United Nations there is World Economic and Social Survey 2009: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet which covers similar ground as the World Bank report.
The combination of climate change and development can only damage understanding of both topics. No doubt there is a relationship between the two – it is a truism that the poor will suffer more as a result of climate change than the rich – but they should be kept logically distinct. Combining the two is essentially a way of putting limits on the possibilities for development. Despite the sometimes ambitious sounding rhetoric what is essentially being said is that development must be limited for the sake of the planet.
This combination of climate change and development also points to a broader and even more retrograde trend. It is what could be called “the climate change-isation of everything”. No doubt there is a snappier way of putting it – any suggestions please email me – but virtually every social problem nowadays seem to be being redefined in relation to climate change. It has become more of a moral category than a scientific one.
The World Development Report 2010 from the World Bank on Development and Climate Change The. There is also an accompanying World Bank blog combining the two topics.
- From the United Nations there is World Economic and Social Survey 2009: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet which covers similar ground as the World Bank report.
The combination of climate change and development can only damage understanding of both topics. No doubt there is a relationship between the two – it is a truism that the poor will suffer more as a result of climate change than the rich – but they should be kept logically distinct. Combining the two is essentially a way of putting limits on the possibilities for development. Despite the sometimes ambitious sounding rhetoric what is essentially being said is that development must be limited for the sake of the planet.
This combination of climate change and development also points to a broader and even more retrograde trend. It is what could be called “the climate change-isation of everything”. No doubt there is a snappier way of putting it – any suggestions please email me – but virtually every social problem nowadays seem to be being redefined in relation to climate change. It has become more of a moral category than a scientific one.
Labels: climate, development, economics, environment, growth
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The colonial origins of development debate
A fascinating and important piece by William Easterly of New York University on the origins of the concept of development in British colonial discourse. It cites a key book by Suke Wolton on Lord Hailey, the Colonial Office, and the Politics of Race and Empire in the Second World War (Palgrave Macmillan 2000).
Labels: book, development
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Ending Africa’s hunger
Anyone who doubts the political degeneration of what passes for the left nowadays should read the article on “Ending Africa’s Hunger” in the 21 September issue of the Nation.
From the start it derides the idea that agricultural productivity should be raised as a technological fix. Yet, in a world whose population looks set to rise from under seven billion to about nine billion, it is hard to see how everyone can be well fed without raising output.
Even with the current world population about a billion people go hungry and many others have a poor diet - for example, with little or no access to meat or diary products. Redistribution will not provide enough resources to provide decent nutrition for all.
Raj Patel, Eric Holt-Gimenez and Annie Shattuck go on to present a critique of the “Green Revolution” - the increase in agricultural yields in the years following the second world war - which is at best one-sided. No doubt it is true that much of the motivation for it was a desire to head off political revolution. But it goes on to argue:
“Beyond the massive displacement of peasants, the Green Revolution wrought other social damage--urban slums sprawled around cities to house displaced workers, pesticide use went up, groundwater levels fell and industrial agricultural practices began racking up significant environmental debt.”
But what is wrong in principle with the urbanisation of poor countries? Usually it is a sign of growing affluence. And the ability to use pesticides was no doubt welcomed by poor farmers. As for “environmental debt” it is, as I have argued elsewhere, a dubious concept.
The authors present themselves as critics of a conventional wisdom upheld by Barack Obama as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Behind them they see the hand of giant corporations such as Monsanto. Instead they propose a view based on organic farming, ecological farming systems and indigenous knowledge. Whatever the problems associated with the mainstream approach it is hard to think of a more likely recipe for famine than their alternative.
All of the authors work for Food First, a campaigning organisation based in Oakland, California, and have co-authored Food Rebellions! Crisis and the Hunger for Justice.
From the start it derides the idea that agricultural productivity should be raised as a technological fix. Yet, in a world whose population looks set to rise from under seven billion to about nine billion, it is hard to see how everyone can be well fed without raising output.
Even with the current world population about a billion people go hungry and many others have a poor diet - for example, with little or no access to meat or diary products. Redistribution will not provide enough resources to provide decent nutrition for all.
Raj Patel, Eric Holt-Gimenez and Annie Shattuck go on to present a critique of the “Green Revolution” - the increase in agricultural yields in the years following the second world war - which is at best one-sided. No doubt it is true that much of the motivation for it was a desire to head off political revolution. But it goes on to argue:
“Beyond the massive displacement of peasants, the Green Revolution wrought other social damage--urban slums sprawled around cities to house displaced workers, pesticide use went up, groundwater levels fell and industrial agricultural practices began racking up significant environmental debt.”
But what is wrong in principle with the urbanisation of poor countries? Usually it is a sign of growing affluence. And the ability to use pesticides was no doubt welcomed by poor farmers. As for “environmental debt” it is, as I have argued elsewhere, a dubious concept.
The authors present themselves as critics of a conventional wisdom upheld by Barack Obama as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Behind them they see the hand of giant corporations such as Monsanto. Instead they propose a view based on organic farming, ecological farming systems and indigenous knowledge. Whatever the problems associated with the mainstream approach it is hard to think of a more likely recipe for famine than their alternative.
All of the authors work for Food First, a campaigning organisation based in Oakland, California, and have co-authored Food Rebellions! Crisis and the Hunger for Justice.
Labels: Africa, consumption, development, food
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Implicit Malthusianism
This blog has long recognised the increasingly explicit character of Malthusianism. In recent years it has become routine to blame overpopulation for many of the world’s problems. But there is a wider implicit Malthusianism that also needs to be tackled also.
This implicit Malthusianism is apparent in a comment in this week’s Economist and related briefing on Africa’s “demographic dividend”. The argument is that Africa is belatedly undergoing a demographic transition in which birth rates are finally falling. Therefore Africa is likely to get a one off boost with many people of working age and relatively few young people or elderly people. The main thrust of the Economist’s argument is that Africa should not waste this opportunity given by the demographic dividend. (The Economist also references a 2007 Harvard paper on the subject).
The problem with this outlook as its presents Africa’s problems are largely to do with population. But it is not overpopulation that has kept Africa poor. Key factors include the weakness of the global economy, western intervention and, most important at present, the narrowness of imagination in relation to development.
Not that the Economist’s readership is above explicit Malthusianism. An online debate in the magazine currently has about 80% voting for the motion that the world would be better off with fewer people.
This implicit Malthusianism is apparent in a comment in this week’s Economist and related briefing on Africa’s “demographic dividend”. The argument is that Africa is belatedly undergoing a demographic transition in which birth rates are finally falling. Therefore Africa is likely to get a one off boost with many people of working age and relatively few young people or elderly people. The main thrust of the Economist’s argument is that Africa should not waste this opportunity given by the demographic dividend. (The Economist also references a 2007 Harvard paper on the subject).
The problem with this outlook as its presents Africa’s problems are largely to do with population. But it is not overpopulation that has kept Africa poor. Key factors include the weakness of the global economy, western intervention and, most important at present, the narrowness of imagination in relation to development.
Not that the Economist’s readership is above explicit Malthusianism. An online debate in the magazine currently has about 80% voting for the motion that the world would be better off with fewer people.
Labels: Africa, development, Malthus
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Degrading women and development
Anyone who is interested in the redefinition of development should read today’s special issue of the New York Times magazine on “Why women’s rights are the cause of our time”. On a naïve reading such an initiative might appear welcome: the importance of development and women’s rights is being recognised. But a closer inspection shows that the meaning of both is being redefined in an exceedingly narrow way.
The centrepiece of the issue is a feature on “The women’s crusade” by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, respectively a New New York Times op-ed columnist and a former Times writer who now works in philanthropy. Their article is based on turn on Half the Sky, their book on the global position of women which is due to be published next month. The book is endorsed by some of the biggest names in international development including Angelina Jolie, George Clooney and Melinda Gates.
Kristof and WuDunn clearly end up blaming men in the poorer countries for global poverty:
“Our interviews and perusal of the data available suggest that the poorest families in the world spend approximately 10 times as much (20 percent of their incomes on average) on a combination of alcohol, prostitution, candy, sugary drinks and lavish feasts as they do on educating their children (2 percent). If poor families spent only as much on educating their children as they do on beer and prostitutes, there would be a breakthrough in the prospects of poor countries. Girls, since they are the ones kept home from school now, would be the biggest beneficiaries.”
It is incredible that the two authors should be prepared to make such a massive generalisation, applying to billions of people, based on a “perusal of the data”. Surely, at the very least, the data should be examined in close detail.
The authors also, among other things, place enormous emphasis on microfinance as a way of tackling poverty. But the idea that development in an economic sense is desirable is marginalised.
Accompanying the main article are several other articles including an interview with Hillary Clinton. The American secretary of state says that the Obama administration is: “having as a signature issue the fact that women and girls are a core factor in our foreign policy.” She also emphasises the importance of microlending.
The overall consequence of this outlook is to:
- Minimise the importance of economic growth in relation to development. The best that is seen as realistic is to curb the worst excesses of poverty.
- Poverty essentially becomes the fault of feckless men and venal third world governments. Western intervention, including by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and international institutions, becomes key to the solution. Microfinance also has a role.
- Women’s rights become redefined as a series of basic entitlements such as access to basic healthcare, access to minimal amounts of credit and a basic education. The broader struggle for social liberation is minimised and it is external institutions, such as NGOs which are responsible for “empowering” women rather than being a grassroots movement.
The centrepiece of the issue is a feature on “The women’s crusade” by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, respectively a New New York Times op-ed columnist and a former Times writer who now works in philanthropy. Their article is based on turn on Half the Sky, their book on the global position of women which is due to be published next month. The book is endorsed by some of the biggest names in international development including Angelina Jolie, George Clooney and Melinda Gates.
Kristof and WuDunn clearly end up blaming men in the poorer countries for global poverty:
“Our interviews and perusal of the data available suggest that the poorest families in the world spend approximately 10 times as much (20 percent of their incomes on average) on a combination of alcohol, prostitution, candy, sugary drinks and lavish feasts as they do on educating their children (2 percent). If poor families spent only as much on educating their children as they do on beer and prostitutes, there would be a breakthrough in the prospects of poor countries. Girls, since they are the ones kept home from school now, would be the biggest beneficiaries.”
It is incredible that the two authors should be prepared to make such a massive generalisation, applying to billions of people, based on a “perusal of the data”. Surely, at the very least, the data should be examined in close detail.
The authors also, among other things, place enormous emphasis on microfinance as a way of tackling poverty. But the idea that development in an economic sense is desirable is marginalised.
Accompanying the main article are several other articles including an interview with Hillary Clinton. The American secretary of state says that the Obama administration is: “having as a signature issue the fact that women and girls are a core factor in our foreign policy.” She also emphasises the importance of microlending.
The overall consequence of this outlook is to:
- Minimise the importance of economic growth in relation to development. The best that is seen as realistic is to curb the worst excesses of poverty.
- Poverty essentially becomes the fault of feckless men and venal third world governments. Western intervention, including by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and international institutions, becomes key to the solution. Microfinance also has a role.
- Women’s rights become redefined as a series of basic entitlements such as access to basic healthcare, access to minimal amounts of credit and a basic education. The broader struggle for social liberation is minimised and it is external institutions, such as NGOs which are responsible for “empowering” women rather than being a grassroots movement.
Labels: book, celebrities, development, ethics
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Backlash against microfinance
I welcome the news, courtesy of Duncan Green’s Oxfam blog, that there is a backlash against microfinance. He cites several papers, written from various perspectives, arguing that microfinance does not work. Among the criticisms: it has failed to reduce poverty, it has never been included in a successful national development strategy, it ignores the role of scale in economics and it has driven up interest rates.
Whatever the attractions of microfinance to individual borrowers it does not constitute a strategy for development. Indeed it is often posed as an alternative to economic growth.
Whatever the attractions of microfinance to individual borrowers it does not constitute a strategy for development. Indeed it is often posed as an alternative to economic growth.
Labels: debt, development, finance
Sunday, July 19, 2009
New links
I have added a couple of new websites to the links library in the left hand column. They are Bureau for Research and Economic Analysis of Development (BREAD and Indur Goklany’s website.
Labels: climate, development, economics, environment, science, technology
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Worldbytes on deforestation
The latest Worldbytes programme by Worldwrite is available online. I was particularly struck by the chill out desk item by Joe Kaplinsky on deforestation – a problem which obsesses the like of campaigners such as Prince Charles. Kaplinsky presents the problem as a symptom of a lack of rural development in contrast to the green view which presents economic growth as the problem. For example, the desperately poor will often collect fire wood as a way of earning a living. In contrast, more developed societies are in a better position to decide how best to manage the land, Other highlights of the programme include items on the supposed threats of hate speech, immigration, overpopulation and water shortages.
Labels: consumption, development, environment, film, Malthus, Worldwrite
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Amnesty’s growth scepticism
Sameer Dossani, the director of the Demand Dignity campaign at Amnesty International USA, directly counter-poses human rights to economic development in an article in yesterday’s Boston Globe. After describing how a gang attacked and sexually abused the children of a government minister in the Congo he goes on to argue that:
“Governments have reneged on human rights obligations in the belief that economic growth alone would lift all boats. But now the tide is receding. Virtually none of the growth of the last two decades benefited poor and marginalized communities; instead, the gap between rich and poor only deepened in many parts of the world.”
For Dossani it is not economic growth that will bring development. Instead the priority has to be tackling human rights. Evidently Amnesty is promoting a campaign along these lines:
“Now, as the global economic crisis threatens to push an estimated 53 million more people into poverty this year, Amnesty International is launching the most ambitious campaign of its nearly 50-year history.
“Just as we have fought effectively to protect civil and political rights on behalf of tens of thousands of political prisoners, we intend to mobilize our volunteers and supporters to hold governments, corporations, armed groups, and others accountable for the human rights abuses that drive millions around the world into poverty.”
This is an upside down way of looking at the world. Economic forces are responsible for the increase in poverty in the last year or two. No doubt governments will sometimes use repression to quell discontent but economic forces are primarily to blame for poverty.
The logic of Amnesty’s position is to encourage more external intervention in poor countries – all in the name of protecting human rights – while leaving economic inequality intact.
“Governments have reneged on human rights obligations in the belief that economic growth alone would lift all boats. But now the tide is receding. Virtually none of the growth of the last two decades benefited poor and marginalized communities; instead, the gap between rich and poor only deepened in many parts of the world.”
For Dossani it is not economic growth that will bring development. Instead the priority has to be tackling human rights. Evidently Amnesty is promoting a campaign along these lines:
“Now, as the global economic crisis threatens to push an estimated 53 million more people into poverty this year, Amnesty International is launching the most ambitious campaign of its nearly 50-year history.
“Just as we have fought effectively to protect civil and political rights on behalf of tens of thousands of political prisoners, we intend to mobilize our volunteers and supporters to hold governments, corporations, armed groups, and others accountable for the human rights abuses that drive millions around the world into poverty.”
This is an upside down way of looking at the world. Economic forces are responsible for the increase in poverty in the last year or two. No doubt governments will sometimes use repression to quell discontent but economic forces are primarily to blame for poverty.
The logic of Amnesty’s position is to encourage more external intervention in poor countries – all in the name of protecting human rights – while leaving economic inequality intact.
Labels: development, ethics
China's humanising development
Neil Davenport’s review on spiked of Leslie Chang’s Factory Girls: Voices from the Heart of Modern China brings out the human side of China’s rapid economic development. Critics tend to one-sidedly condemn China’s rapid industrialisation and the huge internal migration that has accompanied it. But Davenport show it is generally seen as far preferable to the isolated tedium of rural life. He concludes:
“By portraying how Chinese people are actually living their lives, as opposed to talking about how they should be living their lives, Chang provides a clear and dynamic portrait of Chinese society and the individuals undergoing transformation. The conclusion to be drawn from Factory Girls is not that development is dangerous but that its humanising reach cannot come quickly enough for millions of Chinese people. There is nothing misanthropic or childish or apologetic in advocating that.”
“By portraying how Chinese people are actually living their lives, as opposed to talking about how they should be living their lives, Chang provides a clear and dynamic portrait of Chinese society and the individuals undergoing transformation. The conclusion to be drawn from Factory Girls is not that development is dangerous but that its humanising reach cannot come quickly enough for millions of Chinese people. There is nothing misanthropic or childish or apologetic in advocating that.”
Labels: book, china, development, spiked
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
More on domestic violence
Following on from yesterday’s post I notice Oxfam is boasting of its successful involvement in a campaign against domestic violence in Malawi.
Duncan Green notes in his blog that: “In 2005, Oxfam’s Malawi programme along with its partners mounted a campaign to eliminate gender based violence which led to the passing of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Bill in Parliament in April 2006.” Evidently Oxfam mounted a media campaign along side the Malawi police on gender-based violence. The pressure led to the bill being passed into law.
As a result of such actions the problem of development becomes one of African men keeping African women down. The solution then becomes more intervention by the police in the affairs of ordinary African families. Economic development is sidelined from the agenda.
Duncan Green notes in his blog that: “In 2005, Oxfam’s Malawi programme along with its partners mounted a campaign to eliminate gender based violence which led to the passing of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Bill in Parliament in April 2006.” Evidently Oxfam mounted a media campaign along side the Malawi police on gender-based violence. The pressure led to the bill being passed into law.
As a result of such actions the problem of development becomes one of African men keeping African women down. The solution then becomes more intervention by the police in the affairs of ordinary African families. Economic development is sidelined from the agenda.
Labels: development, ethics
Monday, June 22, 2009
Keeping women poor?
One of the most insidious trends in recent years is the redefining of development in cultural terms. For example, take this article in today’s Independent on domestic violence in poor countries by Cherie Blair, a human rights lower and wife of a former British prime minister, in support of the ActionAid 6 Degrees project. For her:
“there is a direct link between the struggle to smash the glass ceiling or to ensure equal pay in our societies and the assumptions in others which justify honour killings, deny women the right to vote or leads to infanticide of baby girls. It is the belief, conscious or unconscious, that women are simply not worth the same as men.”
But does such a connection really exist? And what are the consequences of taking such an approach?
While women no doubt suffer discrimination it is hard to see a “direct link” between women lawyers not reaching the top of their profession in Britain and infanticide of baby girls. The difficult situation of women in the South is largely to do with dire poverty.
Recasting development in cultural terms also means interfering in the minutiae of family life in poor countries instead of promoting economic development. It means non-governmental organisations such as ActionAid hectoring poor people about how to run their lives. It does not mean promoting the economic growth that such countries desperately need for their citizens to live full lives.
The cultural approach to development reinforces rather than challenges inequality. To do this in the name of protecting women is particularly shameful.
“there is a direct link between the struggle to smash the glass ceiling or to ensure equal pay in our societies and the assumptions in others which justify honour killings, deny women the right to vote or leads to infanticide of baby girls. It is the belief, conscious or unconscious, that women are simply not worth the same as men.”
But does such a connection really exist? And what are the consequences of taking such an approach?
While women no doubt suffer discrimination it is hard to see a “direct link” between women lawyers not reaching the top of their profession in Britain and infanticide of baby girls. The difficult situation of women in the South is largely to do with dire poverty.
Recasting development in cultural terms also means interfering in the minutiae of family life in poor countries instead of promoting economic development. It means non-governmental organisations such as ActionAid hectoring poor people about how to run their lives. It does not mean promoting the economic growth that such countries desperately need for their citizens to live full lives.
The cultural approach to development reinforces rather than challenges inequality. To do this in the name of protecting women is particularly shameful.
Labels: development, growth
Sunday, June 21, 2009
One billion people live in hunger
The number of hungry people in the world is forecast to reach a record high of just over a billion this year according to a forecast from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. The figure is expected to be 100m higher than last year as a result of the global economic slowdown and rising world food prices. The slowdown has in turn led to lower incomes, higher unemployment and lower remittances from migrant workers.
The FAO’s annual report on The State of Food Insecurity in the World is due to be published in October.
The FAO’s annual report on The State of Food Insecurity in the World is due to be published in October.
Labels: consumption, development
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Sustainable development is rubbish – literally
This week’s Economist has an article about how Colombia’s constitutional court has officially recognised scavengers at a rubbish dump in Cali, the country’s third city, as entrepreneurs. For the free market magazine this is a wonderful example of popular capitalism in action. It approvingly quotes Martin Medina, who has written a book on the subject, calling co-operatives of garbage pickers “a perfect example of sustainable development”.
I understand that poor people need huge amounts of ingenuity simply to survive. They often have no choice but to do jobs that are deeply unpleasant. But for westerners to hold up garbage picking as a model of development is truly rubbish.
I understand that poor people need huge amounts of ingenuity simply to survive. They often have no choice but to do jobs that are deeply unpleasant. But for westerners to hold up garbage picking as a model of development is truly rubbish.
Labels: development, sustainability
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Brilliant sceptic on climate change
I was struck by the good sense of Freeman Dyson in his interview with Yale Environment 360 on climate change. The eminent 85-year-old scientist upset the orthodox climate change lobby when he criticised their views in a recent profile in the New York Times Sunday magazine. His views are sceptical in the best sense of the term. For example, he questions the usefulness of models in predicting climate and challenges the view that change is necessarily for the worse. He also takes a broadly humanistic perspective. According to Dyson in his Yale interview:
“I feel very strongly that China and India getting rich is the most important thing that’s going on in the world at present. That’s a real revolution, that the center of gravity of the whole population of the world would be middle class, and that’s a wonderful thing to happen. It would be a shame if we persuade them to stop that just for the sake of a problem that’s not that serious.
“And I’m happy every time I see that the Chinese and Indians make a strong statement about going ahead with burning coal. Because that’s what it really depends on, is coal. They can’t do without coal. We could, but they certainly can’t.”
He also wrote a review of some key books on climate change in the New York Review of Books last year.
“I feel very strongly that China and India getting rich is the most important thing that’s going on in the world at present. That’s a real revolution, that the center of gravity of the whole population of the world would be middle class, and that’s a wonderful thing to happen. It would be a shame if we persuade them to stop that just for the sake of a problem that’s not that serious.
“And I’m happy every time I see that the Chinese and Indians make a strong statement about going ahead with burning coal. Because that’s what it really depends on, is coal. They can’t do without coal. We could, but they certainly can’t.”
He also wrote a review of some key books on climate change in the New York Review of Books last year.
Labels: consumption, development, economics, environment, globalisation, science
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Cheap food and low productivity
The six British consumers taking part in BBC 3’s “Blood, Sweat and Takeaways” documentary were, with a couple of exceptions, less narcissistic than their counterparts in last year’s “Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts” (see posts of 18 April, 14 May and 17 June 2008). This year’s programme featured young foodies doing menial work as producers of food in south east Asia. So far they have worked on tuna in Indonesia, prawns in Indonesia and rice in Thailand.
But like its predecessor, which focused on the Indian garment industry, it suffered from a narrow consumerist perspective. The programme bills itself as discussing “the human price of producing our food”. What this seems to suggest it that cheap food prices in the West inevitably mean low wages in poor countries. But this is a false assumption.
The key economic problem in poorer countries is low levels of productivity. Although they are no doubt generally more productive than in the past they still have a long way to go. For example, Indonesian prawn farmers were shown constantly rebuilding mud walls around prawn ponds by hand. If they could afford the machinery to perform this task they would no doubt be much more productive.
Cheap food is a huge achievement for humanity that is well worth celebrating. But the poorer countries need to raise their productivity so they can enjoy higher living standards.
But like its predecessor, which focused on the Indian garment industry, it suffered from a narrow consumerist perspective. The programme bills itself as discussing “the human price of producing our food”. What this seems to suggest it that cheap food prices in the West inevitably mean low wages in poor countries. But this is a false assumption.
The key economic problem in poorer countries is low levels of productivity. Although they are no doubt generally more productive than in the past they still have a long way to go. For example, Indonesian prawn farmers were shown constantly rebuilding mud walls around prawn ponds by hand. If they could afford the machinery to perform this task they would no doubt be much more productive.
Cheap food is a huge achievement for humanity that is well worth celebrating. But the poorer countries need to raise their productivity so they can enjoy higher living standards.
Labels: Asia, consumption, development, ethics, food, television
Sunday, May 31, 2009
How to lie with statistics
Environmentalists often draw ludicrous conclusions from their beloved statistical models. A recent prominent example is the estimate from the Global Humanitarian Forum, an organisation led by Kofi Annan (a former secretary-general of the United Nations), that global warming is causing more than 300,000 deaths and about $125 billion (£77 billion) in economic losses each year. The report is also endorsed by, among others, Jeffrey Sachs.
But the estimates are described as a “methodological embarrassment” by Roger Pielke, a political scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who specialises in disasters, in a recent blog post. He points to several flaws in the model including:
• The stochastic nature of extreme weather events. In other words it is impossible to say for sure that an extreme weather event, such as a hurricane, is the result of climate change. It may be that climate change makes more events more likely but they would probably happen in any case without it.
• A shortage of good quality data. For sweeping conclusions to be justified they must be based on better data than is generally available.
• The role of various other potential factors that act in parallel and interact. For example, with economic development it may be that there are more buildings to destroy in a hurricane. But it does not follow that the physical force of hurricanes has necessarily become more destructive than in the past. .According to Piekle: “the increase in disasters observed worldwide can be entirely attributed to socio-economic changes. This is what has been extensively documented in the peer reviewed literature, and yet — none of this literature is cited in this [Global Humanitarian Forum] report. None of it!”
Piekle has also written a critique of similar methodological flaws (PDF) in the Stern Review on the economics of climate change.
But the estimates are described as a “methodological embarrassment” by Roger Pielke, a political scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who specialises in disasters, in a recent blog post. He points to several flaws in the model including:
• The stochastic nature of extreme weather events. In other words it is impossible to say for sure that an extreme weather event, such as a hurricane, is the result of climate change. It may be that climate change makes more events more likely but they would probably happen in any case without it.
• A shortage of good quality data. For sweeping conclusions to be justified they must be based on better data than is generally available.
• The role of various other potential factors that act in parallel and interact. For example, with economic development it may be that there are more buildings to destroy in a hurricane. But it does not follow that the physical force of hurricanes has necessarily become more destructive than in the past. .According to Piekle: “the increase in disasters observed worldwide can be entirely attributed to socio-economic changes. This is what has been extensively documented in the peer reviewed literature, and yet — none of this literature is cited in this [Global Humanitarian Forum] report. None of it!”
Piekle has also written a critique of similar methodological flaws (PDF) in the Stern Review on the economics of climate change.
Labels: climate, consumption, development, economics, environment
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Official “development” against growth
A hugely revealing essay attacking growth by James Gustave Speth for America’s Schumacher Society. Speth is, among other things, a former head of the United Nations Development Programme (1993-9). Yet a man who was entrusted with the leadership of one of the world’s key development institutions is blatantly anti-growth:
“Economic growth may be the world's secular religion, but for much of the of the world it is a god that is failing – underperforming for most of the world's people and, for those of us in affluent societies, creating more problems than it is solving. The never-ending drive to grow the overall U.S. economy undermines families, jobs, communities, the environment, a sense of place and continuity, even mental health. It fuels a ruthless search for energy and other resources, and it rests on a manufactured consumerism that is not meeting the deepest human needs.”
Thanks to Austin Williams for the link.
“Economic growth may be the world's secular religion, but for much of the of the world it is a god that is failing – underperforming for most of the world's people and, for those of us in affluent societies, creating more problems than it is solving. The never-ending drive to grow the overall U.S. economy undermines families, jobs, communities, the environment, a sense of place and continuity, even mental health. It fuels a ruthless search for energy and other resources, and it rests on a manufactured consumerism that is not meeting the deepest human needs.”
Thanks to Austin Williams for the link.
Labels: consumption, development, environment, growth, sustainability
Friday, May 29, 2009
The necessity of child labour
An interesting piece on the BBC website with the headline “the harsh necessity of child labour”. The article looks at the situation in Bangladesh where dire circumstances force many children to work.
It is easy to condemn child labour in the abstract. But it comes about largely as a result of economic necessity rather than moral depravity.
The solution to the problem is economic growth. Child labour is almost unheard of in rich societies.
It is easy to condemn child labour in the abstract. But it comes about largely as a result of economic necessity rather than moral depravity.
The solution to the problem is economic growth. Child labour is almost unheard of in rich societies.
Labels: consumption, development, economics, ethics, work
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Growth theory and microfinance
Carl Schramm provides a useful review of growth theory in an article for Real Clear Markets. He takes in key mainstream thinkers on economic growth and development including Paul Collier, William Easterly, Deepak Lal, Dani Rodrik, Walt Rostow, Jeffrey Sachs, Robert Solow and Mohammad Yunus.
Two points stood out for me. First, the difficulty mainstream economic theory has in explaining economic growth:
“Harvard economist Elhanan Helpman published an entire book exploring the “mystery” of economic growth only a few years ago, and even Robert Solow, who won the Nobel Prize for his pioneering growth theory, today says there are more questions than answers as to the causes of growth. This failure to understand the sources of America’s own economic performance, let alone the world’s, will be a serious handicap as we try to figure out how to renew prosperity in the face of a dramatic global slowdown.”
Second, the anti-growth sentiment at the root of microfinance:
“Muhammad Yunus, a Ph.D. in economics who won the Nobel Peace Prize, disregards all such evidence in Creating A World Without Poverty (2008). Having created Grameen Bank, an institution that increased remarkably the welfare of millions of the world’s poorest in Bangladesh through the innovation of micro-credit, he appeals for a new world economic order that does not contemplate growth. “The bigger the world economy, the bigger the threat to planet Earth.” For global welfare to increase, he argues, capitalism will have to be reformed through “social businesses”—entities that put people above profits.”
Two points stood out for me. First, the difficulty mainstream economic theory has in explaining economic growth:
“Harvard economist Elhanan Helpman published an entire book exploring the “mystery” of economic growth only a few years ago, and even Robert Solow, who won the Nobel Prize for his pioneering growth theory, today says there are more questions than answers as to the causes of growth. This failure to understand the sources of America’s own economic performance, let alone the world’s, will be a serious handicap as we try to figure out how to renew prosperity in the face of a dramatic global slowdown.”
Second, the anti-growth sentiment at the root of microfinance:
“Muhammad Yunus, a Ph.D. in economics who won the Nobel Peace Prize, disregards all such evidence in Creating A World Without Poverty (2008). Having created Grameen Bank, an institution that increased remarkably the welfare of millions of the world’s poorest in Bangladesh through the innovation of micro-credit, he appeals for a new world economic order that does not contemplate growth. “The bigger the world economy, the bigger the threat to planet Earth.” For global welfare to increase, he argues, capitalism will have to be reformed through “social businesses”—entities that put people above profits.”
Labels: development, economics, finance, growth
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Corruption and causation
The notion of corruption is one of the most widely used to call into question the drive for growth in developing countries. It is often argued that measures to promote growth are undesirable, because they could encourage corruption, or unrealistic. Corruption is also used to explain the lack of development of the poorest countries.
A review by Tim Harford, a Financial Times columnist and the author of The Undercover Economist, in the May issue of Reason shows the limitations of the notion of corruption. He discusses a chapter in Raymond Fisman and Edward Miguel’s Economic Gangsters (Princeton University Press) which examines two alternative theories of corruption. Many economists argue that corruption is a response to perverse incentives, the result of poor quality institutions in developing countries, while others see it as culturally inbred. Harford relates Fisman and Miguel’s study of parking tickets among United Nations to examine which of these theories is correct.
To me both hypotheses are limited. For a start the notion of corruption is not a precise one. A practice that might not be considered corrupt in one country – say an ally of the West or a western country itself – might be designated as corrupt in another.
It also seems to me that critics of corruption have the causation the wrong way wrong. What is often labelled corruption is frequently a symptom of underdevelopment rather than its cause. For example, in a poor country it might be easier for someone to make a living by circumventing the rules. In contrast in a rich country it is often easier to earn money by legitimate means.
A review by Tim Harford, a Financial Times columnist and the author of The Undercover Economist, in the May issue of Reason shows the limitations of the notion of corruption. He discusses a chapter in Raymond Fisman and Edward Miguel’s Economic Gangsters (Princeton University Press) which examines two alternative theories of corruption. Many economists argue that corruption is a response to perverse incentives, the result of poor quality institutions in developing countries, while others see it as culturally inbred. Harford relates Fisman and Miguel’s study of parking tickets among United Nations to examine which of these theories is correct.
To me both hypotheses are limited. For a start the notion of corruption is not a precise one. A practice that might not be considered corrupt in one country – say an ally of the West or a western country itself – might be designated as corrupt in another.
It also seems to me that critics of corruption have the causation the wrong way wrong. What is often labelled corruption is frequently a symptom of underdevelopment rather than its cause. For example, in a poor country it might be easier for someone to make a living by circumventing the rules. In contrast in a rich country it is often easier to earn money by legitimate means.
Labels: book, corruption, development, economics, review
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Giving coups western approval
Britain’s most influential development economist seems to have trouble distinguishing between poor countries and players in children’s football teams. Paul Collier of Oxford University has written an article for Prospect suggesting the West implement a red and green card system for coups in poor countries. A red card would indicate that the West considers elections “free and fair” – so it would be opposed to any attempts at a coup. A green card “would constitute a signal: the international community would be inviting the military to take action”.
Collier’s arrogance is astounding. What gives the West the right to determine which governments in poor countries are legitimate? All this from a man who apparently does not even understand the card system in sport. A red card indicates that a player has been sent off rather than he can stay on.
Collier’s arrogance is astounding. What gives the West the right to determine which governments in poor countries are legitimate? All this from a man who apparently does not even understand the card system in sport. A red card indicates that a player has been sent off rather than he can stay on.
Labels: Africa, development
Thursday, April 02, 2009
More growth sceptic tomes
Three more substantial and high profile contributions to the vast growth sceptic canon have recently been published in Britain:
Anthony Giddens The Politics of Climate Change (Polity Press). View of an influential sociologist and government adviser.
Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save (Picador) argues the rich should give more to the global poor. In doing so it seems to assume there is only a fixed amount of resources to go round.
Nicholas’s Stern’s Blueprint for a Safer Planet (Bodley Head) updates his argument on the economics of climate change.
It constantly amazes me how authors of such books typically present their arguments as if they are unorthodox. They are without doubt purveyors of today’s mainstream consensus.
On a more positive note Mike Hulme’s Why We Disagree about Climate Change (Cambridge University Press) looks set to be a measured contribution to the discussion.
Anthony Giddens The Politics of Climate Change (Polity Press). View of an influential sociologist and government adviser.
Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save (Picador) argues the rich should give more to the global poor. In doing so it seems to assume there is only a fixed amount of resources to go round.
Nicholas’s Stern’s Blueprint for a Safer Planet (Bodley Head) updates his argument on the economics of climate change.
It constantly amazes me how authors of such books typically present their arguments as if they are unorthodox. They are without doubt purveyors of today’s mainstream consensus.
On a more positive note Mike Hulme’s Why We Disagree about Climate Change (Cambridge University Press) looks set to be a measured contribution to the discussion.
Labels: book, climate, consumption, development, economics, environment
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Distorting the voices of the poor
The World Bank has published Moving Out of Poverty, a follow up to its 2000-2 study on Voices of the Poor. Both studies are ostensibly based on the views of over 60,000 poor people. But it looks likely that the new study, like the original, is highly selective in what it chooses to define as the aspirations of the poor.
See John Pender’s 2001 article on spiked for an astute piece on how the Voices of the Poor does not represent what it claims.
Meanwhile, the Danish Institute for International Studies has published a report (PDF) by Richard Manning on progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals.
See John Pender’s 2001 article on spiked for an astute piece on how the Voices of the Poor does not represent what it claims.
Meanwhile, the Danish Institute for International Studies has published a report (PDF) by Richard Manning on progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals.
Labels: development, spiked
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Guns, Germs and Steel
Until I saw the documentary version of Guns, Germs and Steel yesterday I had not realised how much Jared Diamond, one of the world’s most prominent environmentalist writers, pitched his argument in terms of global inequality. Diamond first set out in 1972 to explain why people in developed societies had so much “cargo” (stuff) compared with hunger-gatherers in New Guinea. His answer started with the agricultural revolution of 11,000 years ago where those in the Middle East had an advantage thanks to their indigenous crops, barley and wheat, along with access to animals that could be domesticated. Such knowledge was then gradually passed on to Europe and Asia. Later on, in the sixteenth century, the Spanish conquistadores used their superior technology to subjugate Latin America.
Relatively little of Diamond’s documentary was spent on recent years. To the extent he talked about contemporary inequality it was presented as a legacy of the past. Essentially his views amount to a kind of geographical determinism. There was no attempt to explain the role of contemporary social factors create inequality today.
Although Diamond’s views may have some merit as an explanation of history they do not explain the present. It may well be true that indigenous crops and access to animals that could be domesticated gave those in the Middle East an advantage at the dawn of the Agricultural Revolution. But to properly explain contemporary inequality means starting with social relations today rather than the distant past.
Strangely the documentary had a relatively upbeat ending. It was implied that Africa could potentially achieve development along the lines of Malaysia or Singapore. As far as I can see there is no reference to this possibility in the book on which the documentary was based. It is also at odds with his 1987 essay on how the Agricultural Revolution was “The worst mistake in the history of the human race”. That implies the best form of equality would be if we were all still hunter-gatherers.
Relatively little of Diamond’s documentary was spent on recent years. To the extent he talked about contemporary inequality it was presented as a legacy of the past. Essentially his views amount to a kind of geographical determinism. There was no attempt to explain the role of contemporary social factors create inequality today.
Although Diamond’s views may have some merit as an explanation of history they do not explain the present. It may well be true that indigenous crops and access to animals that could be domesticated gave those in the Middle East an advantage at the dawn of the Agricultural Revolution. But to properly explain contemporary inequality means starting with social relations today rather than the distant past.
Strangely the documentary had a relatively upbeat ending. It was implied that Africa could potentially achieve development along the lines of Malaysia or Singapore. As far as I can see there is no reference to this possibility in the book on which the documentary was based. It is also at odds with his 1987 essay on how the Agricultural Revolution was “The worst mistake in the history of the human race”. That implies the best form of equality would be if we were all still hunter-gatherers.
Labels: book, consumption, development, environment, inequality, television
Sunday, February 15, 2009
How crisis hits world's poorest
The World Bank has conducted a study on how the economic crisis will hit the world’s poorest countries.
Labels: development, economics, inequality
Friday, January 23, 2009
A tragic reminder
Unicef’s report on the State of the World’s Children 2009 provides a reminder of how far the world still is from being developed. Evidently more than 500,000 women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, and nearly 4 million newborns die within the first 28 days of life.
Labels: development, health, inequality
Friday, January 02, 2009
A narrow vision of development economics
A survey by the Economist of the “international bright young things” of economics, based on canvassing leading authorities in the field, shows how narrow the study of development has become. It seems that the leading young thinkers are focusing on relatively narrow micro questions rather than the big picture:
“Esther Duflo of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) received more recommendations than any other economist. Some who didn’t nominate her thought she was too established to count as “new”.
“With her colleague, Abhijit Banerjee, Ms Duflo and Mr Kremer have remade development economics, nudging it away from its concern with policies, towards a preoccupation with projects. They study economic development as seen from the field, clinic or school, rather than the finance ministry. They might be called the “peace corps” of economists, bringing the blessing of their investigative technique to the neglected villages of India or the denuded farms of western Kenya.
“Ms Duflo has made her name carrying out randomised trials of development projects, such as fertiliser subsidies and school recruitment. In these trials, people are randomly assigned to a “treatment” group, which benefits from the project, and a “control” group, which does not. By comparing the average outcome of each group, she can establish whether the project worked and precisely how well.
“In one study, Ms Duflo and her colleagues showed that mothers in the Indian state of Rajasthan are three times as likely to have their children vaccinated if they are rewarded with a kilogram of daal (lentils) at the immunisation camp. The result is useful to aid workers, but puzzling to economists: why should such a modest incentive (worth less than 50 cents) make such a big difference? Immunisation can save a child’s life; a bag of lentils should not sway the mother’s decision either way.”
Academic economics is evidently narrow and technocratic rather than asking the big political questions about inequality and slow development.
“Esther Duflo of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) received more recommendations than any other economist. Some who didn’t nominate her thought she was too established to count as “new”.
“With her colleague, Abhijit Banerjee, Ms Duflo and Mr Kremer have remade development economics, nudging it away from its concern with policies, towards a preoccupation with projects. They study economic development as seen from the field, clinic or school, rather than the finance ministry. They might be called the “peace corps” of economists, bringing the blessing of their investigative technique to the neglected villages of India or the denuded farms of western Kenya.
“Ms Duflo has made her name carrying out randomised trials of development projects, such as fertiliser subsidies and school recruitment. In these trials, people are randomly assigned to a “treatment” group, which benefits from the project, and a “control” group, which does not. By comparing the average outcome of each group, she can establish whether the project worked and precisely how well.
“In one study, Ms Duflo and her colleagues showed that mothers in the Indian state of Rajasthan are three times as likely to have their children vaccinated if they are rewarded with a kilogram of daal (lentils) at the immunisation camp. The result is useful to aid workers, but puzzling to economists: why should such a modest incentive (worth less than 50 cents) make such a big difference? Immunisation can save a child’s life; a bag of lentils should not sway the mother’s decision either way.”
Academic economics is evidently narrow and technocratic rather than asking the big political questions about inequality and slow development.
Labels: development, economics
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Guides to China 2008
The China Digital Times, an excellent portal source for information on contemporary Chinese society, has produced a useful series of guides to China in 2008. Topics include China and the developing world, the environmental crisis, the global financial crisis and China’s domestic market. Links to each review are provided in the latest topic guide: on the contentious subject of food and product safety.
Labels: china, development, economics, environment, food
Monday, December 22, 2008
Uplifting mortality statistics
Indur Goklany has written a cheery article for the Cato Institute on death from extreme weather events in America. Despite the grim nature of the subject the ultimate conclusion is uplifting:
* Extreme cold is responsible for about half the deaths from weather-related events - about twice as many as extreme heat.
* Extreme weather accounts for a tiny proportion of the annual American death toll.
* The trend over time is for extreme weather to be responsible for an ever smaller proportion of deaths. That is despite any tendency towards global warming.
The more humanity advances economically the less vulnerable it becomes to extreme weather.
* Extreme cold is responsible for about half the deaths from weather-related events - about twice as many as extreme heat.
* Extreme weather accounts for a tiny proportion of the annual American death toll.
* The trend over time is for extreme weather to be responsible for an ever smaller proportion of deaths. That is despite any tendency towards global warming.
The more humanity advances economically the less vulnerable it becomes to extreme weather.
Labels: climate, development, progress, technology
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Economic history with sceptical tinge
Monthly Review, an American left wing publication, has an article by Immanuel Wallerstein, a senior research scholar at Yale, on “The Human Costs of Economic Growth” in its December issue. The title is misleading as the article is a review of Amiya Kumar Bagchi’s Perilous Passage: Mankind and the Global Ascendancy of Capital (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005). The most explicit reference to the headline states that Bagchi:
“wishes to center his attention on the degree to which economic growth under capitalism is very poorly correlated with human development, even in the West. His book is an attempt to analyze in detail the human suffering that has been at the basis of ‘the advantages reaped by the European ruling classes’”.
Most of the review focuses on different explanations for the relatively rapid economic growth of the world over the past two centuries. However, from Wallerstein’s account the book sounds highly sceptical of the benefits of economic growth:
“Bagchi analyzes this capitalist world not in terms of how much growth it made possible but how much human development it made possible, and in this regard he finds it very wanting. One of his principal services to readers is his pulling together of the demographic literature on life expectancy, the public health literature on disease prevention and cure, data on nutrition, income levels, and the various forms of labor coercion to give us a nuanced picture of human development over time and throughout the world, one that is differentiated by geography, age cohorts, and gender.”
“wishes to center his attention on the degree to which economic growth under capitalism is very poorly correlated with human development, even in the West. His book is an attempt to analyze in detail the human suffering that has been at the basis of ‘the advantages reaped by the European ruling classes’”.
Most of the review focuses on different explanations for the relatively rapid economic growth of the world over the past two centuries. However, from Wallerstein’s account the book sounds highly sceptical of the benefits of economic growth:
“Bagchi analyzes this capitalist world not in terms of how much growth it made possible but how much human development it made possible, and in this regard he finds it very wanting. One of his principal services to readers is his pulling together of the demographic literature on life expectancy, the public health literature on disease prevention and cure, data on nutrition, income levels, and the various forms of labor coercion to give us a nuanced picture of human development over time and throughout the world, one that is differentiated by geography, age cohorts, and gender.”
Labels: book, development, economics, growth
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Video of my session at Battle of Ideas
Highlights of my appearance at the Battle of Ideas 2008 can now be viewed on the latest Worldbytes programme (see 30 October 2008 post). I appeared on a panel on “Growing pains: the pros and cons of economic dynamism” alongside, among others, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times and Ha-Joon Chang of Cambridge University.
Labels: development, economics, growth, media appearances, speeches, Worldwrite
Thursday, December 11, 2008
A growth sceptic classic
Yesterday I went to the launch of the International Growth Centre at the London School of Economics (LSE). The international network of scholars is a joint venture between LSE and Oxford University with funding of £42m from Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID).
Superficially the tone was incredibly pro-growth. This was reflected in a DFID booklet (PDF) handed out at the event called Growth: Building Jobs and Prosperity in Developing Countries. It opens with the sentence: “Economic growth is the most powerful instrument for reducing poverty and improving the quality of life in developing countries”. Much of the rest of the text is in a similar vein.
However, numerous caveats to the initially upbeat assessment of growth are subtly introduced including:
* An emphasis on “poverty reduction” rather than all-rounded development.
* An emphasis on the importance of climate change.
* References to “environmental sustainability” and “low carbon” growth.
The whole approach is also technocratic. It emphasises “growth diagnostics” - experts identifying the barriers to growth - rather than mass participation in development. Although it discusses “ownership” of projects by third world nations this conception only seems to take in a narrow elite of government officials, business leaders and non-governmental organisations (“civil society”).
I also notice that Paul Collier, one of the directors of the centre and a speaker at yesterday’s event, has a forthcoming book, Wars, Guns and Votes (Bodley Head), out on development. It evidently extends his call for United Nations intervention in troubled areas (see 14 May 2007 post) - an initiative that can only make matters worse for the world’s poorest countries.
Superficially the tone was incredibly pro-growth. This was reflected in a DFID booklet (PDF) handed out at the event called Growth: Building Jobs and Prosperity in Developing Countries. It opens with the sentence: “Economic growth is the most powerful instrument for reducing poverty and improving the quality of life in developing countries”. Much of the rest of the text is in a similar vein.
However, numerous caveats to the initially upbeat assessment of growth are subtly introduced including:
* An emphasis on “poverty reduction” rather than all-rounded development.
* An emphasis on the importance of climate change.
* References to “environmental sustainability” and “low carbon” growth.
The whole approach is also technocratic. It emphasises “growth diagnostics” - experts identifying the barriers to growth - rather than mass participation in development. Although it discusses “ownership” of projects by third world nations this conception only seems to take in a narrow elite of government officials, business leaders and non-governmental organisations (“civil society”).
I also notice that Paul Collier, one of the directors of the centre and a speaker at yesterday’s event, has a forthcoming book, Wars, Guns and Votes (Bodley Head), out on development. It evidently extends his call for United Nations intervention in troubled areas (see 14 May 2007 post) - an initiative that can only make matters worse for the world’s poorest countries.
Labels: Africa, book, climate, development, economics, environment, growth
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Microfinance loan sharks
Saturday’s FT Weekend magazine had an article by Tim Harford, a senior columnist at the Financial Times, on microfinance. The most interesting point in made was on the split in the ranks of those providing microfinance:
“The commercialisation of microfinance has sparked a fierce debate between profit advocates such as Carlos Danel and Carlos Labarthe, the founders of Compartamos, and traditionalists such as Muhammad Yunus, who see microfinance lenders such as Compartamos as indistinguishable from the moneylenders he set out to replace in 1976. Between these two poles lie the majority of microfinance practitioners, eager to gain access to capital and commercial expertise, but concerned that competitive market forces may not help the poorest.”
It also pointed out that microfinance arguments can charge interest rates with an annual percentage rate of over 100%. Harford argues that this “is not as usurious as it might seem” as the overheads are so high. Sounds more like glorified loan sharks to me!
“The commercialisation of microfinance has sparked a fierce debate between profit advocates such as Carlos Danel and Carlos Labarthe, the founders of Compartamos, and traditionalists such as Muhammad Yunus, who see microfinance lenders such as Compartamos as indistinguishable from the moneylenders he set out to replace in 1976. Between these two poles lie the majority of microfinance practitioners, eager to gain access to capital and commercial expertise, but concerned that competitive market forces may not help the poorest.”
It also pointed out that microfinance arguments can charge interest rates with an annual percentage rate of over 100%. Harford argues that this “is not as usurious as it might seem” as the overheads are so high. Sounds more like glorified loan sharks to me!
Labels: development, economics, finance
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Insights from the Economist
A couple of particularly interesting pieces in this week’s Economist (22 November):
* An article on the creation of a Committee on Climate Change, chaired by the ubiquitous Adair Turner, modelled on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. In other words it will give Britain’s green pledges the force of law. They will be enforced by an unelected committee with no popular accountability.
* An economic focus on the relationship between economic growth and health. The piece looks at whether healthier populations lead to more economic growth rather than the other way round. Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After a review of the discussion the Economist does not reach a definite conclusion but one passage is worth quoting:
“Beginning in the 1940s, several medical innovations involving penicillin, streptomycin and DDT made it easier to treat diseases—such as tuberculosis, malaria and yellow fever—that disproportionately affected people in developing countries. Because these ideas originated in the rich world and were spread by organisations such as the WHO, any improvements in health they led to would have been unconnected with prior improvements in the economic circumstances of poor countries.
“This international revolution in public health did lead to substantial increases in life expectancy in poor countries by the 1950s.”
To me this shows that economic growth, along with the associated development of technology, helps the poorer countries. This can happen even when the poorer countries do not become richer themselves – although of course it is better if they do.
* An article on the creation of a Committee on Climate Change, chaired by the ubiquitous Adair Turner, modelled on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. In other words it will give Britain’s green pledges the force of law. They will be enforced by an unelected committee with no popular accountability.
* An economic focus on the relationship between economic growth and health. The piece looks at whether healthier populations lead to more economic growth rather than the other way round. Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After a review of the discussion the Economist does not reach a definite conclusion but one passage is worth quoting:
“Beginning in the 1940s, several medical innovations involving penicillin, streptomycin and DDT made it easier to treat diseases—such as tuberculosis, malaria and yellow fever—that disproportionately affected people in developing countries. Because these ideas originated in the rich world and were spread by organisations such as the WHO, any improvements in health they led to would have been unconnected with prior improvements in the economic circumstances of poor countries.
“This international revolution in public health did lead to substantial increases in life expectancy in poor countries by the 1950s.”
To me this shows that economic growth, along with the associated development of technology, helps the poorer countries. This can happen even when the poorer countries do not become richer themselves – although of course it is better if they do.
Labels: climate, development, economics, health
Monday, November 17, 2008
Linking aid to military intervention
William Easterly, a professor at New York University and one of the world’s leading conservative development economists, has done a belated review (PDF) of Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion ( “Foreign aid goes military”, New York Review of Books 55(19), 4 December 2008). Easterly looks at the increasing trend to link development to calls for Western military intervention. He also argues Collier is guilty of statistical fallacies such as confusing correlation with causation.
Labels: aid, book, development, economics, inequality
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Debating sweatshops
The last programme in the series of the BBC Radio 4 Iconoclasts programme looked at the debate around third world sweatshops. Jagdish Bhagwati, a professor of economics at Columbia University, argued that sweatshops should not be criticised for paying poor wages although he conceded it was wrong to have poor working conditions. He emphasised that industrial exports could lead to growth which could in turn life countries out of poverty.
After an initial introduction by Bhagwati there was a debate involving Ceri Dingle of Worldwrite a campaigner from War on Want and the owner of a fair trade fashion label. The advocates of ethical consumption came out with the usual clichés: complaining about free market economics and trickle down theory (even though neither had been mentioned by Bhagwati or Dingle). They also focused on sweatshops in the poorer countries without understanding that the plight of those working on the land is generally worse. There were also complaints about inequality (but not arguing for more growth) and an implicit assumption that the British government could somehow help trade unions organising in poorer countries. Dingle ably put the case for more growth, greater industrialisation and higher expectations.
After an initial introduction by Bhagwati there was a debate involving Ceri Dingle of Worldwrite a campaigner from War on Want and the owner of a fair trade fashion label. The advocates of ethical consumption came out with the usual clichés: complaining about free market economics and trickle down theory (even though neither had been mentioned by Bhagwati or Dingle). They also focused on sweatshops in the poorer countries without understanding that the plight of those working on the land is generally worse. There were also complaints about inequality (but not arguing for more growth) and an implicit assumption that the British government could somehow help trade unions organising in poorer countries. Dingle ably put the case for more growth, greater industrialisation and higher expectations.
Labels: consumption, development, ethics, radio, trade, work, Worldwrite
Friday, November 07, 2008
Key report on cities
The latest annual World Development Report from the World Bank is about “reshaping economic geography” and specifically the role of cities (see 30 December 2007 post).
Labels: cities, development, economics
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
When “broadening” is a step back
Some useful references on Duncan Green’s blog for Oxfam. He point to what looks likely to be a key paper by Paul Shaffer of the University of Toronto on the “broadening” of the definition of poverty from the Real-World Economics Review (formerly the Post Autistic Economics Review). As I have alluded to in the past (see 27 September 2008 post), and I will expand on in the future, this represents a retrograde step. Green also points to another paper on the increasingly influential “growth diagnostics” approach to development favoured by Dani Rodrik of Harvard and others.
Labels: development, economics, inequality
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Be careful what you wish for
“Be careful what you wish for” is going to be the theme of my introduction to the session on “growing pains” at this coming weekend’s Battle of Ideas.
For a long time growth sceptics have expressed concern about the rising affluence of places such as China and India. They have argued, at least implicitly, for a cut in their economic growth. Now, with the global financial crisis, they could get what they wish for. If they do it will be a tragedy as billions of people will not be in a position to benefit from rising prosperity.
There are already signs that instability is spreading to developing economies. This was discussed in last week’s Economist (25 October) as well as by such luminaries as Paul Krugman of Princeton and Dani Rodrik of Harvard.
Over the past couple of days the authorities (the International Monetary Fund, America’s Federal Reserve and the European Union) have offered financial help to emerging economies in a bid to stabilise them. The catch is, according to a report by Capital Economics, that they are offering help to those countries that need it least. Those which most need help are unlikely to qualify.
For a long time growth sceptics have expressed concern about the rising affluence of places such as China and India. They have argued, at least implicitly, for a cut in their economic growth. Now, with the global financial crisis, they could get what they wish for. If they do it will be a tragedy as billions of people will not be in a position to benefit from rising prosperity.
There are already signs that instability is spreading to developing economies. This was discussed in last week’s Economist (25 October) as well as by such luminaries as Paul Krugman of Princeton and Dani Rodrik of Harvard.
Over the past couple of days the authorities (the International Monetary Fund, America’s Federal Reserve and the European Union) have offered financial help to emerging economies in a bid to stabilise them. The catch is, according to a report by Capital Economics, that they are offering help to those countries that need it least. Those which most need help are unlikely to qualify.
Labels: development, economics, finance, speeches
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Collier for agricultural development
Paul Collier¸ professor of economics and director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University, has expanded on his arguments on the need to develop agriculture (see posts of 15 April 2008 and 22 August 2008) in an article in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs (November / December). I have previously criticised Collier in my review of his book, The Bottom Billion (see link on the left hand side of the homepage), but on this topic he talks much sense. His latest arguments summarises his argument as follows:
“The real challenge is not the technical difficulty of returning the world to cheap food but the political difficulty of confronting the lobbying interests and illusions on which current policies rest. Feeding the world will involve three politically challenging steps. First, contrary to the romantics, the world needs more commercial agriculture, not less. The Brazilian model of high-productivity large farms could readily be extended to areas where land is underused. Second, and again contrary to the romantics, the world needs more science: the European ban and the consequential African ban on genetically modified (GM) crops are slowing the pace of agricultural productivity growth in the face of accelerating growth in demand. Ending such restrictions could be part of a deal, a mutual de-escalation of folly, that would achieve the third step: in return for Europe's lifting its self-damaging ban on GM products, the United States should lift its self-damaging subsidies supporting domestic biofuel.”
“The real challenge is not the technical difficulty of returning the world to cheap food but the political difficulty of confronting the lobbying interests and illusions on which current policies rest. Feeding the world will involve three politically challenging steps. First, contrary to the romantics, the world needs more commercial agriculture, not less. The Brazilian model of high-productivity large farms could readily be extended to areas where land is underused. Second, and again contrary to the romantics, the world needs more science: the European ban and the consequential African ban on genetically modified (GM) crops are slowing the pace of agricultural productivity growth in the face of accelerating growth in demand. Ending such restrictions could be part of a deal, a mutual de-escalation of folly, that would achieve the third step: in return for Europe's lifting its self-damaging ban on GM products, the United States should lift its self-damaging subsidies supporting domestic biofuel.”
Labels: development, economics, food
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Bush shares water bed with NGOs
A striking feature of yesterday’s speech by George Bush at the White House Summit for International Development was how much he agrees with NGOs such as Actionaid or Oxfam. The supposed conservative demagogue and the supposed radical activists are sleeping in the same bed. The following passage on water provision clearly illusrates this shared approach. None of them are campaigning for modern water utilities for the world’s poorer countries. Note the cute PlayPumps suggestion - children working treadle pumps:
“The United States works with partner nations to deal with the lack of clean water. Last year we dedicated nearly a billion dollars to improve sanitation and water supplies in developing nations. We're also wise enough to enlist the private sector to help, as well.
“I want to share with you an interesting program -- for two reasons, one, it's interesting, and two, my wife thought of it -- (laughter) -- or has actually been involved with it; she didn't think of it. But she thought of it for this speech. She has been involved with a public-private partnership called the PlayPumps Alliance. It brings together international foundations and corporations and the U.S. government. Now, catch this: PlayPumps are children's merry-go-rounds attached to a water pump and a storage tank. When the wheel turns, clean drinking water is produced. And as my good wife says, PlayPumps are fueled by a limitless energy source -- (laughter) -- children at play.
“The United States is working with our partners to install 4,000 pumps in schools and communities across sub-Sahara Africa, which will provide clean drinking water to as many as 10 million people. It's not that hard to help people get clean drinking water. It takes focus, imagination, and effort. And I call upon all nations around the world to join us. (Applause.)”
It is also worth noting that Bob Geldof was another speaker at the event.
“The United States works with partner nations to deal with the lack of clean water. Last year we dedicated nearly a billion dollars to improve sanitation and water supplies in developing nations. We're also wise enough to enlist the private sector to help, as well.
“I want to share with you an interesting program -- for two reasons, one, it's interesting, and two, my wife thought of it -- (laughter) -- or has actually been involved with it; she didn't think of it. But she thought of it for this speech. She has been involved with a public-private partnership called the PlayPumps Alliance. It brings together international foundations and corporations and the U.S. government. Now, catch this: PlayPumps are children's merry-go-rounds attached to a water pump and a storage tank. When the wheel turns, clean drinking water is produced. And as my good wife says, PlayPumps are fueled by a limitless energy source -- (laughter) -- children at play.
“The United States is working with our partners to install 4,000 pumps in schools and communities across sub-Sahara Africa, which will provide clean drinking water to as many as 10 million people. It's not that hard to help people get clean drinking water. It takes focus, imagination, and effort. And I call upon all nations around the world to join us. (Applause.)”
It is also worth noting that Bob Geldof was another speaker at the event.
Labels: America, celebrities, development, water
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Mobile phones raise productivity
The introduction to the following story shows how mobile phones can be used to raise productivity in poorer countries. I should emphasise I have no personal interest in Thomson Reuters!
“CHANDIGARH, India, Oct. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Thomson Reuters today announced that it has expanded its ground-breaking mobile information service for India's agricultural community to Punjab. Reuters Market Light, which brings commodity prices, crop and weather data to Indian farmers via mobile phone, launched today with over 3,000 subscribers signed up in Punjab, the birthplace of Green Revolution in India.”
“CHANDIGARH, India, Oct. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Thomson Reuters today announced that it has expanded its ground-breaking mobile information service for India's agricultural community to Punjab. Reuters Market Light, which brings commodity prices, crop and weather data to Indian farmers via mobile phone, launched today with over 3,000 subscribers signed up in Punjab, the birthplace of Green Revolution in India.”
Labels: development, food, technology
Sunday, October 12, 2008
My session at the Battle of Ideas
Just a reminder I will be speaking in the session growing pains: the pros and cons of economic dynamism at the Battle of Ideas festival at the Royal College of Art, London on 1-2 November. Other speakers in that session include Martin Wolf of the Financial Times, Paul Mason of BBC Newsnight and Ha-Joon Chang of Cambridge University.
Labels: development, economics, growth, speeches
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Back from Dubai
I have not posted for a few days because I’ve been at a conference in Dubai and have also had to follow the market mayhem. I hope to write a piece about recent market developments over the weekend – arguing that share price movements are a poor indicator of economic health – but in the meantime a quick thought on Dubai.
Before visiting the emirate I was struck by how many people – most of whom have never been there – told me it was awful. No doubt there are genuine grounds for criticism. For example, its lack of democracy and its unequal treatment of migrant workers. But what most people seem to dislike is precisely what is good about it: its modernity. The critics seem to hate the fact that it has created gleaming, modern buildings out of what was until recently desert. In other words they are criticising precisely what is the best thing about Dubai. It is akin to an aristocrat, who perhaps is not as affluent as he once was, sneering at what they regard as the vulgarity of the new rich.
Before visiting the emirate I was struck by how many people – most of whom have never been there – told me it was awful. No doubt there are genuine grounds for criticism. For example, its lack of democracy and its unequal treatment of migrant workers. But what most people seem to dislike is precisely what is good about it: its modernity. The critics seem to hate the fact that it has created gleaming, modern buildings out of what was until recently desert. In other words they are criticising precisely what is the best thing about Dubai. It is akin to an aristocrat, who perhaps is not as affluent as he once was, sneering at what they regard as the vulgarity of the new rich.
Labels: development, economics, modernity, technology
Friday, October 03, 2008
Me on global equality on Worldbyes
Worldwrite’s latest Worldbytes television programme includes an item with me talking about global inequality. Other stories include challenging China bashing, a scientist talks about waste and an alien’s take on carbon footprints.
Labels: china, development, environment, footprint, inequality, media appearances, Worldwrite
Free market take on development economics
William Easterly, probably the world’s best-known free market inclined development economist, gives his view of the emergence of development economics in an article in the Wall Street Journal:
“Development economics -- the study of how poor countries can become rich -- was forever cursed by the timing of its birth after the Great Depression. That gave development economics a bias toward relying on governments, rather than markets, to create growth. The early development economists ignored a century and a half of European and North American development through individual enterprise, remembering only that their governments forcefully intervened to stimulate output during the 1930s.
“What is widely agreed to be the seminal article in development economics appeared in 1943, calling poor countries "depressed areas." The Economic Journal article by Paul Rosenstein-Rodan, "Problems of Industrialization of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe," concluded that a fourth of the population of these countries was unemployed, and the solution rested in ceding development to the state. Development comes from state-planned investment in all sectors at once, the "Big Push," not reliance on private investors: "An individual entrepreneur's knowledge of the market is . . . insufficient," because he cannot have all the data "available to the planning board."
“Similarly, the U.N.'s Depression mindset prompted them to ask an expert commission led by Sir Arthur Lewis in 1950 to prepare a report on unemployment in underdeveloped countries. Its report concluded that "economic progress depends to a large extent upon the adoption by governments of appropriate . . . action," and that political leaders must have a strategy for such growth, reflecting "the facts of each particular case."
No doubt Easterly is right to argue that when development economics emerged it was a product of its time. At that point state intervention was widely popular. However, he is wrong to argue that America and Western Europe emerged as a result of individual enterprise - the state played a substantial role.
More importantly it is no sadly no longer true to define economics as “the study of how poor countries can become rich”. At best the current perspective can be defined as “the study of how poor countries can become just slightly less poor”.
“Development economics -- the study of how poor countries can become rich -- was forever cursed by the timing of its birth after the Great Depression. That gave development economics a bias toward relying on governments, rather than markets, to create growth. The early development economists ignored a century and a half of European and North American development through individual enterprise, remembering only that their governments forcefully intervened to stimulate output during the 1930s.
“What is widely agreed to be the seminal article in development economics appeared in 1943, calling poor countries "depressed areas." The Economic Journal article by Paul Rosenstein-Rodan, "Problems of Industrialization of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe," concluded that a fourth of the population of these countries was unemployed, and the solution rested in ceding development to the state. Development comes from state-planned investment in all sectors at once, the "Big Push," not reliance on private investors: "An individual entrepreneur's knowledge of the market is . . . insufficient," because he cannot have all the data "available to the planning board."
“Similarly, the U.N.'s Depression mindset prompted them to ask an expert commission led by Sir Arthur Lewis in 1950 to prepare a report on unemployment in underdeveloped countries. Its report concluded that "economic progress depends to a large extent upon the adoption by governments of appropriate . . . action," and that political leaders must have a strategy for such growth, reflecting "the facts of each particular case."
No doubt Easterly is right to argue that when development economics emerged it was a product of its time. At that point state intervention was widely popular. However, he is wrong to argue that America and Western Europe emerged as a result of individual enterprise - the state played a substantial role.
More importantly it is no sadly no longer true to define economics as “the study of how poor countries can become rich”. At best the current perspective can be defined as “the study of how poor countries can become just slightly less poor”.
Labels: development, economics
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Growth Commission blog
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Dumbing down development
The recent Oxfam International paper on Climate Wrongs and Human Rights is a classic example of how an apparently ambitious approach to development has curtailed ambitions. It looks at climate change as violating basic human rights such as the right to life and security, the right to food, the right to subsistence and the right to health. In effect what it is doing is redefining development as survival. It uses the term “rights” in a promiscuous way to mean basic needs. I suspect that also, by introducing the threat of litigation in relation to climate change, it will increase anxiety about pursuing economic growth.
Labels: climate, development
Great news on development
According to the International Communications Union the number of mobile phone users worldwide should reach about four billion by the end of 2008. That is 61% of the world’s population against only 12% in 2000.
That is a fantastic achievement for global development. The quicker it reaches 100% the better. As I have consistently argued it is vital to have a balanced view on progress towards development. There is a huge amount still to do but we should also recognise what we have already achieved.
That is a fantastic achievement for global development. The quicker it reaches 100% the better. As I have consistently argued it is vital to have a balanced view on progress towards development. There is a huge amount still to do but we should also recognise what we have already achieved.
Labels: development, technology
Monday, September 22, 2008
Millennium conference in NY
Who has the Financial Times got blogging on this week’s Millennium Development Goals conference at the United Nations in New York? None other than Bono and his sidekick, Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
Bono describes his week ahead as follows: “A sleepless cocktail of rabble-rousing, meetings with politicians, chief executives, faith leaders and NGOs. People such as Nicolas Sarkozy, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania and Gordon Brown.” It seems that not only does he regard himself as extremely important but senior politicians, businesspeople and religious leaders do too.
A few things to note about this week in relation to the conference:
* The Clinton Global Initiative looks like it will play a prominent role. Clinton - Bill rather than Hillary - will be appearing on the Daily Show on Tuesday to promote the campaign. It is billed as: “the almost first husband talks about the Clinton Global Initiative”.
* According to Bono there will be a “historic and innovative announcement on malaria on Thursday”. I would guess it probably has something to do with anti-malarial bednets.
Bono describes his week ahead as follows: “A sleepless cocktail of rabble-rousing, meetings with politicians, chief executives, faith leaders and NGOs. People such as Nicolas Sarkozy, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania and Gordon Brown.” It seems that not only does he regard himself as extremely important but senior politicians, businesspeople and religious leaders do too.
A few things to note about this week in relation to the conference:
* The Clinton Global Initiative looks like it will play a prominent role. Clinton - Bill rather than Hillary - will be appearing on the Daily Show on Tuesday to promote the campaign. It is billed as: “the almost first husband talks about the Clinton Global Initiative”.
* According to Bono there will be a “historic and innovative announcement on malaria on Thursday”. I would guess it probably has something to do with anti-malarial bednets.
Labels: America, celebrities, development, economics, health
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Economist on globalisation
This week’s Economist (20 September) includes a survey on globalisation. Its focus is the growing importance of multinational companies from emerging economy countries.
Labels: development, economics, globalisation
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Development Redefined
Development Redefined, a new book by Robin Broad and John Cavanagh, promises to provide a critique of the Washington Consensus or “market fundamentalism”. Unfortunately, judging by its endorsements – including Walden Bello, Naomi Klein and Vandana Shiva – it is likely to prove even more conservative than the ideas it criticises.
Labels: book, development, economics
Oxfam development blog
Duncan Green of Oxfam GB has started a blog on development issues. Given the substantial (and often pernicious) influence of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in development it will probably prove worth monitoring. Oxfam is one of the most influential of such organisations.
On Green’s recent book on development see my 22 June 2008 post.
On Green’s recent book on development see my 22 June 2008 post.
Labels: book, development, economics
Monday, September 08, 2008
Fossil fuels vital to future development
The following comment by me appeared in this week’s Fund Strategy.
It seems virtually all politicians want to present themselves as enemies of "big oil". It is a pity they have forgotten the huge benefits of fossil fuels.
One of the less noticed passages of Gordon Brown's speech to the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland last week was his desire to "set a new ambition to free Britain from the dictatorship of oil".
Exactly how a physical substance can impose a dictatorship over people he did not explain. Rights are normally curtailed by governments, such as his own, rather than by chemicals. But he is far from alone in his hostility to oil.
Al Gore, the former American vice-president turned environmental campaigner, told the Democratic National Convention in Denver on August 28 that America needed presidential leadership to solve the climate crisis. He is also supporting a campaign demanding "electricity 100% clean within 10 years" (www.wecansolveit.org). Obviously, the term "clean" is open to interpretation but Gore made no secret of his distaste for "big oil and coal" in his speech.
Nor is criticism of oil interests restricted to those who might vaguely be defined as on the left. On the Republican side the new vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, is portrayed by her opponents as a supporter of big oil. But she presents herself as a populist critic of corporate interests.
Few seem willing to put the case that fossil fuel has brought enormous benefits to humanity and, if allowed, is likely to continue to do so. It is a relatively cheap and highly flexible form of energy. That is why the International Energy Agency estimates it is likely to account for 84% of the overall increase in energy demand from 2005-2030. Without oil the world economy would not have grown nearly as fast over the past century.
Although Brown and others offer alternatives, their claims to be able to replace fossil fuel bear little relationship to reality. Brown supports more investment in renewables and atomic power - which is fine in principle - but on nowhere near the scale needed to meet future energy needs. And, contrary to the common misconception, greater energy efficiency is likely to lead to more energy consumption rather than less.
One-sided attacks on oil do not help promote a considered debate on the future of energy.
It seems virtually all politicians want to present themselves as enemies of "big oil". It is a pity they have forgotten the huge benefits of fossil fuels.
One of the less noticed passages of Gordon Brown's speech to the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland last week was his desire to "set a new ambition to free Britain from the dictatorship of oil".
Exactly how a physical substance can impose a dictatorship over people he did not explain. Rights are normally curtailed by governments, such as his own, rather than by chemicals. But he is far from alone in his hostility to oil.
Al Gore, the former American vice-president turned environmental campaigner, told the Democratic National Convention in Denver on August 28 that America needed presidential leadership to solve the climate crisis. He is also supporting a campaign demanding "electricity 100% clean within 10 years" (www.wecansolveit.org). Obviously, the term "clean" is open to interpretation but Gore made no secret of his distaste for "big oil and coal" in his speech.
Nor is criticism of oil interests restricted to those who might vaguely be defined as on the left. On the Republican side the new vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, is portrayed by her opponents as a supporter of big oil. But she presents herself as a populist critic of corporate interests.
Few seem willing to put the case that fossil fuel has brought enormous benefits to humanity and, if allowed, is likely to continue to do so. It is a relatively cheap and highly flexible form of energy. That is why the International Energy Agency estimates it is likely to account for 84% of the overall increase in energy demand from 2005-2030. Without oil the world economy would not have grown nearly as fast over the past century.
Although Brown and others offer alternatives, their claims to be able to replace fossil fuel bear little relationship to reality. Brown supports more investment in renewables and atomic power - which is fine in principle - but on nowhere near the scale needed to meet future energy needs. And, contrary to the common misconception, greater energy efficiency is likely to lead to more energy consumption rather than less.
One-sided attacks on oil do not help promote a considered debate on the future of energy.
Labels: America, climate, development, economics, energy, Fund Strategy
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Brookings initiative on development
The Brookings Institution, a think tank based in Washington DC, is organising interesting-sounding events and publications on development. These include an event on how the world’s poor can deal with climate change and a book on Global Development 2.0 including a look at the new philanthropists. The latter looks at how: “The fight against global poverty has quickly become one of the hottest tickets on the global agenda—with rock stars, world leaders, and multibillionaires calling attention to the plight of the poor at international confabs such as the World Economic Forum and the Clinton Global Initiative.”
Labels: celebrities, climate, development
Friday, September 05, 2008
Quick catch-up
There have been several interesting articles and discussions this week but until now I have been too busy to blog them all. Here is a quick round-up:
* Debate on geo-engineering. The Royal Society (Britain’s premier science organisation) has published a series of papers in its Philosophical Transactions on geo-engineering. That in turn prompted a substantial article in the Economist (6 September edition) and a piece by Oliver Tickell (an environmental campaigner) on the Guardian comment is free site supporting geo-engineering but only if it is linked to a reduction in emissions.
* Book on Nazi’s green credentials. I came across this when I heard radio presenters making fun of the title How Green were the Nazis?. To me it is a perfectly reasonable question and the book looks interesting. There is no doubt that many Nazis supported what are today classified as environmental ideas - which does not mean that all environmentalists are Nazis. The most serious critique I could find of the book was in Haaretz (Israel’s leading newspaper).
* Critique of Garrett Hardin’s classic article on “The tragedy of the commons” from a leftist viewpoint. Available here.
* Article on conservative assumptions of organic food movement. Conservative in a literal Burkean sense. Available here.
* Poll on hostility to local development in America, Britain and Canada. Available here.
* James Heartfield on Enron as a pioneer of environmentalism. Based on extracts from his latest book. Available here.
* Debate on geo-engineering. The Royal Society (Britain’s premier science organisation) has published a series of papers in its Philosophical Transactions on geo-engineering. That in turn prompted a substantial article in the Economist (6 September edition) and a piece by Oliver Tickell (an environmental campaigner) on the Guardian comment is free site supporting geo-engineering but only if it is linked to a reduction in emissions.
* Book on Nazi’s green credentials. I came across this when I heard radio presenters making fun of the title How Green were the Nazis?. To me it is a perfectly reasonable question and the book looks interesting. There is no doubt that many Nazis supported what are today classified as environmental ideas - which does not mean that all environmentalists are Nazis. The most serious critique I could find of the book was in Haaretz (Israel’s leading newspaper).
* Critique of Garrett Hardin’s classic article on “The tragedy of the commons” from a leftist viewpoint. Available here.
* Article on conservative assumptions of organic food movement. Conservative in a literal Burkean sense. Available here.
* Poll on hostility to local development in America, Britain and Canada. Available here.
* James Heartfield on Enron as a pioneer of environmentalism. Based on extracts from his latest book. Available here.
Labels: book, development, economics, environment, finance, food, geo-engineering
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Mobiles for all!
Jeffrey Sachs writes in an article for Project Syndicate on the spread of mobile phones in the world’s poorer countries:
“market penetration in poor countries is rising sharply. India has around 300 million subscribers, with subscriptions rising by a stunning eight million or more per month. Brazil now has more than 130 million subscribers, and Indonesia has roughly 120 million. In Africa, which contains the world’s poorest countries, the market is soaring, with more than 280 million subscribers.
“Mobile phones are now ubiquitous in villages as well as cities. If an individual does not have a cell phone, they almost surely know someone who does. Probably a significant majority of Africans have at least emergency access to a cell phone, either their own, a neighbor’s, or one at a commercial kiosk.
“Even more remarkable is the continuing “convergence” of digital information: wireless systems increasingly link mobile phones with the Internet, personal computers, and information services of all kinds. The array of benefits is stunning. The rural poor in more and more of the world now have access to wireless banking and payments systems, such as Kenya’s famous M-PESA system, which allows money transfers through the phone. The information carried on the new networks spans public health, medical care, education, banking, commerce, and entertainment, in addition to communications among family and friends.”
“market penetration in poor countries is rising sharply. India has around 300 million subscribers, with subscriptions rising by a stunning eight million or more per month. Brazil now has more than 130 million subscribers, and Indonesia has roughly 120 million. In Africa, which contains the world’s poorest countries, the market is soaring, with more than 280 million subscribers.
“Mobile phones are now ubiquitous in villages as well as cities. If an individual does not have a cell phone, they almost surely know someone who does. Probably a significant majority of Africans have at least emergency access to a cell phone, either their own, a neighbor’s, or one at a commercial kiosk.
“Even more remarkable is the continuing “convergence” of digital information: wireless systems increasingly link mobile phones with the Internet, personal computers, and information services of all kinds. The array of benefits is stunning. The rural poor in more and more of the world now have access to wireless banking and payments systems, such as Kenya’s famous M-PESA system, which allows money transfers through the phone. The information carried on the new networks spans public health, medical care, education, banking, commerce, and entertainment, in addition to communications among family and friends.”
Labels: Africa, development, india, Latin America, progress, technology
Friday, August 29, 2008
Report on global health inequalities
No doubt the new report on global health inequalities by a commission backed by the World Health Organization (WHO) will repay close study. It is a comprehensive work on an important subject. It also looks certain that some will use the fact that there is not a 100% clear correlation between income levels and health as a way of downplaying the importance of economic growth. To quote the press release:
“Wealth alone does not have to determine the health of a nation's population. Some low-income countries such as Cuba, Costa Rica, China, state of Kerala in India and Sri Lanka have achieved levels of good health despite relatively low national incomes.”
Thankfully the report is not as laughably crude as the leader in today’s Guardian which almost reduces the question to unhealthy lifestyles and even low self esteem:
“We know now that people do not only die of coronary heart disease because of a failure on the part of their local hospital. Such deaths reflect unhealthy lifestyles, and unhealthy lifestyles are often connected to poor education, bad housing, low-paid work and the low self-esteem that accompany them.”
The arguments put forward by the likes of Michael Marmot, the chairman of he WHO commission, and Amartya Sen, a member of the commission, are more sophisticated and harder to take up.
“Wealth alone does not have to determine the health of a nation's population. Some low-income countries such as Cuba, Costa Rica, China, state of Kerala in India and Sri Lanka have achieved levels of good health despite relatively low national incomes.”
Thankfully the report is not as laughably crude as the leader in today’s Guardian which almost reduces the question to unhealthy lifestyles and even low self esteem:
“We know now that people do not only die of coronary heart disease because of a failure on the part of their local hospital. Such deaths reflect unhealthy lifestyles, and unhealthy lifestyles are often connected to poor education, bad housing, low-paid work and the low self-esteem that accompany them.”
The arguments put forward by the likes of Michael Marmot, the chairman of he WHO commission, and Amartya Sen, a member of the commission, are more sophisticated and harder to take up.
Labels: development, health, inequality
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Worldwrite to launch news channel
Worldwrite is to launch an online monthly video news channel called Worldbytes at 7pm (London time) on Friday 5 September. More details to follow but it promises to be a must watch programme with its staunchly pro-development stance and irreverent attitude to growth scepticism.
Labels: development, inequality, television, Worldwrite
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
World Bank promotes new poverty measure
The World Bank has launched its new $1.25 a day poverty measure (see post of 25 May 2008). Under the new measure a greater number of people are classified as poor although the proportion of people living in poverty is still falling over time.
The number living in poverty is 400m more than previously assumed but, according to the release:
“New poverty estimates published by the World Bank reveal that 1.4 billion people in the developing world (one in four) were living on less than US$1.25 a day in 2005, down from 1.9 billion (one in two) in 1981.”
A new paper by Martin Ravallion and Shaohua Chen discusses the changes in more detail.
The number living in poverty is 400m more than previously assumed but, according to the release:
“New poverty estimates published by the World Bank reveal that 1.4 billion people in the developing world (one in four) were living on less than US$1.25 a day in 2005, down from 1.9 billion (one in two) in 1981.”
A new paper by Martin Ravallion and Shaohua Chen discusses the changes in more detail.
Labels: development, economics, inequality, progress
Sports stars back degraded development
The United Nations Development Programme is recruiting sports stars to promote the Millennium Development Goals. It is running full page ads in prominent newspapers featuring a large picture of Maria Sharapova (photogenic Russian tennis player) and LeBron James (basketball player). The campaign is evidently also backed by two footballers: Zidane and Ronaldo (the Brazilian one rather than the Portuguese player with the same name).
At some point I would like to write an expose of how celebrities are used to win support for campaigns which embody such low horizons.
At some point I would like to write an expose of how celebrities are used to win support for campaigns which embody such low horizons.
Labels: celebrities, development
Monday, August 25, 2008
Upgraded links
I have added to and updated the list of useful links on the left hand bar at the side of this site. New links include China Digital Daily, Climate Debate Daily, Culture Wars’ world development pages, the Future Cities Project and Indur Goklany’s papers. Any suggestions for further links or material for posts please email me HERE.
Labels: china, cities, climate, development, progress
