In Easterly’s book, “The Tyranny of Experts,” the reigning myth of benevolent American intervention is turned on its head. According to Easterly, walking into a developing country with experts, supplies, and new government initiatives creates more chaos than it does good. One of Easterly’s primary arguments involves the inefficiency of the “blank slate” approach. He explains that the experts involved in assisting developing countries start from the assumption that these poor countries are a blank slate with no history or present method of Smith’s “invisible hand.” Instead, new methods are imposed on the people of these developing countries and their rights are often ignored in the process. Rather than allowing comparative statistics and growth …show more content…
According to Easterly, “the members of a society with collectivist values do not necessarily prefer these values. Individuals may prefer to assert their own rights but might have no hope of success when collectivist norms hold for everyone else” (140). This suggests that countries with a history of collectivist values and autocracy have less trust and respect for those outside of their community. This makes it much more difficult to intervene in the economic development of these countries because a lack of respect for others facilitates autocratic development. This leads to an endless loop that perpetuates collectivist values and ignores individual rights and …show more content…
Easterly believes that the real cause of poverty is the unchecked power of the state against poor natives of developing countries without individual liberties. Easterly argues against imposing authoritarian development onto any developing countries, even when it comes to countries with a history of collectivist values. Rather than imposing collectivist values on a country, experts should allow countries to develop these regimes on their own. By allowing countries the right to free development, one creates large numbers of innovators rather than ‘dictators.’ According to Easterly, the development industry has become largely self-sustaining. Foreign countries do not need to intervene as aggressively as they have in the past, but should instead seek to promote individual rights and offer innovative ideas and resources that can improve a developing country’s ability to solve their own
International Development and the Social Sciences, pp. 259-290. University of California Press,. Rostow, W.W. (1960) “The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto.” pp.
All in all, the greatest danger to society is this idea of collectivism and the suppression of basic human rights that go along with it. The idea that an individual should not put their priorities ahead of their parties or state is completely absurd and will harm the human race in creating the next big invention. Freedom and Capitalism drives innovation it has cured diseases and built the worlds biggest skyscrapers. When you eliminate that and take everything under state control all you do is destroy any incentive for people to work harder. This also sets the stage for a dictator to take control and keep control with brutal means. The vivisection morality is still around and until more people begin embracing the idea of individualism around the world will we finally reach a utopia.
Collectivist ideology such as welfare state puts the whole state in an economic hardship because we must rely on one another to be able to stand up. However, in a society that promotes individualism economically, we are able to create individual reliance and basically, “each man for himself.” This promotes each person economic freedom and growth because a capitalistic society that rejects economic collectivism does not require everyone in society to “pitch in” and help those who are not economically stable. By relying on welfare state, you are also relying on the pocket of the people. This makes it harder for the state to achieve economic growth since the money is not circulating around the economy. It is being used by those who cannot support themselves economically. An example of this is the ainti-poverty programs in America. Instead of pulling people out of poverty, it is increasing the federal spending even more. America has spent nearly $20 trillion dollars in attempt to defeat the war on poverty. Since the government is spending so much money on this welfare, it is just giving many people a greater reason to stay on the program. According to the Senate Budget Committee, recipients are making $30/hr per household. Instead of lifting people out, welfare state gives them more reasons to stay and abuse the privilage. This does not
It is human nature to see those who are different and group them into distinct categories. The distinction of Individualism versus Collectivism is one that is currently being studied extensively. On one side, individualism sees individuals as the fundamental unit of a society. Individuals are supposed to be unique, independent, and most importantly, willing to put their own interests above all others. On the other hand, collectivism views the basic building block of society as social groups, stressing the interpersonal bonds between people. Collectivist values dictate that group goals and values have higher precedence than an individual’s. Due to the seemingly polar opposite nature of these ideologies, it is inevitable that they will be compared to see which is more beneficial to the country and its people. Some might point to the success of the US, an extremely individualistic country, in support of individualistic values. They will point to the freedom of choice and diversity that individualism boasts of. Others stress the flaws of the US in response, and while both sides do have their truths, the costs that come with individualistic values are too great to be ignored. Highly individualistic attitudes have caused many large scale problems which have long been identified as difficult to resolve issues. These problems include, but are not limited to, promoting aggressive acts, creating an obsession with social power, and allowing a system of injustice to be born.
Poverty has conquered nations around the world, striking the populations down through disease and starvation. Small children with sunken eyes are displayed on national television to remind those sitting in warm, luxiourious houses that living conditions are less than tolerable around the world. Though it is easy to empathize for the poor, it is sometimes harder to reach into our pocketbooks and support them. No one desires people to suffer, but do wealthy nations have a moral obligation to aid poor nations who are unable to help themselves? Garrett Hardin in, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor," uses a lifeboat analogy to expose the global negative consequences that could accompany the support of poor nations. Hardin stresses problems including population increase and environmental overuse as downfalls that are necessary to consider for the survival of wealthy nations. In contrast, Peter Singer's piece, "Rich and Poor," remarks on the large differences between living conditions of those in absolute poverty with the wealthy, concluding that the rich nations possess a moral obligation to the poor that surpasses the risks involved. Theodore Sumberg's book, "Foreign Aid As Moral Obligation," documents religious and political views that encourage foreign aid. Kevin M. Morrison and David Weiner, a research analyst and senior fellow respectively at the Overseas Development Council, note the positive impact of foreign aid to America, a wealthy nation. Following the examination of these texts, it seems that not only do we have a moral obligation to the poor, but aiding poor nations is in the best interest of wealthy nations.
The gap between developed and underdeveloped is evident in today’s world. In naïve effort to bridge this gap a host of aid projects and development schemes are plotted onto less developed countries. But what is development really? James Ferguson attempts to explore this concept in his book “The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho”. The book is an extension of Ferguson’s PhD dissertation and was published in 1990 by Cambridge University Press. The book is interesting in that it seeks to give the reader a critical understanding and insight of the actual processes that take place when development projects are implemented. Using the small African country of Lesotho as his setting, Ferguson’s book is centre around the Thaba-Tseka Development Project. This book is likely interest a variety of audience, namely anthropologists, sociologists, economists, development practitioners or any lay person interested in the field of development.
When looking through the topic of development, two drastically different ways to assess it arise. The majority of the western world looks at development in terms of per capita GNP. This means each country is evaluated on a level playing field, comparing the production of each country in economic value. Opposite this style of evaluation is that of the alternative view, which measures a country’s development on its ability to fulfill basic material and non-material needs. Cultural ties are strong in this case as most of the population does not produce for wealth but merely survival and tradition.
McMichael, Philip, ed 2012. Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective, 5th ed. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Why nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, is a captivating read for all college economic courses. Coauthored by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, they optimistically attempt to answer the tough question of why some nations are rich and others are poor through political economic theories. They lay it all out in the preface and first chapter. According to Acemoglu and Robinson, the everyday United States citizen obtains more wealth than the every day Mexican, sub-Saharan African, Ethiopian, Mali, Sierra Leonne and Peruvian citizen as well as some Asian countries. The authors strategically arranged each chapter in a way that the reader, whomever he or she is, could easily grasp the following concept. Extractive nations that have political leadership and financial inconsistencies within their institutions are the largest contributor to poverty and despair within most countries. It also states that countries with socioeconomic institutions that work ‘for the people and by the people’, or in other words, focus on the internal agenda of that
In conclusion, Collier thoroughly explains his reasons behind why the bottom billion countries are poor. His arguments covered a variety of the course concepts like internationalism, failed state, Globalization, and economic forces. However, after critical evaluation, it is clear that Collier ignored and underestimated several of these concepts.
The rise of development theory has been an interesting phenomenon. In the latter half of the 20th century, many theorists have tried to explain the origins of "under-development." The debate over the idea of development has been intense, and has led to the emergence of two contending paradigms: Modernization theory and dependency theory. Upon close investigation, one realizes that both theories are problematic. This paper is based on readings of Escobar, Martinussen, Cruise O'Brien, and Pieterse. The purpose of this paper is to chronicle the origins and growth of development discourse, and to show how both paradigms share three flaws: an economist approach to social change, and an ethnocentric and teleological worldview of development, and the perceived universal application of the West's development experience throughout the developing world.
The final chapter of The Globalization Paradox, titled “The Rise and Fall of the First Great Globalization,” focuses on what the United States should do to become a new innovation economy and regain its economic prowess. The author, Moretti, identifies the lack of investment on research and development, and the lack of human capital as the main problems with the American economy. He goes on to explain that the creators of new ideas are often not compensated by the government for the positive spillover effects that these creations lead to. The amount of current funding in research and development fails to recognize the increased value of knowledge. As the returns for investment increase, Moretti suggests that the government stimulate investment
Extractive institutions are used throughout this book to explain that the upper class extracts resources and goods from the lower class. They don’t allow growth or competition, but rather they just exploit the rest of society into doing their labour. It’s used to please a few, rather than the majority, and can still be seen in most places in the world. Whereas, inclusive institutions are the ideal way nations should be run, allowing for fair economical systems, property ownership, educational facilities and allowing all citizens to participate in the growth of the economy. Acemoglu and Robinson argue that this is the main factor in distinguishing the rich countries from the poor and, moreover, how they treat their citizens. This system is relatively used in North America and Western Europe.
Poor countries have been receiving aid from the international community for over a century now. While such aid is supposed to be considered an act of kindness from the donor nations or international bodies, it has led to over dependence among the developing countries. They have adopted the habit of estimating and including international aid in their national budgets to reduce their balance of trade deficits. It is believed that foreign aid is necessary for poor nations in order to break the cycle of poverty that ties their citizens in low productivity zones and so their economy will not be weak. However, some critics view the extension of aid to poor countries as means of keeping the nations in economic slumber so that they can wake up from only by devising ways of furthering self-sustainability. Because of these two schools of thought concerning the topic, debate has arisen on which side is more rational and factual than the other. The non-sustainable nature of international aid, however, leaves the question of what may happen in the event that foreign aid is unavailable for the poor nations. After thorough consideration on the effects of the assistance to poor countries, it is sufficient to state that giving international aid to the poor nations is more disadvantageous than beneficial to the nations. This point is argued through an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of giving international aid to the poor countries with appropriate examples drawn from various regions of the world to prove the stance.
In recent discussion about helping the poor, one controversial issue has been whether to help or not to help. On one hand, some say that helping the poor is very simple and doesn’t take much. From this point of view, it is seen as selfish to not help the poor. On the other hand, however, others argue that by helping others you are in fact hurting yourself at the same time. In the words of Garrett Hardin, one of this view’s main proponents, “prosperity will only be satisfied by lifeboat ethics.” According to this view, we are not morally obligated to help other countries. In sum, then, the issue is whether to help poorer countries or not.