William Easter's The Tyranny Of Experts

In The Tyranny of Experts, William Easterly examines the four key debates regarding effective development in struggling nations and regions. The first he discusses is the blank slate versus “learning from history” approach, which refers to whether agencies seeking to institute new programs in developing nations take into account the unique characteristics and integrity of the nation they are trying to improve. Easterly argues the blank slate approach can often be extremely ineffective because it does not set up long-term positive development but instead creates a synthetic approach that lacks any attempt to empower the host nation to personalize and make the changes their own. He also points out that those seeking to develop the nation might

While democracy from an individualistic American standpoint might be seen as the highest form of government, when democracies are artificially created in collectivist cultures, it might not see the same level of civic participation and political growth because citizens are not focused on fighting for their own rights but rather the rights of the group as a whole. This makes collectivist cultures more suited for autocratic governments because one person is then able to assess the needs of the whole and make decisions

Throughout the book he illustrates the necessity of finding and instituting solutions based on the integrity of the individual nations and communities. Developed nations often see their own structural model as the key for success and try to institute the exact same solutions in struggling nations, without realizing the actual needs and wants of the people whose problems they are trying to ‘fix.’ Free development is key because it allows individual nations to determine what is right for them and leads to solutions that are capable of surviving in the environment where they are placed. I was particularly persuaded by this argument because I know that if an NYU professor came to Baylor and started instituting changes that would make us “better” and more like NYU, I would be extremely put-off. However, if he simply explained positive programs NYU has instituted and discussed with Baylor faculty how similarly effective programs might be put in place at Baylor, I believe our school would be more likely to accept the changes and find a way to integrate them into Baylor in a more permanent and significant way. Similarly, I think overriding and ignoring unethical leaders and government who we as outsiders do not see as true advocates for the needs of their people, can be dangerous and often a recipe for short-sighted results.