In completing some of the preliminary suggested reading for my coursework at LSE, I have been rereading Paul Collier's most excellent book, "The Bottom Billion. I had read this a few years back and its message stuck with ever since. I will be quoting and providing dialogue/commentary to some of the key points made by Collier, a true expert in the field of developmental economics. (In fact, I am at the library right now and I have just picked up another of his works, "Wars, Guns, and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places," which is next on the reading list.
(p11): Collier advocates for an emphasis on the growth rate of countries, to harken back to Kennedy, "A rising tide lifts all boats." While it is obviously hard to disagree with this, I think that a focus on growth alone is fraught with danger. Joseph Steiglitz has agreed in his drive for a measure "other than GDP" to gauge human development, and the cause has been taken up by countries such as Bhutan, which is aiming to expand the breadth of its "Gross National Happiness" measure at the UN. From recent personal experience in East Africa, and the experience of recently reading the Wikileaks pages on Mozambique, GDP growth, even where phenomenal, where not corresponding to the strong rule of law, transparency, and governance, is a shallow indicator of human development. If a country, such as Mozambique, (which has been growing at 6-8% a year for quite some years now), is measured in this light, what is being measured is the rise in living standards of the rich, urbanized elite, whose stranglehold on power and the economy (often in gangster like cartels, such as is seen in Mozambique, despite its "liberalization" and heralding in the west), and not the actual living standards of the populace, which if one ventures to the rural areas of the north of the country, remain as unchanged as they have been for hundreds of years. Try telling a villager on the road from Namialo to Pemba in the north of the country, living on a dirt path, in a mud hut with thatched roofs, no electricity, no plumbing, and possibly only a mobile phone to connect them to the 21st century that their country has experienced one of the highest growth rates in the world going on a decade, and I do believe that would solicit a wide, hearty laugh. Developmental indicators must, thus, focus on the real indicators of progress for the populace, and not simply economic output figures that often mask the realities on the ground. Literacy, infant mortality, caloric intake; these should be the measure of progress for nations in the developing south. There should not be a "discomfort" about growth, it should be an aim for all; nobody wants to regress, nobody wants to stagnate; however, more enlightened thought needs to be focused on this topic.
Collier notes, eloquently, that, "To my mind, development is about giving hope to ordinary people that their children will live in a society that has caught up with the rest of the world. Take away that hope and smart people will use their energy not to develop their society but to escape from it" (12).
(p11): Collier advocates for an emphasis on the growth rate of countries, to harken back to Kennedy, "A rising tide lifts all boats." While it is obviously hard to disagree with this, I think that a focus on growth alone is fraught with danger. Joseph Steiglitz has agreed in his drive for a measure "other than GDP" to gauge human development, and the cause has been taken up by countries such as Bhutan, which is aiming to expand the breadth of its "Gross National Happiness" measure at the UN. From recent personal experience in East Africa, and the experience of recently reading the Wikileaks pages on Mozambique, GDP growth, even where phenomenal, where not corresponding to the strong rule of law, transparency, and governance, is a shallow indicator of human development. If a country, such as Mozambique, (which has been growing at 6-8% a year for quite some years now), is measured in this light, what is being measured is the rise in living standards of the rich, urbanized elite, whose stranglehold on power and the economy (often in gangster like cartels, such as is seen in Mozambique, despite its "liberalization" and heralding in the west), and not the actual living standards of the populace, which if one ventures to the rural areas of the north of the country, remain as unchanged as they have been for hundreds of years. Try telling a villager on the road from Namialo to Pemba in the north of the country, living on a dirt path, in a mud hut with thatched roofs, no electricity, no plumbing, and possibly only a mobile phone to connect them to the 21st century that their country has experienced one of the highest growth rates in the world going on a decade, and I do believe that would solicit a wide, hearty laugh. Developmental indicators must, thus, focus on the real indicators of progress for the populace, and not simply economic output figures that often mask the realities on the ground. Literacy, infant mortality, caloric intake; these should be the measure of progress for nations in the developing south. There should not be a "discomfort" about growth, it should be an aim for all; nobody wants to regress, nobody wants to stagnate; however, more enlightened thought needs to be focused on this topic.
Collier notes, eloquently, that, "To my mind, development is about giving hope to ordinary people that their children will live in a society that has caught up with the rest of the world. Take away that hope and smart people will use their energy not to develop their society but to escape from it" (12).
