The New Ism

Mark Thoma gives links to the William Easterly article against Developmentalism found in Foreign Policy Magazine. Dani Rodrik wonders what Easterly is really trying to express, finding much common ground with Bill, but quizzical about the Easterly presumed monotheism of the overall doctrine. The seed of the Easterly argument must be a criticism of the ‘Top-down’ approach to Developmental aid.

The evils I find in Development doctrine are all of the ‘Top-down’ direction, but probably not what Easterly might consider to be the greatest evils. The absolute worst approach to Development consists of the destruction of Native industries, before they can be replaced by sustainable labor in the World economy. This destruction of Native industries creates an immediate dependence of Native labor on the World economy; one where they are not temperamentally or educationally suited to maintain position. Native economies endure the further corruption of increasing dependence on increased Energy needs to supply the Advanced World commercial and consumer products, in a World where Energy becomes an ever more expensive commodity in its own right. Development doctrine cultivates extremely Developed World tastes in a very undeveloped World.

A secondary consideration of Development doctrine remains Private Enterprise ideology. The Gambit extends from Microfinance to development of huge labor force businesses. The ideology always insists on Private Enterprise which has limited economic resources to counteract any depression of Sales, then insists that this new Business service Developed World Products; intimately tying these Business concerns to Developed World economies; these businesses destined for Scrap with any significant downturn of the developed economies. Many Economists would contest my position, but how many of the new industries of the Third World are set up to provision Product for their own native economies–it is all for Export; levels of Product with the most rapid Shift pattern under Recessive conditions.

The worst aspect of Development doctrine may realistically be the artificial injection of Power into the Native hierarchical structure. Those who control the flow of Funds and Products from the Developed World, controls a dependent people. Traditional choice of leadership, and traditional replacement of leadership in Native society becomes unhinged; Native Power brokers utilizing the overwhelming power of foreign Product access to enhance and protect their domination of native society. American Politicians have traditionally shown ineptitude in backing Native leadership, and there is little indication that American Economists or Corporate leadership will have a better Track record. lgl