How about some MDGs for the TOP billion?

In the run up to the big UN MDG summit next month, this sweet idea comes from Andrew Revkin on his dot earth blog:

“Here comes a question to ponder over the weekend. There is a set of Millennium Development Goals for the poorest of the poor – a cohort of humanity sometimes described as the the “bottom billion.”

But, as yet, there is no set of such goals for those who are already living lives that many analysts say are consuming resources at a pace well beyond the planet’s carrying capacity, particularly if the habits that attend affluence – from greatly increased meat consumption to unthinking energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions – are adopted by another few billion people.

There are plenty who contend that unrestrained pursuit of prosperity is a prerequisite for a mix of environmental care and technological advancement that will continue to improve the state of the planet. But there’s self interest in an examination of how much is enough. Some analysts have found, for example, that diseases accompanying affluence exact a toll in lost years of human lives that is not far behind the losses from diseases of poverty. And then there’s the issue of what’s being pursued – the good life as defined in Vegas or by Plato.

The question: Would the world benefit from a set of millennium development goals for the “top billion”?”

[h/t Sam Bickersteth]

Locked latrines, meat offsetting and development apps

I just spent an enthralling couple of days at a get together of Oxfam GB’s country directors (CDs). A combination of group discussions and speed-dating as I talked to as many as possible of the incredibly impressive people who are on Oxfam’s frontline, lobbying ministers and officials, consulting poor communities and doing (lots of) management stuff. I picked up some examples of effective development work that I’ll highlight over the coming weeks, but here’s a few initial impressions and stories, with countries edited out just in case.

Climate change: it was striking what a mainstream part of aid work climate change adaptation and advocacy have become. Everyone seems to be doing it. Remarkable shift in just the last few years.

Driving implementation: several conversations about how, as countries have got increasingly involved in policy work, many have concluded that you can get more bangs for your advocacy buck by focussing on implementation of existing legislation, rather than demanding nice new laws that no-one takes any notice of. As one CD from Central Asia observed: ‘the elite know how to handle the expat aid consultants. You make sure they come in, employ senior civil servants, buy a new law and can declare success. Then the expat moves on and nothing changes.’

And some stories, good and bad, (and all completely unscientific and anecdotal):

In the Pakistan floods one of the reasons why people are reluctant to move to camps is fear of losing their land. People are clinging on as near as possible to their submerged plots, so that they can get back there as soon as possible when the waters recede. A stark example of the links between land rights and humanitarian work.

Ever struggled to explain the difference between outputs and outcomes? Try this. One CD in West Africa came upon a beautiful new row of shiny latrines. Padlocked. Why? ‘We wanted to keep them clean.’ Nice output (latrines) shame about the outcome (health).

In the Middle East we are doing some fascinating research on men and boys, and their attitudes to women’s rights and violence against women. What power are men willing to give up? Generally, no problems with women getting an education or a job, but complete opposition to adultery (by women, that is) or going out without permission – a man has to know at all times where his wife is. And two surprises – men don’t necessarily make better interviewers of other men, and violence often begins with mothers (not fathers) beating their sons.

And two whacky ideas:

We know that carnivores emit more carbon (loads more grain needed to produce a kilogram of beef than a kilo of, ermm, grain) and that levels of meat consumption are far greater in the rich countries. But vegetarianism by decree is never going to fly. Obvious solution? Meat offsetting. If I want a steak, I need to compensate someone in a developing country who is going to suffer the consequences, and probably eats a lot less meat than I do.

And as iPhones or similar 3 and 4G gizmos (I’m vague on the details) spread across the developing world, what would an Oxfam app look like? GPS tools for small farmers to help them reduce fertilizer or pesticide use? Ushahidi-style crowd sourcing for activists? All suggestions welcome.

What are African countries already doing to adapt to climate change?

While climate change negotiators seem to be wading through metaphorical cement, national governments have no choice but to get on with adapting to current and future climate change, as far as they are able. A recent review of 10 African countries’ adaptation plans by IFPRI shows some patterns to the response. (The countries were Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda).

Only two strategies are common to all 10 countries – the development and promotion of drought-tolerant and early-maturing crop species and exploitation of new and renewable energy sources. Most countries have areas that are classifiable as arid or semi-arid, hence the need to develop drought-tolerant and early-maturing crops. Strangely, only one country recognizes the conservation of genetic resources as an important strategy although this is also potentially important for dealing with drought. Biomass energy resources account for more than 70 percent of total energy consumption in ASARECA member countries. To mitigate the potential adverse effects of biomass energy depletion, ASARECA countries plan to harness new and renewable energy sources, including solar power, wind power, hydro and geothermal sources, and biofuels.

Eight of the 10 countries cite the promotion of rainwater harvesting as an important adaptation strategy, either small scale with small check dams or large scale with large dam projects. Five other measures are being used by more than half the countries surveyed:
(a) the conservation and restoration of vegetative cover in degraded and mountain areas;
(b) reduction of overall livestock numbers through sale or slaughter;
(c) cross-breeding, zero-grazing, and acquisition of smaller livestock (for example, sheep or goats);
(d) adoption of traditional methods of natural forest conservation and food use; and
(e) community-based management programs for forests, rangelands, and national parks.

Interestingly, the promotion of environmentally friendly investments and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects that can be funded through carbon trading is a feature of only one country. According to the IFPRI report, three examples of strategies that warrant greater region wide collaboration are the conservation of genetic materials, development and promotion of drought-tolerant species, and soil conservation. To date, the national adaptation policies of only three countries have indicated that they are pursuing these strategies.

See table for more details. [h/t Debbie Hillier]

The world’s next 20 years on one slide – and it’s pretty scary

This is the summary slide from a recent powerpoint on the global challenges facing humanity between now and 2030. It sets out the key questions (easier to read if you click on the slide). The answers to any one of which might well be ‘no’, with scary consequences. And please don’t try and dismiss this as ill-informed climate alarmism. It’s from Prof John Beddington, chief scientific adviser to the UK Government and Head of its Government Office for Science. Full powerpoint here (but best to go make yourself a cup of tea while it downloads…..). [h/t Kate Raworth]

What is happening on global bank taxes? Robin Hood reports from the frontline

Earlier this year, I posted a fair amount on the new Robin Hood Tax campaign for a financial transactions tax to fund aid and the fight against climate change (start here and follow the links). In a guest blog, Oxfam’s top RHT obsessive, Max Lawson, updates us on the subsequent behind-the-scenes progress

“In today’s aid-speak, Robin Hood was a pretty outcome-focussed kind of guy. He didn’t much care how he got the cash from the rich, as long as there was plenty to hand over to the poor. So it is with the fate of the tax that bears his name – a bunch of proposals are now in play, all of which could become ‘Robin Hood Taxes’ – compared to where we were even a year ago, the progress is astonishing. The key issues will be how big the eventual tax or taxes will be, and whether any of the revenues will be used to fight poverty and climate change. 

So what’s the state of play? First the G20: in the face of another set of bumper bank profit announcements  (see graph), in Canada the G20 failed to take action or agree a co-ordinated tax or taxes on the financial sector.  The Canadian government actively opposed any tax on banks, and as chair of the summit ensured it was barely discussed.

But don’t despair – agreement on a tax or set of taxes on the financial sector in the coming months still looks likely, partly because the G20 kicked the can down the road by agreeing a set of principles that will enable those countries that wish to do so to press ahead with a tax.  The leaders of four of the major G7 economies, the US, UK, France and Germany, have publicly backed a tax or taxes on the financial sector in the last two months. This is critical since the vast majority of financial transactions take place in London, New York and Frankfurt.

The IMF has quietly released its final report on taxing the financial sector, which puts numbers on its proposed (and wonderfully named) financial activities tax, or FAT. Set at 5%, it could raise $93 billion dollars annually.  It also reiterates two powerful points from its draft report – that the financial sector is arguably ‘under taxed’ and ‘too big’. The IMF also confirms that government debt in advanced OECD nations will be 40% higher largely as a result of the financial crisis and new Oxfam research shows the poorest nations face a $65 billion dollar shortfall in their budgets due to the crisis.

Three types of tax are proposed and supported by different countries.  The US, UK, France and Germany (along with most of the EU) want a levy on bank liabilities.  The UK is pressing ahead with a small levy of £2.5 billion a year, and also has said publicly it is in favour of a further tax on profits and bonuses (i.e. a FAT).  The German government has said it favours a further tax, and this could either be a FAT tax or a tax on financial transactions (FTT).  The French support an FTT, which the Robin Hood Tax campaign still sees as the simplest, easiest and fairest way to raise sufficient cash.

A lot depends on whether or not the Obama administration succeeds in implementing its proposed bank levy before the new congress takes office in January.  This will be tough as they are short on both time and political capital.  Separate bills proposed by different congressmen for transaction taxes will help increase the pressure though. Whilst not huge ($10 billion a year), or linked to good causes, if implemented the US levy would still free up space for additional taxation in Europe without fear of undue US competitive advantage and an exodus of banks to New York.

Looking to the next few months, the G20 in Korea in November will definitely see further discussion and potential agreement between a ‘coalition of the willing’.  The French have also indicated that this will be a central part of their G20 presidency in 2011. Parallel discussions at the EU level will also be important, pushed by the Belgians who hold the EU presidency and have called an emergency finance ministers meeting on September 7th to discuss financial sector taxes. 

A potential compromise could be a tax on currency transactions only (rather than all transactions), which is hard to avoid, easy to collect and would not affect competitiveness.  A tax on just the euro and pound of just 0.005% (half a basis point) could raise $17 billion annually.  If the dollar and yen are included this rises to $40 billion. As the IMF would say, this kind of amount is ‘nontrivial’. This is the preferred option recommended by the Leading Group of experts, representing 12 governments including the UK, France and Japan.

Trapped between big promises and big deficits, the EU nations are also the most likely to push for using this revenue being used in part to pay for aid and climate change, and many have already made this link publicly (though notably not the new UK government as yet).  A tax on the financial sector is being investigated by a UN-convened Advisory Group on Climate Finance including George Soros, charged with looking at ways to finance climate change adaptation and mitigation.

What is certain is the political climate will remain propitious, with profits, bonuses and champagne continuing to flow in the unrepentant financial sector (see video) whilst hundreds of thousands of people face cuts, tax rises and job losses to pay the bill for the bankers’ folly.

The Robin Hood Tax campaign in the UK has plenty of oomph with over 200,000 supporters on Facebook and dozens of high profile actions planned for the autumn, together with campaigns in Germany, France, the US and increasing numbers of other countries.  The Sheriff of Nottingham should continue to watch his back.”

Will the new UN Panel on Global Sustainability have an impact?

The diplomatic circus is full of high level commissions and panels on this and that, most of which deliberate, publish and sink without trace. But the UN’s new High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability, launched this week by Ban Ki-moon, may just be an exception. It certainly has a hell of a job description: ‘finding ways to lift people out of poverty while tackling climate change and ensuring that economic development is environmentally friendly’, according to the UN newswire.

The 21-member panel will be co-chaired by Finland’s President Tarja Halonen and South African President Jacob Zuma. It’s membership is heavily weighted towards current and former political leaders, with as far as I can see, only one private sector representative – the CEO of Research in Motion, the company that makes Blackberries. The only vaguely civil society member, Mexican environmentalist Julia Carabias, was also Secretary of the Environment. It’s also pretty light on academics, though presumably they can be drafted in later (full list of members here). That suggests that its job is more about influencing governments than coming up with any radical new insights, and highlights the welcome lack of overlap with the science-based work of the IPCC.

Over the next two years, the panel will work on a game plan for resolving the tensions between tackling climate change and economic growth (a subject dear to this blog’s heart), which they will present to delegates at the 2012 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Ban says he has ‘asked the Panel to think big’, so then the question becomes one familiar to anyone engaged in advocacy - how big? If it doesn’t go far enough in challenging received wisdom on the sanctity of growth, it won’t achieve anything, if it goes to the other extreme and starts preaching degrowth, it is unlikely to get a hearing. 
 
As if that wasn’t enough, officials also hope it will help resolve stalled international climate change negotiations and perhaps secure a replacement treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. Anything else you’d like them to do – harness fusion energy? Find a cure for cancer?

What’s really welcome here is the recognition that there is a big picture challenge on the nature of growth that has been sidelined as governments grapple with the aftermath of the global economic crisis. Someone has to lead the thinking on it – let’s hope the Global Sustainability Panel can do so.

Janos Pasztor, the head of Ban’s climate change support team, who will also manage the new panel’s administration, expects it to begin work around the U.N. General Assembly in New York this September. Ban expects a report from the panel to be completed by the end of 2011, in time for him to forward it to UNFCCC negotiations in South Africa  in December 2011 and then to the delegates gathering for the Earth Summit. Fingers crossed.

Videos I liked: animated marxism; leadership and the dancing guy; adapting to climate change

OK, this week’s posts have been fairly demanding, so let’s relax a bit. I’ve been getting a pile of links to excellent youtubes and the like. If you’re in an open plan office like me, sticking on the headphones and watching videos during office hours can be a bit awkward (’it’s work related, honest’), so either brave the disapproval or book yourself in for some weekend viewing…..

Check out the brilliant RSAnimate series of youtubes. When David Harvey gave a thought-provoking RSA lecture on a marxist approach to the economic crisis, he got 16,000 hits; since they got a brilliant animator to illustrate it, it’s gone to 390,000 and counting. It’s like a realtime version of the old Writers and Readers Beginners Guide series – I’ve still got Freud for Beginners on my shelves somewhere. The animators are amazing and available for hire. [h/t Richard King]

‘Leadership lessons from dancing guy’ : pure genius [h/t Richard Casson]

Hope in a changing climate – uplifting stuff from China, c/o the BBC [h/t Alex Evans]

and if you like that, get the rest of the programme here

Finally, more poor communities adapting to climate change, c/o Oxfam America [h/t John Magrath]

Other Oxfam America climate videos (on El Salvador, Ethiopia, Vietnam and the US Gulf Coast) here

New books on development: bad microfinance; climate change and war; what works; inside the World Bank; mobile activism

One of the perks of writing a blog is that I can scrounge review copies of development-related books. I’m sure they’re all fascinating and I really want to read them but alas, they don’t come with extra hours in the day attached. So I now have a growing pile by my desk that is in danger of becoming a health hazard (pet cat crushed under falling tomes etc). In post holiday clear-out mode, I am therefore going to assuage my guilt by giving them all a plug after a cursory skim.

Why Doesn’t Microfinance Work? The Destructive Rise of Local Neoliberalism, by Milford Bateman (see here for reviews of his previous work) is a passionate polemic that takes on a development shibboleth – sometimes it feels as though doubting microfinance is as heretical as criticising Nelson Mandela. But Bateman does so, arguing that microfinance doesn’t actually work, relies largely on hype, and is uncritically welcomed because it fits with an anti-state, pro-market mindset of the Washington Consensus (shades of de Soto and the debate on property rights). He thinks that microfinance has squeezed out more beneficial and effective approaches, such as local-level industrial policy. One minor criticism – he doesn’t seem to distinguish between microcredit and other, genuinely useful activities such as microsavings – it’s the microcredit bit that has been massively oversold.

Update: For another survey of the evidence, which finds a more mixed balance of success and failure (apparently independent, though funded by the Grameen Foundation), see Taking Another Look, by Kathleen Odell, summarized on his blog by CGD’s David Roodman.

Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic and Political Crises will Redraw the World Map, by Cleo Paskal of Chatham House (and author of the Tonga renewables article I posted on a while ago) links up debates on security, development and environment, exploring the intersection between geopolitics and climate change: will it accelerate the decline of the West and the move to a multipolar world? Will it alter global trade routes and the geopolitics that they shape? How will shifting rainfall patterns and rising sea levels change Asia and the Pacific?

What Works for the Poorest? Poverty Reduction Programmes for the World’s Extreme Poor, by David Lawson, David Hulme, Imran Matin and Karen Moore, showcases some of the excellent research by the Chronic Poverty Research Centre (see here for more on its work). It focuses on the 400 million or so ‘chronic poor’ – the people who are likely to be stuck below the $1.25 global poverty line for decades or lifetimes. Trickle-down economic growth often doesn’t work for groups such as the impoverished elderly, disabled people, or excluded ethnic or religious groups. The book seeks practical solutions elsewhere, with case studies of the nitty-gritty of targeting (in Bangladesh and Kenya), cash transfers and other social protection systems (Chile, Viet Nam), women’s empowerment in Gujarat, the inevitable chapter on India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, decent work (South Africa) and health equity funds (Cambodia). Finally it tackles finance with chapters on microfinance and domestic resource mobilization.

The World Bank Unveiled: Inside the Revolutionary Struggle for Transparency, by David Ian Shaman is a bit long (568 pages) and shrill for my taste, but at least it is written by an insider – Shaman was involved in trying to improve Bank transparency through an internet-based broadcasting station putting out unedited internal discussions and debates to the public. As can be imagined, that hit a lot of internal opposition, leading Shaman to conclude ‘I believe there are two World Banks. One recognizes mistakes and limitations; the other rejects its own fallibility, promotes its superiority and shelters itself within the confines of its authority.’ Sounds about right.

And finally, something altogether different and exciting: SMS Uprising: Mobile Activism in Africa, by Sokari Ekine (editor, and one of Nigeria’s top bloggers), is a brief edited set of case studies of how activists are using mobile phone technologies to change Africa. It’s a ‘try these ideas in your campaign’ manual, with examples from Zimbabwe, South Africa, Uganda, Kenya and the DRC. Well worth a trawl.

Apologies for cursory reviews, and if readers know of more serious treatments, please add links in the comments section. If any of the publishers feel short-changed and want their copies back, they only have to ask.

Can democracies kick the growth habit? A debate with Tim Jackson

Last month I spent an enjoyable hour debating zero growth with Tim Jackson in his back garden, for a slot in the July issue of New Internationalist magazine. Tim is the UK’s first Professor of Sustainable Development (at Surrey University) and author of the excellent Prosperity Without Growth (reviewed here).

We largely went over the ground covered in previous posts on his work: Total global carbon emissions = GDP multiplied by grams of carbon per $ of output. To reduce emissions you either improve the carbon efficiency of the economy (fewer grams per $, known as ‘decoupling’), or accept a reduction in GDP, or both.

But Tim reckons that decoupling growth from carbon emissions at the required speed isn’t going to happen, so if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, the rich countries will have to move to a post-growth paradigm, not least in order to make room for poor countries to keep growing. The justification for the different approaches in rich v poor countries is that, once you get past a certain level of GDP, growth delivers diminishing returns in terms of well-being.

degrowth in action?

Tim argues that zero or negative growth is not possible in the current system, not least because firms compete to increase productivity, and finance and investment restlessly seek profits based on productivity, and as productivity rises, you have to grow to soak up the newly unemployed. Because of this, growth is like a bicycle – if it stops, you fall off (my analogy, not his). His answer is a broad brush shift away from the emphasis on consumption, and a new model of investment that recognizes environmental constraints on economic activity.

We kicked around some ideas for how this might happen, drawing analogies with other parts of the economy. Carbon accounting systems would have to be developed in a way similar to financial accounting; firms would be required to manage climate risk, for example paying higher taxes on emissions over a certain level.

But what struck me most was when we got onto the political system needed to deliver what is at least in part a war economy, with a centrally agreed figure for total carbon emissions (and usage of other finite environmental goods). Such an economy would require a combination of carbon markets  and hard and soft regulation (eg rationing, prohibiting some kinds of technology, or debt-driven industrial expansion; penalties for excess carbon emissions; mandatory carbon emissions accounting).

Politics becomes far harder in a zero or negative growth economy. In a growing economy, everyone can have a larger slice of pie; in a static economy your gain is someone else’s loss and distributive conflicts are bound to rise. Tim sees growth as necessary for political as well as economic stability under the current system. No wonder that politicians routinely dismiss any talk of limiting growth.

Collective action problems would also abound – if one firm or country decided to go for zero growth, for example by stopping investing in new technologies, but other firms continued to do so, they would rapidly gain a competitive edge and push the others out of business. At an international level you would require enforceable coordination mechanisms to a far higher degree than currently exists – something close to global government, in fact.

Which leaves me with the nagging question, ‘are democracy and individual rights compatible with the ‘managed contraction’ of the economy?’ I was left thinking that the systemic obstacles to zero growth are at least as great as those preventing a drastic acceleration of technologies to decouple production from emissions, e.g. through the launch of 20 Manhattan Projects. And both would require a far higher centralization of power.

My conclusion? A successful long-term containment of climate change will come through a combination of partial decoupling, perhaps driven by big climate shocks, and maybe combined with fragmented shifts to a post-growth paradigm, but it will be very messy indeed and may not look very democratic.

In the end we agreed on an unlikely combination of Sherlock Holmes and Antonio Gramsci – ‘When you’ve eliminated the impossible, then whatever’s left, however improbable, has to be the truth’, and ‘I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will’.
 
And as always, it’s far easier to pick holes in other people’s arguments than provide solutions of your own, but it’s important to think through the politics of these kind of big new ideas. I would dearly love to be convinced that zero growth is both achievable and compatible with human rights – over to you.

The Plundered Planet: review of Paul Collier’s new book and impending personal crisis

A new Paul Collier book is always a good workout in the brain gym and his latest, The Plundered Planet: How to Reconcile Prosperity with Nature, is no exception. You can either be seduced by his writing, conceptual acrobatics, anecdotes and soundbites (who isn’t sick of hearing ‘Bottom Billion’ in every seminar?) or you can choose the more exhausting (but more useful) path of trying to enjoy all this while spotting the gaps in his thinking. Good and bad, they are all there in abundance.

His overall thesis? ‘We are not curators of the natural world, preserving nature as an end in itself. We are not ethically obliged to preserve every tiger, or every tree. We are custodians of the value of natural assets. We are ethically obliged to pass on to future generations the equivalent value of the natural assets that we were bequeathed by the past.’

For Collier, plunder can take two forms: ‘In one, natural assets that should belong to all the citizens of a nation are expropriated by the few… In the other, natural assets that should belong to all generations are expropriated by those currently alive.’

There are two big parts to the argument. First, how to manage the non-renewable natural assets in the territories of the bottom billion (oil and gas, minerals). Collier sees them as the only chance of dragging the countries out of poverty – ‘the failure to harness natural capital is the single most important missed opportunity in economic development’.

So drill baby drill, but change the governance of the chain of decisions and spoils-sharing. That means getting every link right in a chain that includes discovery, who captures the value, of the assets, the proportion of government revenue that should be consumed, and how the rest should be invested. Collier has problem/solution analyses for each stage, building on his excellent work on the Natural Resource Charter.

Second, international renewable assets such as sea fish are likely to be plundered to extinction, while natural liabilities, such as carbon, tend to accumulate. The combination of scarcity + improved technology means that for an economist like Collier, the nature of the problem has changed. In the past, the fish supply was effectively infinite and so the value of fish was set by the investment, labour and risk of catching them – mining fish was like mining coal. Now, they have now become a scarce resource, hoovered up by giant factory ships. They have to be managed by quotas, and that means that governance becomes the key issue – mining fish has become like drilling for oil, and the issue of ‘rents’ has become central. Governance must change accordingly.

And so to climate change. Carbon emissions are a ‘renewable natural liability… the natural equivalent of a debt’. Collier is scathing about carbon trading and the Clean Development Mechanism, which he likens to the Catholic Church’s former tradition of selling forgiveness (indulgences) to finance the construction of St Peter’s in Rome (nice joke – ‘sins of emission’). Since the CDM finances firms for emitting less than they would otherwise have done, ‘the sale of indulgences through the CDM creates incentives not so much to reduce carbon emissions but to threaten to increase them by as much as possible.’

Instead, Collier argues that only a carbon price of say $40 a tonne will change the incentives and trigger the wave of technological innovation required to move us to a low carbon economy. That can be achieved by a combination of regulation and taxation that can be left up to national decisions, but the $40 a tonne figure has to be a ‘commonly agreed-upon world shadow price’. Here’s where he starts to lose the plot – he ridicules the ‘haggling’ of climate change negotiations, but gives no idea of how a universal $40 a tonne figure could be agreed and policed. As always, politics is his achilles’ heel.

But before I get onto the downsides, my favourite left field idea in the whole book: world government funded by fish. To solve the over-fishing problem, we should ‘assign the natural assets of the oceans to the United Nations. The UN would auction the quota rights to fish traders who would then on-sell them in each wholesale market. Analogous to a tax, a wholesale transaction of fish would be legal only if attached tot the appropriate quantity of quota rights. These quota rights would trade on the world market.’ Taxpayers would know how much of their fish bill goes to the UN and so take more interest in its workings (a fish-based social contract), and the money could fund the World Food Programme. Result.

So what’s not to like? First the lazy triangulation – Collier sees the debate polarized between romantics (opponents of GM, supporters of peasant agriculture) and ostriches (growth will solve everything, climate change isn’t a problem): ‘Run by romantics, the world would starve; run by the ostriches, it would burn.’ That’s good polemics, but a pretty feeble contribution to debate.

And he has a serious problem with ‘the middle class love affair with peasant agriculture’. He thinks agriculture should be handed over to Brazilian-style industrial farming, and the peasants should head for the cities (‘Africa needs more megacities’). The problem here is that Collier, as so often, is ahistorical, or bases his analysis purely on European history. Recent take-offs in countries such as Vietnam show just how crucial investment in peasant agriculture is in the early stages of take-off – urbanization happens after that, but the starting point is the peasantry.

His advocacy of the Brazilian model points to another blindspot – inequality. Collier cares deeply about inequality between countries, and has devoted his life to Africa, but he seems blind to the equity impact of a universal carbon tax (poor people priced out of access to fuel) or the mass joblessness that would ensue from a sudden transition to industrial megafarms.

But his biggest blindspot is undoubtedly politics, and here I detect some kind of impending personal crisis. His analysis of the obstacles to change seems to be pushing him towards a more political standpoint, calling for a ‘critical mass of ordinary citizens’ to rise up and demand good governance. But he doesn’t really do politics, has no idea about how such a critical mass might form, which organizations it might involve, what events might precipitate it etc. instead he talks vaguely about the need for ‘social pressure’ at national and global level. For him, this movement simply requires lots of economic literacy and data on oil revenues – a kind of mass movement of mini-me Paul Colliers that will storm the citadels of corrupt and incompetent rulers.

This weird gestalt shift from sophisticated economist to ingénue activist peaks in the conclusion to the book, where he thunders ‘this bottom-up approach holds out greater promise than re-engineering inter-governmental cooperation’, but fails to describe any plausible bottom-up approach. It all smacks of desperation – an atheist saying ‘trust in God’. Obviously as an NGO activist, I agree with the sentiment, but it’s analysis-free and wonderfully naïve, as in ‘citizens around the world can surely accept that their country should not be guilty of free-riding on the efforts of others’ on climate change. Oh really?

As you can see, the book certainly got me going. Anyone else read it yet or seen any good reviews? (And I don’t include John Vidal’s rant in the Guardian in that category).

See here for my past reviews of War, Guns and Votes,  Collier’s plan for Haitian reconstruction, how to clean up dirty elections and other stuff