Comments on: Development optimism from Justin Lin: review of ‘The Quest for Prosperity’ http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=13169 duncan green poverty to power oxfam development Tue, 21 May 2013 15:45:19 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Joe http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=13169&cpage=1#comment-339965 Joe Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:19:37 +0000 http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=13169#comment-339965 I was at the ODI event and really impressed with Justin's presentation. For me the crucial part is you need government to want to create the right environment and to make the right decisions. Where governments are in fact more interested in their own rent seeking or keeping power at all costs there is no incentive for creating the environemnt Justin sets out as the basis for economic growth. How many countries are in that position? So it all comes down to governance again! I was at the ODI event and really impressed with Justin’s presentation.

For me the crucial part is you need government to want to create the right environment and to make the right decisions. Where governments are in fact more interested in their own rent seeking or keeping power at all costs there is no incentive for creating the environemnt Justin sets out as the basis for economic growth.

How many countries are in that position?

So it all comes down to governance again!

]]> By: Michael O'Hara http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=13169&cpage=1#comment-337644 Michael O'Hara Thu, 10 Jan 2013 03:28:50 +0000 http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=13169#comment-337644 Poverty is a term coined by people who have money for people who do not have money. Therefore, any argument about poverty is an argument formulated by guidelines set down by established capital. It is therefore a discussion bereft of indigenous input. Any attempt by an "undeveloped" nation to meet the 6 point plan involves surrendering their future agenda to a completely economics based imperative, and that just reeks of Colonial memes. Wouldn't it be better for "undeveloped" nations to come up with a "blueprint" (as much as the term is misused, it remains a reasonable basis for starting any process) for how they would like to see their country "look" in terms of its social fabric before they start working out how they will pay for that fabric? For example, how will power be shared? How will the national prosperity be shared? If we look at the current "great global debate", will the country follow Keynes or Hayek in its thrust for economic strength? That one decision alone will materially impact the form of any movement towards development and "progress". What institutions exist in the country to help protect it and its citizens from potential extortion by those who hold capital? All of these arguments can be seen as "left-leaning liberalism" but if attempts to help countries reduce poverty are to have any validity then these are the sort of questions that need to be answered first. "Prosperity" is just as poorly defined as "poverty" in most discussions, with very little linking of non-economic to economic processes and outcomes. Commenter Jo is right to question whether growth will lead to poverty reduction, as it is just as likely to lead to income disparity as it is to any other outcome. The 6-point plan doesn't really differ all that much from a standard business plan, and the criticism in regards to politics is probably the most valid. In many "undeveloped" nations there will be historical cultural divides that can tilt the outcome of seemingly simple plans, and unless these are identified early on, the result is usually a very uneven dispersion of any benefits from "growth" or foreign capital. The 6-point plan has a great deal of appeal IF the underlying society is politically stable, relatively homogenous and possesses established institutions that are so essential to the infrastructure of any country setting out on an economic endeavour. Poverty is a term coined by people who have money for people who do not have money. Therefore, any argument about poverty is an argument formulated by guidelines set down by established capital. It is therefore a discussion bereft of indigenous input. Any attempt by an “undeveloped” nation to meet the 6 point plan involves surrendering their future agenda to a completely economics based imperative, and that just reeks of Colonial memes. Wouldn’t it be better for “undeveloped” nations to come up with a “blueprint” (as much as the term is misused, it remains a reasonable basis for starting any process) for how they would like to see their country “look” in terms of its social fabric before they start working out how they will pay for that fabric? For example, how will power be shared? How will the national prosperity be shared? If we look at the current “great global debate”, will the country follow Keynes or Hayek in its thrust for economic strength? That one decision alone will materially impact the form of any movement towards development and “progress”. What institutions exist in the country to help protect it and its citizens from potential extortion by those who hold capital? All of these arguments can be seen as “left-leaning liberalism” but if attempts to help countries reduce poverty are to have any validity then these are the sort of questions that need to be answered first. “Prosperity” is just as poorly defined as “poverty” in most discussions, with very little linking of non-economic to economic processes and outcomes. Commenter Jo is right to question whether growth will lead to poverty reduction, as it is just as likely to lead to income disparity as it is to any other outcome. The 6-point plan doesn’t really differ all that much from a standard business plan, and the criticism in regards to politics is probably the most valid. In many “undeveloped” nations there will be historical cultural divides that can tilt the outcome of seemingly simple plans, and unless these are identified early on, the result is usually a very uneven dispersion of any benefits from “growth” or foreign capital. The 6-point plan has a great deal of appeal IF the underlying society is politically stable, relatively homogenous and possesses established institutions that are so essential to the infrastructure of any country setting out on an economic endeavour.

]]> By: jo http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=13169&cpage=1#comment-336638 jo Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:25:04 +0000 http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=13169#comment-336638 There's also the pretty big assumption that growth will automatically lead to poverty reduction, without appearing to suggest any mechanisms to make that happen. There’s also the pretty big assumption that growth will automatically lead to poverty reduction, without appearing to suggest any mechanisms to make that happen.

]]>