Comments on: War, Guns and Votes: what to make of Paul Collier’s latest book? http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=326 duncan green poverty to power oxfam development Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:18:06 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Kathryn http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=326&cpage=1#comment-4831 Kathryn Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:28:28 +0000 http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=326#comment-4831 If any wants more free Collier, they should check out his latest piece, up now at bostonreview.net. Collier's "Development in Dangerous Places" advocates interventionist strategies because they have the potential to increase the national security in developing countries. Although interventionist foreign policy has been costly for the US, the failure of impoverished states remains a dire problem for the US and the international community. Paul Collier (The Bottom Billion, and Wars, Gus and Votes) explains how smart security intervention by the wealthy nations can lead to stable, democratic, and less violent societies for the "bottom billion." The website also includes responses by William Easterly, Edward Miguel, Larry Diamond, Stephen D. Krasner, Nancy Birdsall, and Mike McGovern. Check it out. If any wants more free Collier, they should check out his latest piece, up now at bostonreview.net. Collier’s “Development in Dangerous Places” advocates interventionist strategies because they have the potential to increase the national security in developing countries.

Although interventionist foreign policy has been costly for the US, the failure of impoverished states remains a dire problem for the US and the international community. Paul Collier (The Bottom Billion, and Wars, Gus and Votes) explains how smart security intervention by the wealthy nations can lead to stable, democratic, and less violent societies for the “bottom billion.”

The website also includes responses by William Easterly, Edward Miguel, Larry Diamond, Stephen D. Krasner, Nancy Birdsall, and Mike McGovern.

Check it out.

]]> By: Miller http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=326&cpage=1#comment-4685 Miller Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:44:58 +0000 http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=326#comment-4685 In reply to Claudia's fourth point, I would point out that Collier's book does not argue that BB politicians are any different than politicians in more developed countries. The governments in which they operate, however, are polar opposites, and that's one of Collier's main points. The politicians of the BB are working in systems with few to no checks or balances. That's why the democracies are too often a sham, and why elections can be meaningless. And while Europe's past is important, what's more important is that Europe is peaceful now. Most of the BB is not. Europe's role as an example to the BB doesn't lie in being a perfect society, but in having become a less violent, more cohesive, more accountable one. Having spent over a decade in a BB country, I would say that most could do far, far worse than to emulate Europe. In reply to Claudia’s fourth point, I would point out that Collier’s book does not argue that BB politicians are any different than politicians in more developed countries. The governments in which they operate, however, are polar opposites, and that’s one of Collier’s main points. The politicians of the BB are working in systems with few to no checks or balances. That’s why the democracies are too often a sham, and why elections can be meaningless.
And while Europe’s past is important, what’s more important is that Europe is peaceful now. Most of the BB is not. Europe’s role as an example to the BB doesn’t lie in being a perfect society, but in having become a less violent, more cohesive, more accountable one. Having spent over a decade in a BB country, I would say that most could do far, far worse than to emulate Europe.

]]> By: Paul C http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=326&cpage=1#comment-4638 Paul C Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:00:58 +0000 http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=326#comment-4638 Yeah, I have to agree with Claudia. Without wanting to be rude to Collier - who is a genuinely interesting thinker - those suggestions are complete bullshit. Donors, national governments and civil society organisations would object to them, so who exactly he thinks would implement them is a mystery. Yeah, I have to agree with Claudia. Without wanting to be rude to Collier – who is a genuinely interesting thinker – those suggestions are complete bullshit. Donors, national governments and civil society organisations would object to them, so who exactly he thinks would implement them is a mystery.

]]> By: Claudia http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=326&cpage=1#comment-4620 Claudia Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:03:47 +0000 http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=326#comment-4620 Duncan, This sounded totally foolish. As you numbered: 1. "Easy to solve" and easy to make life after coup more complicated: Immediately after the coup just make sure you kill the deposed authority. What does he say about coups financed by the good will of UK, US and France? 2. Shows how contradictory this guy is. I agree that democracy is not elections only. Democracy is allowing every citizen access to education, basic health services, security, water and energy services etc... To recommend the privatization of basic services proves this author didn't read very much as he claims. It sounds like a joke. 3. It is totally foolish as governments are different, act differently and they all need military not only to make war but to protect their people. However, every penny invested in schools and hospitals give the government rights to also invest in national security... What annoys me is that this is another guy who really thinks that BB politicians are made of different matter, that they are any different from the politicians of the developed world. Give me a situation and I show you how humans usually deal with them. By the way, when did Europe become an example to Africa? Europe is the most divided continent of the planet, with the some of the most divided countries with some of the most bloody histories, even if the union was forged to hide the scars left by centuries of wars and ethnic violence. Duncan,

This sounded totally foolish.

As you numbered:

1. “Easy to solve” and easy to make life after coup more complicated: Immediately after the coup just make sure you kill the deposed authority. What does he say about coups financed by the good will of UK, US and France?

2. Shows how contradictory this guy is. I agree that democracy is not elections only. Democracy is allowing every citizen access to education, basic health services, security, water and energy services etc… To recommend the privatization of basic services proves this author didn’t read very much as he claims. It sounds like a joke.

3. It is totally foolish as governments are different, act differently and they all need military not only to make war but to protect their people. However, every penny invested in schools and hospitals give the government rights to also invest in national security…

What annoys me is that this is another guy who really thinks that BB politicians are made of different matter, that they are any different from the politicians of the developed world. Give me a situation and I show you how humans usually deal with them.

By the way, when did Europe become an example to Africa? Europe is the most divided continent of the planet, with the some of the most divided countries with some of the most bloody histories, even if the union was forged to hide the scars left by centuries of wars and ethnic violence.

]]> By: Punditus Maximus http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=326&cpage=1#comment-4598 Punditus Maximus Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:58:45 +0000 http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=326#comment-4598 This actually makes sense to me; in a general sense, conflicts either get resolved at the ballot box or at the battlefield. I can't help thinking that the easier it is to convince people that serving in a potential autocrat's army is a better life than just going to the city and getting a job, the easier it is for any political conflict to turn into a war. The whole point of a democracy is to bring political disputes out into the open at the expense of public order. They will be most successful when disputes are best resolved without resort to violence and when public order is resilient. This actually makes sense to me; in a general sense, conflicts either get resolved at the ballot box or at the battlefield. I can’t help thinking that the easier it is to convince people that serving in a potential autocrat’s army is a better life than just going to the city and getting a job, the easier it is for any political conflict to turn into a war.

The whole point of a democracy is to bring political disputes out into the open at the expense of public order. They will be most successful when disputes are best resolved without resort to violence and when public order is resilient.

]]>