“Development”, remarks Paul Collier, “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”.
Within his book, ‘The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It’, Collier contributes his wealth of knowledge and experience to the quest of increasing the economic growth of countries, within which the poorest billion of the world’s population live. With regard to lifting the poorest countries out of their economic rut, to Collier’s mind there is no easy fix or single solution. On the whole, the composition of Collier’s work regards why the bottom billion are in this mess, and what can be done about it. With respect to the former, Collier outlines four ‘traps’ which halt economic growth, and to the latter Collier outlines four ‘instruments’ for helping the bottom billion increase their stagnant economic growth rates.
The 'traps'
In the first half of the book, Collier highlights four ‘traps’, which serve as reasons for economic stagnancy in fragile states where the poorest billion reside. These ‘traps’ pertain to the specific impacts of long and short term conflict, natural resources, being landlocked with bad neighbours and bad governance, all of which make it markedly difficult for policy and aid to fuel economic momentum. Closing each chapter, Collier fields the discussion of “why it matters for G8 policy”, a consideration which among other things, solidifies this text as a microcosm of 2007 political economics. Collier’s ‘traps’ provide reverent analysis of why countries remain stuck on economic growth rates of less than one percent. Unfortunately, the negative economic shock that the global pandemic is having is likely to push many developing countries back into these ‘traps’.
The 'instruments'
The second half of Collier’s book relates to the tools available to us, the international economic powers, which can nullify the negative impacts that these ‘traps’ have on the bottom billion. Among Collier’s ‘instruments’ are the correct use of aid, (somewhat controversially especially for 2007) military intervention, laws and charters, and liberalised trade.
On aid
On the subject of aid, Collier shows clear contempt for both the left and right wing ideologies regarding aid. The left sees aid as reparations for colonialism, therefore, “the only role for the bottom billion is as victims”. Whereas the right “seems to want to equate aid with welfare scrounging”, taking a laissez faire approach not compatible with the mission of disentangling these countries from economic entrapment. Nevertheless, Collier’s overarching message is critical of aid, or at least it’s practice. He equates that coupled with the trap of bad governance, money injections into public services are often intercepted by officials. Using the example of Chad, he notes that 99 percent of money, intended for rural health clinics, did not reach it’s destination, finding a home in the pockets of government officials before it could get there. Moreover, Collier attacks the policy of conditionality. The practice of giving aid to governments that promise political and social reforms. This policy however was a “paper tiger”. Collier states that the “governments discovered they only needed to promise to reform, not actually do it”. Collier does outline a different practice for aid. To rectify the problem that aid can have in the presence of bad governance, Collier advocates for ‘ex poste conditionality’, i.e. the practice of attributing aid to countries that are displaying reformation, rather than those who promise to do it. Although Collier notes that this has the tendency to push out the countries that require aid the most from the bracket, if it is coupled with “capacity building”, where native civil servants are trained by foreign experts to an “international standard”, aid can help lift the bottom billion out of economic stagnancy and into the “developing nations” bracket.
Paul Collier, courtesy of ted.com
On military intervention
How does Collier argue for military intervention to be used as an ‘instrument’ to lift the bottom billion out of abject poverty, especially with the context of Iraq? For one, rather than dance around the subject, Collier’s reciprocation of common sentiment does reference the Iraq invasion. For his argument to hold any validity it must. Even admitting that “after Iraq it’s difficult to arouse much support for military intervention”. Collier does not condone the Iraqi invasion, and in turn draws the dichotomy of the situation in Iraq to that of Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Rwanda being a prime example of where mass genocide was clearly avoidable but was snubbed because the international community “didn’t want a second Somalia”. Sierra Leone, on the other hand, provides for Collier an example of correct military intervention. He concludes that “in Sierra Leone our forces were invited in by the government”, alongside that, there wasn’t any oil, we didn’t have to worry about “fixing what we broke” as there wasn’t anything to break, and we ousted the aggressors with “minimal damage”. Overall, between Iraq and Sierra Leone, “the differences seem obvious”. As a result, Collier summarises that there is a place for legitimate and decisive military intervention in the the quest to save the bottom billion.
As I have covered what I consider to be Collier’s two most interesting ‘instruments’ of development rather extensively, I will touch upon the other two more briefly. With respect to both ‘laws and charters’ and ‘trade policy for reversing marginalisation’, Collier advocates less of an egalitarian agreement between developed and poor nations, and instead posits that the countries of the bottom billion should receive more attention. Collier also lambasts the practices of China in bailing out incompetent governance, who welcomed the “overtures” of Robert Mugabe and footed a $4 billion loan for Angola, which took the country “of the hook” for a “grotesque misuse of oil money”.
'We cannot rescue them'
Finally, despite all these ‘instruments’ for increasing economic success for the bottom billion, Collier makes clear that “we cannot rescue them”, “the societies of the bottom billion can only be rescued from within”. “Heroes” in these countries have been overcome by “forces stacked against them” and “so far our efforts have been paltry” to assist.
Like any book about economics, unless you have a burning passion for the subject, ‘The Bottom Billion’ requires a hard-backed chair and a few coffees. However, it’s lessons remain insightful and increasingly relevant for the current day. For anybody considering economics as a career, the anecdotal experience of Collier is a great window into the world of working academically and in the public sector. Furthermore, If like me you are interested in a career in development economics, Collier’s book is a great introduction to the sector, referencing key figures such as Jeffrey Sachs, and urging the reader to think critically about the practices of aid and intervention.
Comments