Easterly's The Tyranny Of Experts

First, I will explain the role of empowered institutions and countries in limiting the economic activities of developing countries, impeding on their ability to survive. Afterwards I will explain the obligation people in privileged positions have to improve the lives of those in compromised positions, at a certain degree of self-sacrifices. Finally, I will critically analyze and disprove the counter argument, which attempts to relieve us of the aforementioned duties, by discrediting the roles of institutions and developed countries in the prolongation of impoverishment.

In most cases U.S. citizens who are in poverty are in relative poverty in relation to the rest of the U.S. population; whereas in the world as a whole a greater number of people are in absolute poverty and are barely able to survive on their income, or wages and earnings, and they have very little to no wealth since it is impossible to save any of their money. Ethnocentrism makes it difficult to obtain a clear picture of the conditions of poverty and inequality in other nations and cultures. There are many theories concerning the causes and solution for poverty in the global economy. The two major theories are the modernization theory which explains inequality in terms of technological and cultural difference between nations, and the dependency theory which explains poverty in terms of the historical exploitation of poor, or low-income, nations by rich, or high-income, nations. This theory has manifest itself in a new way in today’s world in the form of neocolonialism; economic exploitation by multinational corporations.

Within the last 60 years, Third World development has been a global priority, at the top of virtually every Western agenda. And with the rise of the global population and poverty levels continuing to rise along with it, it is very easy to see why human development is becoming such a topic of focus and discussion among members of the academia. But one question that everyone wants the answer too is, how does Third World development fit into Globalization? Despite apparent compatibility, when closely examined it is clear to see that Globalization actually contradicts Third World development due to the conflict of agendas. Both Globalization and Development hold views concerning market reform, social structure and regulation, which are

Poverty has many faces, changing from place to place and across time, and has been described in many ways. Applied ethics is a person’s judgement on a moral standpoint, of a particular issue in private and public life. In class we learned about four different philosophers and their views on world poverty. I agreed with two philosophers that have different views, but they both had the same opinion that the United States should stop sending aid to foreign countries. In this essay my view is that the United States should stop sending aid to foreign countries. I will defend my view against poverty by discussing Garret Hardin and, James Shikwati views on poverty, and how the United States and other countries will benefit from not sending aid.

The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor, a strong title followed by an effective introduction. William Easterly is a Professor of economics at New York University and Co-Director of the NYU development Research Institute also a previous World Bank Group employee. Easterly is an expert whose work The Tyranny of Experts is set to criticize experts. Easterly starts his book off with a story about twenty thousand local farmers in Ohio whose farms were burnt down and animals shot to death by soldiers to make room for commercial forestry, as they watched their family farms burn they were held at gun point by the soldiers and told “never come back” and “the land is no longer yours”. Of course there was a point to this story; if this had happened it would have caused political unrest and outrage among citizens it would have been in the media for days and covered worldwide. Although according to Easterly it did happen not in Ohio but in Mubende Uganda, and furthermore the incident was supposedly connected to a forestry project led by the World Bank who promised to investigate the issue but never did. In Easterly’s view this example is what is wrong with development; it is a top-down based approach that is technocratic and distant to the rights and freedom of individuals, all run by a tyranny of experts. Easterly then uses this story to introduce and support his main argument which is showed in this short passage among many:

Established Stanford University professor, economist, and political scientist Barry Weingast portrays the global impact of institutions in his work through a term he coins the “fundamental political dilemma.” The dilemma illustrates that any government that has the power to protect property rights, enforce contracts, and maintain basic stability also has the power to take away the wealth of its citizens. A major question to consider, then, is what actually determines why some nations choose one route instead of the other? Weingast believes that the answer to this question lies in institutions; he states that institutions allow countries to choose the “rules of the game” and organize society. Simply put, the carefully-crafted institutions of

In his book The Tyranny of Experts, William Easterly argues against what he calls the technocratic approach to development, in which expert economists advise an autocrat in how to best develop his country. Easterly instead advocates increasing the individual rights of the people in underdeveloped nations in order to catalyze free development. He uses 3 debates—the blank slate vs. learning from history, nations vs. individuals, and conscious design vs. free development—to support the free development side of the overarching debate of the novel: authoritarian vs. free development. Easterly comes to the conclusion that individual rights are the most important factor in development, saying,

Charles Kenny’s Getting Better and Nina Munk’s profile of Jeffrey Sachs in The Idealist represents two distinct perspectives on how best to promote development and the challenges associated with implementing such transformative visions. Jeffery Sachs takes a very straight forward approach to problem of how to eradicate poverty. He claimed that in order to eradicate poverty all we need to do is increase the monetary aid these underdeveloped countries. While Charles Kenny takes a more holistic approach. He claims we should focus less income to determine development and focus more on human development factors in order to gradually promote development. After reading both of these books, I believe

We are using outdated economic models that lead to the redundancy of people, and poverty thrives. Campaigns to alleviate poverty often call for international assistance. However, the track record of donor aid suggests that it may benefit governments more than it benefits the poor (Hoogeveen, J. and B. Ozler, 2006). Donors can use aid to reinforce their assumed supremacy and create positions and markets for their own citizens; recipient governments have been known to expand their consumer class and secure their own power base, under the banner of poverty obliteration.

This paper seeks to indubitably forward that the expansion of capitalism has hindered ‘the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America’, therefore contributing to poverty: The state of being extremely poor’. Capitalism is an economic system, dependent solely on capital: the force that increases the productivity of labour, creating ‘wealth of nations.’ Adam Smith expressed capitalism’s exclusivity, driven by the ‘invisible hand’ mechanism, exclusive to developed countries and capable of causing such poverty. The British Empire, competitive pricing and globalisation reflect this. Postmodern scholar, Ricardo Hausman challenges my analysis, arguing that capitalism has not spread enough.

Jeffrey Sachs is well known around the world for his contribution on providing advice to global economies in the state of crisis. He has worked as a director of Columbia University for Earth Institute and he also worked as a personal counselor to Kofi Annan who was the Secretary-General of United Nation’s. He has well over two decades of experience to propose an exclusively knowledgeable view of the basics to economic prosperity in the present day world and the measures that are required to attain welfare for all. He is well known for his role in helping developing countries bolster their economy. Sachs has written three of the best sellers of New York Times in the past, including the End Of Poverty which I will be reviewing in this essay.

The concept of ‘sustainable development’ is one that has faced heated debates for decades now. A seemingly harmless concept, it raises a lot of questions as to what it really entails and how exactly it can be achieved. But with more than 1.3 billion people living in abject poverty (less than $1.25 a day), and with a reported 22,000 children dying every day as a result of poverty (UNICEF), the debate for Sustainable Development becomes interesting as it questions the extremity of economic growth policies, in the war against poverty. Many note economic growth and development as the only tool for poverty alleviation. Roemer and Gugerty, for example, report that GDP growth of 10% per year is associated with income growth of 10% for the poorest 40% of the population. However, others question the extent to which economic growth should be put above other socio-economic factors. Lele points out that the focus on economic growth has led to important ecological and social sustainability, taking the backseat. He argues that due to strong emphasis on economic growth, not enough attention is paid to social equity, and economic stability within the development discourse.

Lack of development in countries in the so-called `Third World' has many political and economical reasons. Historians explain the inadequacy of developing countries with the early imperialism and the resulting colonization of the South. Exploitation of mineral resources, deforestation, slavery, and the adaptation of foreign policies shaped the picture of today's suffering and struggling civilizations and natural rich continents. The omission of concessions and equal negotiations between dependency and supremacy give rise to the contrast of enormous resources and immense poverty in developing countries is. In the last years the outcry of justice and the emancipation of the Third World became louder throughout developing and industrialized

Freedom is essential for the development of human beings. In order for individuals to be free, societies must guarantee a healthy environment which enables citizens to be governed by leaders that represent their interests. The system of government which allows for this is democracy. But democracy, which is a term that comes from the greek demos and kratos “rule of the people”, will only thrive under appropriate conditions. Modernization theory claims that economic and technological development are the factors conducive to democratic changes (Inglehart, 2014). Economic development is described as “a process that influences growth and restructuring of an economy to enhance the economic well being of a community, creating jobs and wealth, and improving the quality of life” (Anderson, n.d.). For a long time, Modernization Theory was widely accepted, but after analysing evidence of democratic changes in many nations gathered during the past decades a revised version of it was proposed by Ronald Inglehart, known as the Evolutionary Modernization Theory. According to Inglehart (2014) economic development will tend to lead to democracy, but other outcomes are possible because there are many factors which influence what will happen. Economic development is the main factor that leads to democratization, but cultural change is the other factor that can determine the political outcome in a specific country.

Citizens and governments of the affluent countries – whether intentionally or not- are imposing a global institutional order that foreseeably and avoidably reproduces severe and widespread poverty. The worse-off are not merely poor and often starving, but are being impoverished and starved under own shared institutional arrangements (Brooks 455).