Economist's View: Jeffrey Sachs: Economic Development is the Key to "Winning the Peace"
リンク: Economist's View: Jeffrey Sachs: Economic Development is the Key to "Winning the Peace".
Jeff Sachs explains the steps that must be taken to promote economic development and end conflict in impoverished, war-torn countries:
Winning the Peace, by Jeffrey D. Sachs, Commentary, Project Syndicate: Afghanistan’s future hangs in the balance as its weak national government struggles ... in the face of a widening insurgency … and a disappointed populace. ...[V]iolence now also surges in Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, and ... Sudan’s Darfur region. ... Stability will come only when economic opportunities exist, when ... young men can find jobs and support families, rather than seeking their fortune in violence.
We are seeing again and again that a foreign army ... may win a battle, or even a war, but never the peace. Peace is about dignity and hope for the future. Military occupation saps dignity, and grinding poverty and economic disarray sap hope. Peace can be achieved only with a withdrawal of foreign troops, and the arrival of jobs, productive farms and factories, ... health care, and schools. Without these, military victory and occupation quickly turn to ashes. ...
The scenario has become painfully familiar. A war ends. An international donors’ conference is called. Pledges of billions of dollars are announced. A smiling new head of state graciously thanks the international community, including the occupying power. Months pass. World Bank teams from Washington start to arrive.
But ... Crony businesses from the US and Europe, which are utterly unfamiliar with local conditions, squander time, aid funds, and opportunities. Two or three years pass. The grand pronouncements become a pile of out-of-date World Bank studies. Recriminations fly, the occupying army remains, and a new insurgency spreads.
Many factors contribute to this disarray, beginning with the shocking inability of the US, Europe, and the international organizations to understand things from the perspective of poor and displaced people. ... The international agencies ... have ... failed to understand how to start or restart economic development in a low-income setting.
It’s important to distinguish four distinct phases of outside help to end a conflict. In the first phase, during the war itself, aid is for humanitarian relief... In the second phase, at the war’s end, aid remains mainly humanitarian relief, but now directed towards displaced people returning home, and to decommissioned soldiers. In the third phase, lasting three to five years, aid supports the first phase of post-war economic development, including restoration of schools, clinics, farms, factories, and ports. In the fourth phase, which can last a generation or more, assistance is directed to long-term investments and the strengthening of institutions such as courts.
The international community, and the US in particular, is dreadful at the third stage. ... There is often a lag of years before moving from humanitarian relief to real economic development. By the time such help actually arrives, it is often too late: war has been re-ignited.
In fact, it is possible to restart economic development through targeted “quick-impact” initiatives. Since the economies of most impoverished post-conflict countries are based on agriculture, restarting farm output is vital. Impoverished farmers should receive a free package of seeds, fertilizers, and low-cost equipment (such as pumps for irrigation). When such aid is made available quickly, former soldiers will return to their farms...
Similar quick-impact measures should be undertaken to control disease. Small rural clinics can be built ... very quickly... Wells and cisterns can be put in place to ensure safe drinking water. These and similar efforts can mean the difference...
Quick-impact economic development is exactly what is needed now to help end the horrific violence and suffering in Darfur. ... The same applies in Somalia. But the window of opportunity closes quickly in these and other post-conflict regions. Only by taking quick, meaningful action to fight hunger, poverty, and disease can there be a chance of creating conditions for long-term peace.
Posted by Mark Thoma on January 29, 2007 at 12:01 AM in Economics, Iraq | Permalink | Comments (15)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/7685288
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jeffrey Sachs: Economic Development is the Key to "Winning the Peace":
Comments
See, this is all common sense. It's the kind of people who take Hayek too literally that get in the way of it. (This comes to mind because Mankiw has posted a link to the comic book of Road to Serfdom just recently.)
Problem is, too many people make money out of the way things are now. Also, doing (3) well involves learning about the country involved, as failure to do so often end up pouring money into the pockets of local conmen instead of international ones...
Posted by: Meh | Jan 29, 2007 2:41:07 AM
But will the key unlock the door?
Posted by: callahan | Jan 29, 2007 5:53:07 AM
I respect Jeffrey Sachs as 1.) well-intentioned; 2.) really, really smart; 3.) scholarly. That said, I am not all that confident that his advice, although humane and full of common-sense appeal, is entirely useful.
Meh grasps one of the reasons: the institution-less perspective of classical economic analysis leaves even those economists not-of-the-faith vastly ignorant about the elements, which are necessary and sufficient to economic development. (If there were any fundamental truth in the libertarian economics of Greg Mankiw, Somalia would be the richest country on earth, and over-regulated Japan or the Netherlands among the poorest.)
As I read this brief post, I wasn't thinking of Afganistan or Darfur -- I was thinking of Iraq. Everywhere these days, I read these self-serving narrative analyses about how Iraqis have to come to some agreement to end the civil war, or how America is running out of patience, and how the Iraqis have "six more months" to stand up. People, whose entire knowledge of Iraqi history was aquired in an afternoon browsing coffee table books at Brentano's, opine confidently about the age-old conflict between Shia and Sunni, or how the British couldn't govern after taking over from the Turks nearly a century ago, etc. Lost in all of this is the devastation wrought by Bush and his capitalist cronies.
Right-wing websites attribute the brutality of the civil war to racist categories and factors, while liberals seem unaccountably content to completely overlook the role of Bush policy, first in creating a security vacuum, then failing to build instrastructure while implementing completely mad Hayek-lite reforms (free trade!).
Jeffrey Sach's earnest idealism is admirable, I suppose, but what good has he ever done in the world? Some reporters have asked Congressmen and other officials if they know the difference between Shia and Sunni. Of course, they don't. I am not sure it really matters, because the deeper problem is that there is no general recognition of the connections between policy and outcome. Iraq is a country where the average age is 19, every family has automatic weapons, and unemployment is 50+%: that is a formula for violence, regardless of the details of ethnic factionalism. Let's get real, people. But, of course, getting real would require fully acknowledging the American role in devastating Iraq, reducing them to chaotic civil war. And such an acknowledgement would imply responsibility, which Bush will never embrace and which his opponents, favoring withdrawal, certainly do not want, either.
The cynic in me thinks that such ignorance serves the powers-that-be. In a world, where wealth and power and privilege are often founded on the externalizing of costs and the domination of others, it should not be surprising that elites are systematically unconcerned, and often deliberately ignorant of the consequences of their enrichment and empowerment.
Years ago, a friend of mine in one of the "caring professions" (psychological counseling and the like), protested against the conventional wisdom, which says the down-and-out can only be helped, when they are willing to help themselves. He said that the reality is that great efforts often go into completely destroying a human being -- "the system" first permits monumental neglect and then compounds it with indifference, abuse, confinement and punishment. Telling the victim that the key is his "wanting" to help himself and "take responsibility" is the delightful capper, in which the "caring professional" hypnotizes the victim into believing that he did it all to himself; "forgiving" his oppressors is put forth as a critical step in "recovery".
Creating a fully functional adult in a developed economy requires the luck of good health and a human capital investment, I would guess, of at least a quarter of a million dollars, spread over twenty years, at least a $100,000 in supporting public and private infrastructure (streets, water, electricity, police, cell phones, etc.), and a job where someone else has put up at least $50,000 investment at risk in organization, training, equipment and other resources. On top of all that is an institutional and cultural context, which will channel and reward appropriate individual striving, while promoting ethical public service: a complex and nebulous web of expectations, historical precedent, shared ideals, latent solidarity, respect for abstract instrumental rationality (principles as rules of action), and trust.
It is a huge job, which takes generations to complete. I sympathize with Professor Sachs desire to positively emphasize the ability of first world institutions to "do something" with sensible quick-impact measures. And, of course, I understand the limitations of the op-ed in laying out the scope of a vast and complex set of problems.
But, in the end, I find myself unsympathetic to Sach's naivete: "real progress there against extreme poverty is not only achievable, but also is something that the government and rebels can agree on". Gosh, I bet that felt good to write, but, really, what planet is he living on?
Every country that I know of, which has successfully navigated the route to the fully-developed, capitalist and democratic nirvana, which is our entertainment-obsessed consumer culture, has done so thru a series of revolutions and wars, civil and otherwise, precisely because existing elites could not agree to progress, which would benefit some substantial group of people.
The United States, itself, fought a massive civil war, because a significant minority wanted the right to literally enslave 4+ million people, and our politics still bears the scars of the politics of slavery, one of the consequences of which is our current, idiotarian President.
Curiously missing from Sach's account of support for development is the idea that we ought to actively support putting people in power in other countries, who actually care about the welfare of the mass of local people. Another common denominator in every case of successful development has been the coming to power of forceful, public-spirited nationalists, who paid little or no attention to the advice of the World Bank. Far from free trade, countries like Japan and Korea implemented promoted birth control, imposed extensive capital controls, limited foreign investment severely, bargained against intellectual property rights of international corporations, forced high savings rates, implemented detailed industrial policies, invested in infrastructure and actively promoted productivity-enhancing quality control education.
The best defense against the crony capitalism of international "aid" institutions would seem to be an local, governing elite, which actually cares about achieving a good outcome for the country as a whole. Maybe, we could persuade the diplomats to promote that.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Jan 29, 2007 6:45:27 AM
My, is there really a comic book of "Road to Serfdom" or Smurfdom as I prefer? I prefer not to read Greg Mankiw, life being too pleasant, so is there really? I rather like smurfs, though.
Posted by: anne | Jan 29, 2007 6:47:40 AM
Bruce Wilder has a fine comment trying to make a little sense of an essay I find senseless. What does Iraq have to do with Sudan or Darfur, let alone each with Lebanon or Somalia? Yes; were Iraq economically developed conditions would be better, but last I noticed Iraq was being occupied by American forces and what this has to do with development in Iraq let alone Darfur is beyond my understanding. What could this essay be about, anyway?
Posted by: anne | Jan 29, 2007 6:56:13 AM
"We are seeing again and again that a foreign army, whether NATO’s in Afghanistan, America’s in Iraq, Israel’s in occupied Palestine, or Ethiopia’s in Somalia, may win a battle, or even a war, but never the peace. Peace is about dignity and hope for the future. Military occupation saps dignity, and grinding poverty and economic disarray sap hope. Peace can be achieved only with a withdrawal of foreign troops, and the arrival of jobs, productive farms and factories, tourism, health care, and schools."
This I agree with completely; but withdrawal is one subject and development a subsequent subject. So, I lose any thread even though I want to be sympathetic. Can there be development under occupation? If not, then opt for withdrawal then suggest a development path.
Posted by: anne | Jan 29, 2007 7:04:55 AM
The principle reason the US, at least, is embroiled in war is US imperialism, namely, the drive to invade and occupy the lands of other people. Getting our troops and armies OUT of other people's territory would be the best and simplest way for the US to be at peace with the world again.
Economic development is fine and dandy, but it won't bring peace if we keep invading and occupying other people's territories.
Posted by: maria | Jan 29, 2007 8:40:24 AM
"The principle reason the US, at least, is embroiled in war is US imperialism . . ."
Only too true. The present Administration's desire for Empire is destroying all the good this country has done since World War II, in supporting international institutions and cooperation in a world supportive of human rights and national self-determination.
Bush has cynically used the liberal internationalist rhetoric of Wilson and FDR to destroy, destroy, destroy. And, not just other countries, whose wealth he covets, but his own country, where the Constitution has been used and thrown away like so much toilet paper.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Jan 29, 2007 9:03:48 AM
Sachs assumes poverty is the cause of war, but there are poor countries that are peaceful and there have been civl wars in rich countries. The US was rich during our civil war. Cuba is poor but it's peaceful.
How can Sachs claim ending poverty will result in peace?
It's admirable that he wants to end poverty, and maybe his simple methods should be tried. But his claim that his methods will end poverty, and thereby create peace, do not seem grounded in real observations.
Posted by: realpc | Jan 29, 2007 10:24:01 AM
Bruce Wilder "Curiously missing from Sach's account of support for development is the idea that we ought to actively support putting people in power in other countries, who actually care about the welfare of the mass of local people."
Good point - but it might take some maturity for Americans to realize that not everyone wants to be an American. If a country wants to live under Sharia or some laws we don't find agreeable, well that is why we have different countries.
Americans seem to want to Amercianize the planet so Goldman Sachs and Starbucks can increase their markets.
Posted by: | Jan 29, 2007 10:52:15 AM
I don't know how that might differ from the imperialism thesis anony
Americans seem to want to Amercianize the planet so Goldman Sachs and Starbucks can increase their markets.
but I think there is something to be said for Jeffery's view that if only unsatisfactory options/opportunities are available to young men (women too I suppose in some cultures), the seed for social unrest, dysfunction, disobedience and all the bloody rest, is sewn.
And so who has the highest incarceration rates of young people in this increasingly crowded little planet?
Posted by: calmo | Jan 29, 2007 11:48:18 AM
This type of argument is fleshed out particularly well by Thomas PM Barnett in "The Pentagon's New Map" and "Blue Print for Action" . His background is briefing the pentagon on grand strategy. He recommends vastly increasing funding on peace keepers/infrastructure builders/experts in the field. Loath to identify with a political party, he strikes his own path through the influence of party lines. His worldview (as summarized by me) goes like:
Whereas the overwhelming majority of violence, famine, disease, and low quality of life take place in states that are disconnected economically, politically, and culturally from the globalized world.
Whereas states becoming more economically, and/or politically, and/or culturally connected to the globalized world see a reduction in violence, famine, disease, and an increase in quality of life.
Whereas globally connected states will not have state on state warfare in this nuclear age.
Whereas unstable states disconnected from the globalized world pose the most substantial threat to America.
Therefore, be it resolved that the US stops spending vasts amounts of money preparing for state vs state war (read: submarines, space lasers, billion dollar jets) and start spending money to (figure out how to) fix a failed state (eg Iraq, Sudan, Somalia) in an effort to increase national security and deliver a lasting improvement to world-wide violence, famine, disease, and quality of life.
I highly recommend the books for a well constructed argument crossing military, economic, and political domains. For a crash course check out the briefing that he has given many times over the past 7 years in and out of the Pentagon, part 1, part 2, and part 3.
Posted by: Eric Hansen | Jan 29, 2007 2:32:35 PM
Calmo says:
"...only unsatisfactory options/opportunities are available to young men (women too I suppose in some cultures), the seed for social unrest, dysfunction, disobedience and all the bloody rest, is sewn."
But opportunities have been unsatisfactory for decades in poor countries and they have not produced anti-US "terrorism." That comes from what WE DO, namely invade and occupy their countries, prop up corrupt and dictatorial regimes that will kowtow to us, etc., etc. Do you think that if Iraqis had had "satisfactory opportunities" they would not mind our invasion and killings in their country and not resist us?
Posted by: maria | Jan 29, 2007 4:11:39 PM
"Whereas states becoming more economically, and/or politically, and/or culturally connected to the globalized world see a reduction in violence, famine, disease, and an increase in quality of life."
Yes, and that's why the afghani soldiers should retrain themselves for those new Information Jobs seeing that food can be grown for far cheaper in other countries and should be imported.
Posted by: Ninjaplease | Jan 29, 2007 8:07:28 PM
A charter Neocon tries to save his soul (or better, his reputation) with a contrite show of repentance. A bit late, one might add. But hey, everybody makes mistakes, right? LOL
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
story/0,,2002439,00.html
Posted by: maria | Jan 30, 2007 6:51:34 PM
