This first-hand experience is what puts him in a more authoritative position to criticise various dimensions of UN systems. The fact that he no longer works for the World Bank and spends a great deal of his professional time dismantling its shortcomings should speak for itself, no?
One could argue the only reason to help the bottom at all is just to avoid karmatric debt. Maybe have to live a few lifetimes at the top to understand how that debt occurs. It seems like since technology has networked itself into the human condition, the bottom that is not part of the network, has all but been forgotten. Hole in the wall is a fascinating approach to resolving centuries old issues. Not hands out, just decency.
We know now that most of these arguments are wrong, in fact they can be detrimental (especially on the role governance). I said this with all due respect for Paul Collier and the role he played to bring the attention on the base of the pyramid.
"Poverty is the worst kind of violence," Gandhi. "The world is hungry but lacks the money to buy food; and paradoxically, in the underdeveloped world, in the world of the hungry, possible ways of expanding food production are discouraged in order to keep prices up, in order to be able to eat. This is the inexorable law of the philosophy of plunder, which must cease to be the rule in relations between peoples." Che Guevara Those in power only get benefit from exploiting poverty.
You forgot to mention the exploration from part of the Chinese for example. Going in African countries and buying their resources with the promisse of building infrastructures, then importing in their own companies and laborers to build the damn thing. Pay their own workers who send the money right back to China. What do these coutries get? Tolled highways and train networks which the majority of the population cant even afford.
I'm hearing feminizing capitalism (compassionate initiatives), or individualizing corporate (enlightened self-interest)- isn't that what we already know as neo-imperialism?? And more importantly, what drove development in the 40s was American nationalism values or rather feud with communism. A contemporary critique would argue the result is much more complicated, especially if one does not necessarily advocate for global market place! Frankly, this discourse has now turned into educational markets, the biggest derivative of "hope" or "corporate enlightenment" in the Bottom Billion countries.
If non-whites are indigenous in Britain and saying to contrary earns criticism that you're divisive according to lefties, then whites must be now indigenous in North America and South Africa and saying to contrary makes you divisive.
Here's Prof. Paul Collier talking to us about The Future of Capitalism earlier this summer ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-x12cIxYvxuI.html
I can not help but conclude this is an example of someone who has become wrapped up in their own theories and as a result concluded A is not A. Even if his theory is correct the way to spread it is not through words alone but by devising a way so that (in spite of the difficulties) actions can demonstrate it.
Andrew Carosi In The Bottom Billion, Collier briefly outlines his practical suggestions and indeed the post script to the second edition points to a number of real world examples where this theory had been put into practice. Of course, Collier is an academic through and through but Ban Ki Moon and Strauss-Kahn have heeded this theory and applied it directly in their initiatives. Perhaps the tide is turning?
Good old world bank mythology. World bank he works for is the least democratic of institutions, its leader is chosen by political appointment from the richest nations to rule over poorer economies with little transparency. It supported Mobutu for example who murdered and left its people in debt to this day for his flamboyant lifestyle. It and the IMF always think are right and never own up their mistakes. And this growth business is getting old. You need education, autonomous health programs and debt relief.
Provide aid is only a fraction of the solution... LDCs suffer from structural economic and political problems that create inefficient arrangements which often are persistent and near impossible to change without radical shake up of these countries' political regimes. Moreover, the dominant culture in LDCs is reminiscent of pre-industrial, agrarian times and is unfortunately resistant to change especially when it's embedded in religion. Finally, it appears to me that there is no collective willingness among LDC people to improve the economic situation of their countries... the elites are deeply westernized and prefer to squander their money on Western-made luxuries rather than invest it in their countries (these r the comprador class)... while the masses "spawn" children and most are careless about raising them properly... if you go to poor coubtried you will shocked to see how many children are roaming the streets without any parental supervision... children as young as 5 !!! Poverty is a vicious cycle that only can be reversed with radical changes... which are painful and risky... but most countries prefer to stay poor rather than take such risk.
It's a combination of things: a lack of education (or sufficient education), a lack of exposure, a lack of accountability or properly enforcing regulations, corruption, a lack of resources and opportunities, a lack of self knowledge and deep wounds that we avoid dealing with. Until we address those wounds and invest in ourselves, these issues will constantly resurface.
Economic Self Interest - CAPITALISM. That is the only form of economy that actually has raised large parts of humanity out of poverty. Socialists have only managed to created misery for everyone involved and death.
