Global infant mortality has halved since 1960. The poorest countries are steadily catching up to the richest on other critical measures of the quality of life: life expectancy, literacy, political and civil rights – not to mention beer production per capita.
This blog tries to remind us all periodically that there ARE successes in development. Charles Kenny has a great book in the works that will shoulder THAT load from now on. Kenny is a clear-eyed and honest observer of development that I have admired for a long time. He summarizes his forthcoming book on his website, from which I got the statements in the first paragraph.
(He also points out that per capita income growth in poor countries has not lived up to expectations and we don’t have a clue why – another theme of this blog also – but I think he is too negative about this growth, which is respectable even if not matching development economists’ expectations. Anyway, he argues that other quality of life indicators are disconnected from GDP growth.)
Kenny argues that the rapid spread of technology and ideas have led to the happy trends he identifies. Technology and ideas have made, for example, good health, cheaper and easier. (Cheap technology: soap. Spreading idea: wash your hands.) I have previously noted that aid should get part of the credit for improving health, and aid could do even better on these improving things in the future as Kenny argues. Kenny summarizes his work:
Realistic optimism is the right attitude with which to face the issue of development… a recognition of the challenges still facing the world – significant progress to be made, limits to the likely speed of that progress…. But we should also acknowledge that the rapid and unprecedented improvement in global quality of life over the past fifty years provides some significant grounds for hope about the future.
8 Comments
Around ten years ago, the country I live in had 1,5Bn$ imports and 0,5bn exports.
Last year, imports rose to around 1bn/quarter and exports to 0,9Bn/quarter, if I may believe the local press (which is notoriously bad with printing correct numbers, I admit).
Since these exports consist entirely of agricultural products (>
If exports are fueling a housing bubble, doesn’t it suggest that taking food out for export raises local prices for food, and the bubble leads to concentrated wealth and the division of the economy into those who benefit and those who are marginalized?
Having recently returned to Europe after more than a decade in Africa, I have been very depressed lately. To think that I have invested my entire professional life in a sector that is failing to meet it’s objectives has been weighing heavily. Thank you for the reminder that there has been progress.
Thank you also for sharing Kenny’s words about developing and maintaining realistic optimism, as those of in the global development field move forward. We could make good use of our rapidly spreading technology, by sharing more views on what’s driving these visible successes. Perhaps you could treat us all to a blog post on that.
Kenny is certainly one cool development economist. I really liked his Think again article in Foreign Policy which I think everyone should read. It is very important for people, especially those who have the good heart to help to know exactly how bad things are so that they are not throwing money to the winds engaging in patronizing projects that do little or nothing to advance development.
Thanks for keeping your promise, though I was actually surprised to see that you actually did post the blog at 12:00 a.m. You must be a very hard worker.
I visited the Kenny web site. I must say that while it is good to know that there is some success in development he was extremely vague as to what actually succeeds. He mentions a number of historical conditions leading to the development of sound institutions, mentions education and health but with some caveats.
I urge you to take a look at our book on development radio. Good informational radio succeeds even absent good institutions because it puts relevant information directly within reach of those who need it – although obviously with good institutions its impact is greater.- It can have and is documented to have had meaningful impacts in all the arenas mentioned by Kenney as key. Unlike Kenney we give a perscription for how to impact health, and education even absent the requisite teachers, health workers, 4 wheel drive vehicles and clinics. Radio can and has trained teachers given useful preventive health information, supplemented in schol teaching, brought adult education to villages etc.
What works? Give people useful information and the institutions and economic activity will follow.
SS
Professor Easterly, what do you think of technological improvements such as the one shown by Michael Pritchard at TED (http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pritchard_invents_a_water_filter.html)
@ Sergio
I listened to Michael Pritchard on the “Lifesaver” water filtration; found it absolutely amazing. While on TED I got plugged into Amy Smith an MIT, MacArthur Award winner who had developed low cost smokeless cooking briquets which could replace millions of trees cut for cooking fuel and alieviate the problems cooking smoke causes to the respiratory system, especially among small children. The briquets were, furthermore, easy to produce and cost efficient.
Our idea – Amy Smith indicates at the end of the tape the biggest problem was diffusion of the idea- was that radio could get these technologies out and if only one in a thousand listeners took the idea and ran with it there would be a revolution in living conditions among the poor. The radio is the TED of the third world’s poor.
SS
Where is she going to use them? Most people I know who use wood for cooking pull off the odd lose branch. Cutting a tree down for cooking would be an atrocious misuse of timber.
Secondly the brickettes cost money, whereas pulling a couple of lower branches from a tree costs nothing.