Skip to content

Planners vs. Searchers in 1958

At the 9th meeting of Hayek’s Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) in 1958, members discussed two papers by P.T. Bauer on economic development and foreign aid. Over at the Foundation for Economic Education’s excellent From the Archives blog, Nicholas Snow recently posted the account of that discussion from the first issue of the Mont Pelerin Quarterly. The entire issue is available for download (NB: as a 20 MB PDF) here.

Bauer’s discussants included Hayek’s mentor Ludwig von Mises and the (according to Bill) perennially under-appreciated Herbert Frankel. Given the number of my favorites there or represented, reading these comments is a bit like watching the 1927 Yankees in action (or for our nerdier readers, the Justice League of America).

Nick singles out a great quote from Mises’s comments, and here is another that captures well the bias that still exists against skeptics and critics in debates over foreign aid:

People will call us negative because we do not consider the plight of the so-called underdeveloped countries as a problem to be solved by the governments. The governments want to solve it by spending the taxpayers’ money for the execution of some spurious plans, of plans that are badly designed and, as a rule, even more poorly put into effect. The popularity of this mode of speech is reflected in the way in which the words plan and planning are employed today. Planning, as our contemporaries use the term, means always planning by the government. The plans of the individuals do not count; they are just no planning. (p. 19)

Herbert Frankel also offers a gem of an insight well ahead of the development literature of his time. He says of Bauer’s on-the-ground work:

The lesson that flows from it is that it does pay to go to these remote areas and find out what the problem is, instead of assuming that one knows the problem before one begins. Until recent years, people have simply assumed in many of these territories in Africa, that there were no real, positive signs of enterprise among the indigenous population, which was supposed to be so uninstructed or inert that it was not able to fend for itself, experiment for itself, or improve itself. It was not realised that a reason why there was this apparent lack of initiative in the population was that there were serious customary or legal obstacles to the exercise of ordinary enterprise, even on a small scale. (p. 16)

Here we have not only the recognition that local conditions matter, but that institutions–the rules of the economic game–matter crucially for explaining cross-country income differences.

The whole document is worth reading. It provides a fascinating retrospective on how the development economics of its day looked from a classical liberal perspective. Certainly the development planners of their day failed; otherwise more recent efforts would never have come to be. Did the MPS members put their finger on why those plans failed? If they did, how many of the same errors guide development research and policy today?

Be Sociable, Share!
This entry was posted in History. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

4 Comments

  1. IDEATUM wrote:

    Herbert Frankle is right, the sme have been and are the backbone of african economies, despite many legal, regulatory and administrative obstacles. investment climate matters check the apple store index http://www.ideatum.de/blog

    Posted December 3, 2010 at 4:55 am | Permalink
  2. Leon Kukkuk wrote:

    On Page 7: I make this point in conclusion because I think it is all too easy in attacking- and if you wish eliminating foreign aid, to then conclude all will be well. Of course, all will not be well so long as the massive expenditures we make for defense have to go on.

    Posted December 3, 2010 at 9:43 am | Permalink
  3. Don Stoll wrote:

    Prescient stuff. But, as Frankel’s insight seems to recognize, drawing upon “real, positive signs of enterprise among the indigenous population” might pose daunting challenges in poor countries burdened with radically corrupt and inefficient, and even actively obstructionist, government—challenges not commensurate with those faced by enterprising Americans, for example.

    However, in his blog post from exactly four weeks ago, Shanta Devarajan, World Bank Chief Economist for Africa, observes that with “some 80 percent of Africans having access to a cell phone, it is not difficult to have parents (or the students themselves) send an SMS message if the teacher is not in school, or there are no drugs in the clinic or the purported road maintenance program is not happening.”

    Certainly one can question whether Devarajan counts as a searcher rather than a planner since he goes on immediately to tout the capacity of spreading cell phone access “for helping governments and donors get value for money.” Yet Devarajan’s biases can’t hide the fact that new communication technologies also have the potential to let people in poor countries hold governments and donors more accountable to their needs and, yes, their “real, positive signs of enterprise.”

    Posted December 3, 2010 at 10:34 am | Permalink
  4. Ana wrote:

    What a hoot! I find it incredibly amusing that you think these guys somehow understood something based on ‘fieldwork’…. they were totally applying their own ideology to evidence readily at hand, just like the guys they complain about.

    And then to act as if practically every colonial administrator did not understand exactly the same thing. Who do you think they bought their meat from?

    Posted December 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

2 Trackbacks

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by OpenEye Group, Conduit Journal. Conduit Journal said: Planners vs. Searchers in 1958 http://bit.ly/h5h3MZ […]

  2. By Roundup Dec 3 at Catallaxy Files on December 3, 2010 at 5:05 am

    […] The Mont Pelerin Quarterly, Vol 1 No 1 April 1959, reporting on the 9th meeting of the MPS, with a session on foreign aid. Slow loading but a collectors item! Via  Aid Watch. […]

  • About Aid Watch

    The Aid Watch blog is a project of New York University's Development Research Institute (DRI). This blog is principally written by William Easterly, author of "The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics" and "The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good," and Professor of Economics at NYU. It is co-written by Laura Freschi and by occasional guest bloggers. Our work is based on the idea that more aid will reach the poor the more people are watching aid.

    "Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking." - H.L. Mencken

  • Recent Comments

  • Archives