William Easterly on the Racist and Imperialist Origins of Economic Development
Economist William Easterly has a fascinating post discussing how the idea of economic development originated "as a cover for imperialism and racism." As he writes:
During the early years of World War II, Japan won major victories (such as the capture of Singapore) against the British and threatened India. Japanese propaganda pointed to British racism and offered themselves as the defenders of non-white peoples. The British feared that non-white people in the colonies might side with the Japanese rather than their colonial masters. The British had to come up with a new justification for colonial rule to replace the unpopular and increasingly implausible idea that they were a superior race destined to rule inferior races. In response, they invented the concept of economic development.
Why does this matter today?
First, it meant that the concept of development was determined to fit a propaganda imperative; it was NOT a breakthrough in thought by economists. Second, it followed that development from the beginning would stress the central role of Western aid to help the helpless natives (which shows up in the early development theories like the "poverty trap" and the "Big Push," and the lack of interest in local entrepreneurs and market incentives). Third, the paternalism was so extreme at the beginning that it would last for a long time - I still think it is widespread today, especially after today's comeback of the early development ideas in some parts of the aid system. And this history also seems strangely relevant with today's "humanitarian" nouveau-imperialism to invade and fix "failed states" like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Read the rest here.
[Via The Beacon]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I knew the economic development argument was a WWII era, but I did not know the british gov't manufactured it. Interesting... I wonder if the IMF knows.
I'm no economic historian, but I suspect the concept of "economic development" predates the fall of Singapore in 1942.
In fact, the Japanese had already used a racist and imperialist excuse for armed invasion: the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," which was formally announced in 1940.
I'm not suprised to learn this history. The current aid system is designed to keep people in poverty. A good nonprofit aims to make people self sufficient.
A good nonprofit aims to make people self sufficient.
I don't know if the current system is designed to keep people in poverty, but this part is true.
Failed states? That reminds me of something I read today:
In response, they invented the concept of economic development.
Little-known fact: prior to WW II, no economy ever developed.
Interesting but a bit over the top. It doesn't seem too much different from most attempts in western countries to increase domestic economic development.
A country is only really authentic if it's a poverty-stricken hell hole.
Down with imperialist increases in the standard of living!
The current aid system is designed to keep people in poverty.
I have to take exception to your premise that the current aid system is "designed" in any way.
-jcr
Our commitment, customer is God.
=====FREE SHIPPING FREE====== http://www.icfshop.com
All the products are free shipping, and the the price is
enticement , and also can accept the paypal payment.we can
ship within 24 hours after your payment.
accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
our price:coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32coogi DG edhardy
gucci t-shirts $15CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes
$35jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33EDhardy gucci ny New
Era cap $15coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16.our price:
(Bikini)coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32.coogi DG edhardy
gucci t-shirts $15.CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes
$35.jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33.EDhardy gucci ny New
Era cap $15.coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16
=====FREE SHIPPING FREE===== http://www.icfshop.com
I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!
And this history also seems strangely relevant with today's "humanitarian" nouveau-imperialism to invade and fix "failed states" like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well we're also there due to the "You break it, you bought it" theory of economics.
I must say, that was some of the most appropriately placed spam I've ever seen.
Ironically under Clinton the Economic Development people were fanatically committed to "free markets" - at least when I was working with USAID in Eastern Europe in the 90s. Every project was supposed to be designed to foster competition and create local ownership. So aid is not racist if it's being given to other white people?
How historical illiterate can one get. Maybe older civilizations didn't use the same express terms, but it is clear that using economic development as a justification, as well as an aid to keeping a population soft and controllable had been used long before there was a British empire. Just going the easy, off the top of my head route, the Romans used pretty much that exact thing in most of their expansion.
On the other side of things, I'm weary of all of the manufactured "racists" claims. It's really getting stale.
I'm not a dispensationalist premillennialist, but if I were I'd say the most surefire sign of the impending apocalypse is the rapidly progressing mental retardation of our society, with Easterly's post being exhibit A.
One of the interesting things about living in New York City for close to 10 years, where I attended CUNY and worked at CUNY, was discovering that the white American college professors I met were all much more hostile to "British imperialism" than the Africans, Caribbean blacks, and Indians I met. The foreign people-of-color had a diversity of views of Britain and British rule, some hostile, some lamenting that the British had left, and many having the sort of nuanced attitude about British rule that most Americans have about the U.S. government (some governors were bad, some were good, this British policy had been good, this British policy had been bad, etc.) The American college profs, on the other hand, were uniformly condemnatory, to the point that they complained that the Indians they knew "still loved the Brits!" and, when they met an African professor whom they didn't like, saying behind his back, "He is a product of British imperialism!"
I wonder why that is the case.
I wonder why that is the case.
To answer this naively and simply, they think they (said academics) know better than their interlocutors (probably anybody).
If you allow me to ignore the main thrust of this thread, which I have not read enough about to tie together neatly, I would wager that this impulse is strongly present in our own government, and that there are interesting reasons why this attitude is so often encountered in humanistic academia (or maybe just the esoteric subsectino thereof). Though simply stating "the ivory tower are running red with capital-C Card Carryin Communist Party members" is both obvious and insufficient to explain anything.