tv Book Discussion on the Tyranny of Experts CSPAN August 26, 2014 11:29pm-12:47am EDT
regard, and i think that it's what the government can do beyond what it's done in terms of passing the civil rights act by passing the voting rights act, getting legal recourse when they feel they've been discriminated against, but beyond that there's not much the government can do and we get in trouble when we start doing what johnson called for the turn of the great society program he said what you want equality as a result. he wanted equal outcomes. you're not going to get equal outcomes based on human history not in the u.s. or anywhere else. you are not going to get the proportionate outcomes of the type. it is an unrealistic goal. it is up to the groups themselves to take advantage of that and that is something that black leaders of old used to understand. if you go back to frederick
douglass or go back to the perky washington this is what they were saying. they were optimists. they said i think we are going to have them one day. but the more important job is to read the people and to be able to take advantage of those opportunities once we have been. and that has been the failure of liberalism in my mind. is that they have not prepared to blacks through the policies that they have pushed to take advantage. we have created a people that see themselves first and foremost as victim victims and t helpful and it has to change. >> host: so the liberals have helped to enable the community. >> guest: the worst aspect of the subculture that they have helped today. >> host: and also at the time when the minority group in this country will alternately wind up being the majority in the years to come soon but at the same
time you are saying that african-americans should take the self-control responsibility that when you are talking about pulling the government away from this, where does the community come in? you talked about the barbershops. where do they come in? >> guest: the family has to be where you start. the breakdown of the family is a tragedy. it is slavery could do to the black family what these efforts over the past 50 years to help them have done. the black family has been utterly devastated by the attempts to help them and it's something i think that needs to be reversed as we were talking about earlier the outcomes without a black father in the home or involved in the kids
upbringing are just devastating and that has to change. but again these are conversations that have to take place among blacks. they have to get their act together. i think the government can only do so much however and it is. >> host: i can guarantee those that are watching or listening or what have you either love to love you or hate to hate you. you're going to sell the book and the title of the book "please stop helping us how liberals make it harder for blacks to succeed," the title alone. the author, jason riley. mr. riley in the last few seconds, minutes, what would you like to say? >> guest: by the book. [laughter] >> host: beyond that. >> guest: take a look at the arguments with an open mind. take the left to task when they come to the black community in the name of helping the community with some of the same things that have been tried over
and over again for the past five decades on the black unemployment rate despite the countless job programs and so forth. take them to task on the welfare benefits and the incentives they put in place and what it has done to the family and the culture of the dependency into the ghetto. ask questions. be skeptical. that is what they would do in particular. they want to see better outcomes than we have been getting in the current policies. >> host: even though they are controversial you back up your statements with those facts and it is a very interesting read and i thank you so much for your time. it has been very mind opening. i love to hear conversations from all sides and you have given me some interesting thoughts to ponder. once again, please stop helping
space. mankind behind earth is the history and science and future of space exploration. and from the savanna book festival, the astronaut wives club, a true story. president obama has announced 19 new executive orders focusing on veterans at ayers. you can see his entire speech to the american legion's legion convention on c-span.org. during that speech he also talked about militants in iraq. >> the blows we have struck don't mean the end to the terrorist threat. al qaeda affiliates still title our homeland and we have seen that in yemen. other extremist threat threaten our citizens abroad as we have seen most recently in iraq and
syria. as commander in chief, this security of the american people is my highest priority are in with this brutal terrorist group, isil, i have erected our military advisers who are there. let me say it again. the american combat troops will not be returning to fight in iraq and will not allow the united states to be dragged back into another ground war in iraq ended his ultimately up to the iraqi people to british their differences and secure themselves. and it is necessary to protect our people and it has helped the iraqi forces begin to push back that's. we have also been able to rescue thousands of men and women and children were trapped on a
mountain. food and water and medicine show american leadership at her best and we salute the crews that are making us proud every single day. [applause] >> the answer is not to send in large-scale military deployments to overstretch the military for a long period of time and end up feeding extremism. whether military action has to be part of the strategy to protect our people and support our partner to take bets. more military assistance to government and moderate operator opposition and we we have strong security forces and good
governance that is ultimately going to be the answer against terrorists. and we are urging countries in the region to build an international coalition including our closest allies as they take the fight to these barbaric terrorist. and today our prayers are with the family in new hampshire as they continue to grieve the brutal mother as they are signed and our message to anyone who harms our people is simple. america does not forget and our reach as long and we are patient and justice will be done and we have proven time and again that we will do whatever is necessary to capture those who harm america. to go after those who harm america. and we will continue to take direct action where needed to protect our people and to defend our homeland.
and routing this won't be easy and it won't be quick. but tyrants could not be recognized in that kind of hateful vision ultimately is no match for the people who stand together for the security and dignity and freedom that is the birthright of every human being. so even as the war of afghanistan comes to an end we will stay vigilant and we will continue to make sure that our military has what it needs. >> this weekend on the c-span network. friday night, native american history and then on saturday, live all-day coverage from the national books festival from bbc scotland and a debate on the upcoming decision on whether to end the political union with england. sunday chief justice of the second circuit court of appeals
sheers his approach on c-span2 on friday at 8:00 p.m. and that with ron paul. and then on saturday, all-day live coverage of the national book festival from the history and biography pavilions. speakers and interviews and sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern "after words" with williams grows. on american history tv on c-span3 on friday, a documentary about the 1969 moon landing. saturday on the civil war. and a look at election laws in bush versus gore. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching and call us at 202, at the number on
your screen. e-mail us your comments at c-span.org. join the conversation and likeness on facebook or follow us on twitter. >> are special book to be program continues beginning with william easterly on the tyranny of experts and economists and dictators and the forgotten rights of the poor and john hope brian talks about how the pork and save capitalism. how liberals make it harder for blacks to succeed. >> next on booktv, new york university professor william easterly. he talks about the united nations to reduce global poverty on world war ii. pplaujust over one hour and 15
minutes. [applause] >> thank you so much for thatuf warmor introduction and it's really a great pleasure to be with you here today. and i'm going to talk todaynt tt about something that has unconsciously and indirectly le. experts. let's talk about that approach to economic development. it is the idea that poverty isrl really just a technical problem and for example there is ae of variety of technical solutions and one of them is involved on the walls, the inside walls of
peoples housing and that is a technical solution and it helps to fight malaria. and it may be to convert land tp higher values uses.e tos it e has higher value. and now let me tell me you whyoe this is so appealing and so nd straightforward and write in fact may not be that easy. so this is not a happy story but you can't think of this as a run on theunchline to a joke. .. morning of february 28, 2010 districts in uganda were in church when they heard that sound of gunfire and they found
out that they were burning down their homes and torching their crops and shooting their livestock keeping them at gunpoint and marched them away at gunpoint. it was designed as a technical solution to raise people's incomes. obviously it didn't work out as intended and a couple of additional things that where this is an extreme horror story yet there are a couple of additional things that are somewhat revealing in the forgotten rights of the poor that are so often neglected and ignored. so two things that happened, one
is like the other violations that happened this one made it onto the front page of "the new york times." so you would have thought that would have led to some kind of a corrective response in the case. the world bank, twitter the next day said they would do an investigation into what happened and that sounded like the direct response at the time. it's now been four years and there hasn't been a real investigation into what happened that was the first events event that was revealing of the forgotten rights of the poor. the second event is that hardly anyone protested. and the last thing that's revealing is that the stories are literally forgotten by almost anyone except a few people paying attention on the outside and of course the victims themselves. so this story is illustrated and they cannot do with the world
what the world bank has always tried to do on the founding. the articles of agreement had this clause the world bank project shall be designed and granted and interventions should be made not taking into account the political character of the government of the recipient not considering the political character the government that recognizes the economic rights they seem to have the illusion of the economic considerations that can be separated out and they cannot include the political character of the government this is what i call
the technocratic approach of the government. what are the consequences of this? let's get a couple of things clear. development isn't always very open about this, but it is a field that is making enormous recommendations about how to make people better off we often forget that in order to make the recommendations, you have have to stick your own normative values. so, for example i personally would consider this right to be violation i just described in and of itself and i would consider the rights of the poor that were violated and political the political right to protest what happened to them and the property rights they hold over the land that was taken away
from them. i would openly state those rights are good in and of themselves. freedom of choice and the dissent of individuals is a value in and of itself. i don't want to play it fast and see that statement up to automatically when the argument for the rights of the poor because there can be other goods that maybe there is a trade-off that some other good things that we are trading off but all i'm saying is we cannot ignore the normative value of the rights of the poor in and of themselves. and that is primarily the way the the right to spread his dorky that people treat them as something in and of themselves that they want for themselves. the second thing we have to consider is that the system based on political and economic
rights and is it more likely to foster economic development or maybe it's the reverse. maybe you need an autocrat to implement economic development to make the hard choices. maybe don't care about the rights until they are at a higher standard of level of living and the material needs have already been met so this is a debate that we need to have and this one is not a normative debate it is a policy debate to make it happen they are not allowing that to happen and this
article is still in agreement. the bank isn't even allowing itself to openly talk about the issue of democracy or a talker seat in fact i've been following the past world bank president neither one has opened up for democracy in a speech. in particular it was there for five years and finished the whole term without using the word democracy. just made sure i wasn't missing anything i talked to the world bank spokesman and they confirmed to me the president isn't allowed to use the word democracy. haven't you read world thing article four section ten this
should be binding the operation people want to promote development. certainly shouldn't be running the rest of us that care about development and the individual rights for the poor are a good thing. the primary complaint of this book is that the debate hasn't happened anywhere near enough. it hasn't been taken anywhere near serious enough for the economic development. and let me give you a little bit of history on the technocratic idea. where do they come from and how has it held on so long that this article has never been changed into the technocratic approach is being followed by a lot of people still today? one thing the authors get to do when they but they do research for the book is they get to do reading in areas that turn out to be fun and the one area that turned out to be fun for me was setting the history of the idea of the technocrat development.
and one thing i found is that they went -- it wasn't a new idea. anytime recently it went back into colonial times. in 1938 by the british colonial office dot political office did this report in 1938 as 837 pages long. a very long list of technical solutions to poverty in africa but the trade remarkably like the republic of 2005 that was kind of the closest i could find. the un report was authored by an economist and professor at columbia whose name i can't remember right now. i think angelina jolie supplied a consultant's report for this.
so the only thing i want you to take away from this slide is that the technocratic idea that what is missing is the technical solution doesn't fare too well in this life because these particular problems and solutions have been around for 70 years. so it's hard to argue that the problem was that the technical solutions were missing until the experts came along. so it doesn't seem like the problem of experts. they were not that successful because we are still talking about it 70 years later now almost 80 years later. the other way in which it is interesting is this technocratic approach actually formed a lot of the justifications for the british empire by the time of
world war ii. the old justification for the british empire the british were a superior race helping them to develop. that kind of language was becoming politically deadly by the time of world war ii and the british empire was in effect for its life and i wanted to offer them on but havilland benevolent vision that wasn't insulting and racist and so i offered this technocratic justification. we are the people that are going to help you solve your material with the long list of technical solutions. it helps to kind of see the debate today when we see the same debate going on in a time like this in a different context so that that gives you a little bit of that kind of a perspective. another set of people had to convince where the democratic justifications for the colonialism which by the way the
colonials always wanted the regime's the world bank was at the time in 1944 being neutral about. fascism and communism was also colonialism considered as a political character that could not be considered in the world bank loan and there were some beta two colonial territories of the british and the french. so it is a mentality of the time which is -- i don't want to be unfair and tarnished the idea is by having the colonialism but it helps to see kind of what the issues are so the british had to convince the americans won easy way he found a way to kind of convince the administration to go along with the technocratic justification because the roosevelt administration was giving the same, taking that into technocratic approach to
the internally underdeveloped regions and people which were african-americans in the south. eleanor roosevelt had lunch and said look i don't think this was the reality we needed the votes need the votes of the segregationists to be elected. can you please postpone your challenge to segregation and they will offer solutions to the material poverty in the united states. thinking of that of that parallel it helps us to think about this debate so that in the end fdr went along because they saw the parallel between the colonialism and their own treatment and offered few real solutions to black poverty but not the rights to the.
then what happened after the end of colonialism, one thing in the story that you have to know is "colonialism was not anticipated by anyone during world war ii. it was a surprise, it's 15 years later and there were statements i could show you that for generations if not centuries. so this was a sort of indefinite justification to the empire. but then what happened after colonialism did collapse, while there was a new set of parties that under the technocratic justification for the authoritarian rule to be very helpful. so first there was no form called colonialism that the technocratic idea justified. then a new set of autocrats came onto the scene which were in which were the indigenous autocrats in africa after independence.
they found they were not going to give rights to their own citizens either. they wanted to replace the empire as being the new autocrats that could justify the sort of technocratic idea and let us be in power so that we can solve material poverty. so it's sort of like it used to be the divine right of kings and the medieval times and in our date after the end of colonialism and became a right of dictators. he really justify dictators. the u.s. was happy about this because the autocrats make that her allies than democrats in the cold war they were happy to support during the cold war and there was a story that the u.s. put an autocratic in the cold war. the new england suggesting that you add is the idea to justify
the autocrats off to have some political motivation. the story is not only historical today where we are in the new situation of somewhat analogous to the cold war and the war on rror i .. the u.s. foreign-policy apparatus and implementors are somewhat happy with ideas that justify autocrats. and these ideas also appeal last week to the development agencies and the development experts, the philanthropist because these ideas make the operation of philanthropy much easier so that you can ignore as the world bank did and just concentrate directly on the constitution. so there was one named william gates junior. does that bring about?
he set in 2012 they have made real progress in helping the people of ethiopia. bill gates said that the donor is working on the genetic solutions together with the government government that we have followed this approach. they had set the goals choosing an approach and measuring results in using the measurements to continually refine our approach. this helps us to deliver a sort of coalition with the autocratic government for donors and philanthropist and experts working together with these autocrats. it helps us to deliver to us and services to everybody who it will benefit. now bill gates was partly
enthusiastic because ethiopia had a few years of good growth which he gave the credit for a few years of high growth and there's also a few years of measured reductions and child brutality which again he gave the credit for. let's talk a little bit about how much the development community has had the debate. giving the credit bill gates seems to be citing factually with the idea that autocracy is good or is acceptable and neutral for the development. one of the strange things about the debate and the government as they are always looking for autocratic success stories in the developing countries or if you challenge that they want to provide a democratic success stories from within the developing countries.
looking for possible models for how to succeed a development of a half excluded the cases of all of those that actually succeeded at the development. this is pretty important to let me repeat that. having any debate about the model of those actually succeeded is a strange way to handle evidence. it's more recently joined by other success stories within the developing countries that had greater political or economic freedom. but the strange thing the strange thing is the exclusion of the history of the development that excluded all of the successes. that shows you something in the way that the debate hasn't been happening enough that we would
treat the evidence in such a strange way and that we would celebrate just bill gates would celebrate a very few years of apparent success which is without further evidence giving credit to and not reflecting this history of success of democracy and development. one other bit of direct evidence is when you see something good happening in the country there is always a tendency to enter the leader must be a good guy because good things are happening. and that is a very strong tendency in development. even if you have direct evidence and believe that he's not such a good guy. so he has been initially his kind of showing his autocratic credentials in a variety of ways over a number of years prior to the statement of the security forces told the peaceful demonstrators in the street after the elections in 2005. he had manipulated the relief in
the year 2010 to go only to the willing parties to deny it to the opposition. and when she was caught red-handed by the human rights watch that again there was sort of the same sequence that i described in uganda to investigate and then the investigation was quietly canceled and never happened. the abuses continued in 2012. there was a program that involves the forced resettlement and again another rights violations on and financed by the world bank and there's also a peaceful blogger to serve 18 years in jail he didn't use the word democracy in his blog and for that crime of which he was completely innocent, he is now serving 18 years in prison.
and ethiopia. the illusion that we are protesting here i really think we have to have this debate that we've been talking about for so long and debate hasn't happened. it's like everyone has been happy with these technocratic ideas and at the time of the colonial debate i forgot to show you this slide there was a comment of the british colonial secretary on how well they had done justifying the british empire and how happy the americans were with technocratic development and how happy everybody was. this is an actual coffee that i found on the internet of the colonial secretary of world war ii about the technocratic empire these ideas work for everyone but the experts and the agencies, the autocrats, the
foreign-policy. it also makes the foreign-policy easier because the national security interests and the development interests can be complementary. if we think they are good allies in the war on terror and they are good for the development and putting the autocrats with the development aid and praise accomplishes to kill two birds with one stone and that's wonderful. if we had an inconvenient idea that autocrats are not the solution that they actually are the problem, they are an obstacle to the development then we would be in a much difficult situation having a trade-off between whatever we think we are doing in the national security side supporting allies and both ethiopia and uganda are major allies in the u.s. war on terror. they are both very much supportive of the u.s. military command in africa and the u.s. regional military command and have served in the un
peacekeeping troops and even the war in iraq and in the case of uganda. so everything is much easier if we have these ideas and things become much more difficult if we have the idea that the rights are not only a good thing in and of themselves that they but they are also the way that the property ends. that world becomes much for difficult and so many of you like i did are involved in the development effort or aspire to be involved in the development effort you want to see the closing powerpoint slide at the five bullet pointed how to operationalize. i don't have one.
i've done something here which has already gotten me into a lot of trouble and will get me into trouble here today. i have the viewpoint that we have to give principals right before we talk about operationalizing anything. and that has not happened and is not a lack of operational recommendations were five bullet policy fixes. it's a lack of agreement on the basis of the principles of whether they should have the development that is to a high degree of the economic and political rights or do we in fact supports the authoritarian view of development. that is the debate hasn't happened enough and that i want to happen.
>> we are not going to get policy recommendations about implementing that right and when people are not convinced the rights do matter and are at the center. first we have to operationalize the principles. if we can think about this a little but let's go back to the example of the americans to clarify thinking about this. there's a different way that we can be thinking about this and it helps if we think about it in the context of u.s. history. so the civil rights movement that happened in the 1960s martin luther king comes along and there is advocacy for change. is that the level of principles saying that they should have equal rights and isn't being recognized within the segregated south? and until that principle is a
recognized then it was not about martin luther king when he said things like i have a dream and one day people will be free at last. it's very nice but how do you operationalize that with the human service policies. that kind of question would have just been an excuse to avoid the debate that they should have equal rights to think of it another way if there had been a foreign aid program that's why george wallace both suffered for his segregation regime in alabama what we object to that because it was in fact financing the material welfare products to improve the well-being of blacks in alabama or do we object to death because they have their own principles that they had the segregationist principles and it
has to be one first and then we will talk about operationalizing i know that it's not going to help you do your job if you are working on for development but i hope it is the point of view that will open things that indirectly will help you do your job in the long run. but in addressing the roots of the poverty, we need not just the right operations, we need the right principles. we need to get the principals right before asking. and that's what has not been happening in the economic development that we fundamentally are not at the level that we really do care enough about the rights of the poor and we would protest when there is a rights violation in uganda. that is a debate that must have been and is the thing that is happening around the world now.
we have to struggle for the idea of freedom and democracy happening in ukraine, happening in venezuela happening to the degree not covered enough in ethiopia and china. that is what is happening but it's much is much bigger than foreign aid and western foreign-policy interests and that we should be having so i will raising the very famous words i think what needs to be happening is that we hereby resolved that the development shall have a new freedom and the government of the people and by the people, for the people shall not perish. thanks very much. [applause] we will now take some questions.
>> your analysis to the conclusion that the world bank and other agencies might not be working as they should. of course you have to matter in and going to talk from my own experience that i was involved in in the last year one of which is funded by the world bank and for both of these in pakistan it is explicitly to look at the rights. we look at the transportation we look at how it could be structured so that the lifestyle may change in the salon for the
mainstream and the world bank was very happy with that. i was involved in the trade in south asia and the political economy should operate in a key aspect of that analysis was to look at how the trade could benefit the cross-border regions that was an explicit focus and i was wondering. there are efforts to do things that try to get people more rights to spread democracy and words like and power and comic community participation, strengthening civil society. i guess this debate that i'm
talking about is happening at a larger level than that because it's like the world bank has a very split, the world bank and other agencies have a very split sort of approach at a very small and somewhat -- i'm sorry that i have to argue with this somewhat unclear way in which all these words that sound good are actually the same thing as what i'm talking about witches fundamentally a political system that is democratic in which the leaders of the country are democratically accountable to the citizens of the citizens have the freedom of speech, freedom of the media, the right to protest, to elect leaders that will respond to them and reject those that do not respond to them so that is the level of world bank says it isn't able to talk about and then there's sort of the very much smaller level at which these efforts that
you're talking about are happening. and i'm sorry if -- forgive me for being contrary and that some of these are so vague that i think they are committing -- they know that the issue is so threatening and so divisive and so dangerous that there is a reason for the ambiguity and the empowerment and participation and others of colonial history. these words have been used for many decades owing back into colonial times the participation has been a favorite word of the colonial and the establishment for decades so the ambiguity of those is necessary politically and one thing i want to get across i'm not saying that anyone involved in the system that refuses to have this debate on autocracy none of them are bad people, they are politically constrained people. they are constrained by
politics. so the constrained by politics means that these little efforts can never constitute any kind of a threat to the rule of the autocratic regime. the denial of rights to the poor >> the best that can be done -- >> i agree with that. >> an example of what milton friedman did and the economic freedom in chile to the political freedom do you think that there is no feedback from a
development that we can do back into the political? >> i'm glad you raised this example. there is a view of the free-market oriented economists that almost like the ideal situation but they have a free-market autocrat and they really ran it through the free-market and after that you can come after that it can happen this may or may not be the story for any kind of a normative recommendation that i would be happy with. it sounds wicked technocratic
you can have the sort of technocratic justification and an autocratic that in autocratic that is the free-market reform that you want. there's outside experts like i would include friedman asked one of them he was being a sort of development expert in the involvement but they are part of the problem most of the time these kind of attempts to force pre- market policies and autocrat on other societies that led to the backlash and i think what is really missing is the more unified respect for both the political and economic rights for both political data, like freedom they cannot be split apart and say we want economic freedom that isn't a
welfare state. people do not separate the right to not play into there is no evidence it's difficult enough to get some kind of a body of evidence on the competing story of democracy and it's really almost impossible to get any kind of evidence on what is the right transition path. i think we are kind of stuck with the general statement that we have to kind of choose which side is a relative way and a more democratic approach for in autocratic approach and including political and economic freedom and then what the transition path looks like on the way that we don't want to impose the transition path or try to veto any transition path as outside experts this will happen the way that it happens and it will be uneven but there is no sense in which the experts can transition the optimal way.
i reject that hypothesis in any solid body of evidence. >> i don't have experience -- >> you're not one of the bad experts. the way that i'm defining that experts doesn't include anyone in this room at the moment. >> they can define what is a good democracy. you gave an example where it seems clear that not a democracy but the majority of cases it is good or bad. only the three cases can be -- but i got extremely confused about the presentation because
now i think what we should do with this whole -- we don't know if they are good or bad. we need a utopian idea of the political and economic rights before anything else that will ever happen. that's not what i'm saying. you need to have the ideal clear heads of the destination, the ideal political and economic rights and the idea that they are all created equal and reserve the right just as much as rich people. and the specific violations of their rights by the agencies themselves should be protested because part of our advocacy for the development that includes the rights. i am saying those things.
there are no panacea as word utopia on the table. it's offering an ideal that i don't think has been the greatest. now this development has been 99.9% about the material deprivation of poor people which strengthens again but i was considering technical solutions and neglect. it is a good thing in and of themselves. we shouldn't bias debate on whether the rights work in the authoritarian direction x. quoting the cases. i'm saying let's have that debate and get the principled straight into this becomes a guide towards how the development happens. it happens by the ever growing
degree of economic rights. it wasn't at the moment in 1776 when the u.s. was at half of the level of africa and the per capita income in the low level of education and the statements endowed with unalienable rights and government by the consent of the governed all men are created equal but the rights were being violated at that moment i slavery and the lack of women's rights and other things. i've been on a journey in which that idea has been accepted enough and has been a huge engine of social change should add that the area that i'm trying to get across in the civil rights movement examples there are principles that are in engine of social change much more so than the five bullets that will be quickly forgotten by everyone whatever they are on how to operationalize. so yes you have the valid question about the countries
that are in between. the question is what direction are they going and what destination do they recognize as desirable. everyone is in between. the u.s. itself is not in any kind of a democratic utopia but whether it is the destination or the principle that states the destination to be and the destination should be the ever growing political and economic. >> i am with you on the rights issue but i wonder in the selling of this approach if we would fall to the same rhetorical trap that a lot of the language rights of the political participation and freedom just so happens there is a correlation. so i don't know. you've done the research.
are those the western colonial for the historical documents be they traced opposes this argument again. the western advocates of rights might have their own agenda in which they try to impose on the rest of the world. is that where you are? are you asking me to consider that possibility? >> i'm saying it's how do you respond to that? >> it's probably self-interested. >> let me say something big and philosophical and then talk about the critique. thus philosophical thing is that as economies or advocates for
social change we are always in this kind of split personality that at one point we are starting the political economy and in this case and economy of ideas which is something that hasn't been studied enough and i'm trying to talk about more here then is usually talked about. and so that in itself is something that gives insight and something useful that we understand the ideas are not just things people assert for their own reasons but they have a political agenda. but at the same time that the philosophical level we want to appeal outside of the system where the political interests determine what order they accept the ideas and ideals and we want to appeal to natural law that we normatively be legion of what the rights should look like and what we believe the good principles. and we do that all the time in
economics. they recognize that the economic policy is what it is and not because of the merits of the policy but because of the political alliances but we also have the ability to step out and say this is a bad policy for such and such according to the comic principles. they will care more about the
dignity and the rights before and maybe in a constructive way that we do recognize. it's something that is bad for development in the country if you take that other view the kentucky that derby understanding the way that the development happens in understanding the world of the development we can't spend enough time talking about the sort of principles even when they are very simple principles of how the development happens. but any development and discussion seems like there is an impaired if.
the counterexample to what you are seeing is that people do seem to care a lot about the material of the poverty. >> there is quite a lot of public debate and lots of books and lots of columns and lots of attention being given to efforts in the material poverty and a very poor places around the world. so with that i take it a sort of benchmark level of care and what i'm trying to say is i wish i could -- i wish we could change that into something that i think is more respectful of how people
themselves would look at the program and it is a something that westerners are opposing as their own agenda. i don't think that's true. i think there are lots of poor people who do very much want their own rights and dignity to the respected. and i think that we would have our obligation to respect that and to offer them the view and approach to and to sort of pass the bundle of needs that are not being adequate. it's a different direction that recognizes the rights and not just materials.
>> when you talked about the role of the development policy experts and academic economists and i think sometimes academic economists also draw that distinction and many of them have worked on these political rights already like my colleague here and also other examples like the work on the rights and the allocation on the political representation of women and it seems that sometimes those efforts get ignored. so in advancing the debate on political rights that is maybe a perennial problem of how do you get policymakers to listen to evidence but it is still i think a pretty good question of how we get it paid attention to and then on the other hand, there is one exception in the development community that has already accepted the debate as complete and that is something in the corporation that has political
rights as a prerequisite to receiving any aid and sometimes the funding in the developments to occur. what is your response to the millennium challenge corporation >> i do think it was founded on good principles and it was an option of defense and need for these kind of principles. they were simply reassigned to the usaid.
they think that the world bank experts supply the technical solutions that will be implemented and that is the weight that the development happened in that quote i gave. that community does not accept these academic insights and the sort of right and good institutions as the development. they do think that their development efforts that are hoping the autocrats in the technical solutions are the development and i'm saying no it's not it's actually on the development. >> are there any questions in washington, d.c.?
>> there are some who allege in the constructs. how would you respond to that? >> who is actually making those claims are they being made by the autocrats? we might want to discount the views are little but by having self-interest in that and how it comes out. the reality is that it is difficult to go around and establish what the views of poor people are. i can give you some inspirational quotations and refer to some cool potato surveys by some very good people and co-authors which have gone
around and interviewed lots of poor people and seem to generate a lot of qualitative statements of people saying they do want rights. one statement that sticks she says why can't i do what i want with my own cow? it's very elementary that people do not want to be coerced the want to make their own choices. and if you want a more eloquent version.
>> is it to the attempt by outside forces to inject democratic principles into an autocratic culture just another form of the solution and they worked for the last five decades or more that is in every country more and more times by many outside forces with no success except for very short glimpses of success. ..
suppression. here was a form of resistance fr ri that was a form of economic control. later there is a democracy movement and ghanacy now had and donna hadot this with the democratic d elections elections there are still many problems but there is success there. if you look at the big trend this is something you want to be sure to say the trend around the world we have both economic and political freedom over the last several decades what we should not forget was a gigantic change with the state of ideas of freedom around the world we have the