The Tyranny of Experts

I'm generally sympathetic to Easterly's ideas about development, but I found this book uneven, even unfocused, and had trouble getting through it.

The main message is that the Development Industry (embodied by the World Bank, consultants, and big donors) is flawed - even guaranteed ineffective - by design. Certain characteristics have been embedded in development since its beginnings (and Easterly has some things to say about when “development” began - mainly, 1920s China, rather than the more popular birthday of 1945). These characteristics are, broadly, a willful ignorance towards the political/institutional aspect of development; and a naive reliance on technocratic solutions, when technocrats have neither the political nor economic incentives to “get it right”. Put bluntly, no one elects World Bank economists, and the World Bank doesn't have to worry about being financially sustainable - so, basically, nothing changes for the Bank even if the Bank seriously screws up. And Easterly cites some pretty damning examples of epic Bank fails, full of perpetuating repression and authoritarian violence. Damn.

Easterly's solution is to readjust the focus of development onto increasing the rights for the poor: this means everything from promoting democracy to loosening migration restrictions to laying off all that technocratic paternalism stuff and just letting people do what they do. And, obviously, not indirectly funding dictators or white-washing repressive regimes.

That's all fine and well, and I'm down with that. I think the more we critically examine the structural incentives of development, both on the part of the “helpers” (World Bank, etc.) and the “helpees” (developing country governments), and the more we think critically - even cynically! - about the (inevitable?) politicization of development and aid, the better off we'll all be.

However! I often felt that this book's better points had already been made (and with more skill) in Acemoglu and Robinson's Why Nations Fail, a book Easterly cites often. Similarly, the works cited made me hungry to read more from the excellent CGD people - Nancy Birdsall, Michael Clemens, Lant Pritchett. These researchers offer great “bird's eye view” perspectives on development.

Also, Easterly started to lose me with the increasingly long and increasingly tangential digressions: his explanation of basic economic principles, like the market's “invisible hand” or comparative advantage, felt too long and - sorry for this - having some seriously diminishing marginal returns. Similarly, his use of the Greene Street block example to chart the history of America's development since 1830 was, sure, a pretty neat research project in and of itself, but often felt very beside the point. Especially when we get down into the weeds about that one 19th century family with the many kids and the many buildings, and did you know that So-and-so, son of So-and-so, actually died in a carriage accident? Yeah, he was the nephew of This-and-that. And that sort of child mortality is something you don't see nowadays - except in poor countries in Africa! Also Friedrich Hayek gets a bad rap!

See what I mean?

The Greene Street example's only small redemption was its nice payoff - for this reader at least - via its vindication of Jane Jacobs. YEAH. Of course Jane Jacobs is wonderful and knows a thing or two about the Dangers of Planning.

Anyhoo. tl;dr: Easterly is great, this book isn't his best. It does have some likable crankiness (some LOLs were had), and the ultimate message is, I think, very important and true. And, okay, it did get me thinking BIG THINGS about development and arguing back at the book - always a good sign. But would I recommend it to others? For dev professionals, yes. For interested general readers who are not actively in the biz, I'd point you to The White Man's Burden or The Elusive Quest for Growth.

Aaaand I'd recommend watching his debate with the Center for Global Development's Owen Barder from earlier this year.