When I was an undergraduate, I remember being surprised about the amount that is written on third world development issues in academic journals and books. It is a very complex area, and no doubt a profitable one- ironically- for the academics who research these issues. I also wondered in jest whether any of the trees chopped to make the paper the journals were written on came from developing countries.
Yet one thing has become clear to me over the years. The debate is only complex because, at the end of the day, it boils down to a question of how some of the more glaring symptoms of world poverty can be alleviated without harming the prosperity and high living standards that prevail in the developed world. It is not about how the third world can come to enjoy the same standards.
Economics is a zero sum game. Sure, new success stories can emerge, such as the Southeast Asian tiger economies. But every single country on earth cannot enjoy the average living standards of the UK; the world economy cannot grow in that way. The Southeast Asian countries are small and the amount of economic activity they can attract poses no threat. India and China are another story. Increasingly Western policy makers stress the need to maintain competitiveness in the face of these behemoths.
Another reason for the complexity of the debate, which arises from the need to balance self interest with helping the poor, can be found in the plethora of duties and regulations that prevent third world countries from penetrating first world markets. If these are not in place to protect indigenous industries, why are they not removed? Removing some of these restrictions could lift entire communities out of poverty within months, especially agricultural communities. But in the zero sum game of economics, such a move could devastate domestic industries.
No comments:
Post a Comment