"It Is Easier To Rename Countries Than To Change Them"

Why are the poorest countries failing? What can be done about it?

Those are the questions that Paul Collier seeks to answer in his new book.

Collier (and his partially-named research team) set about discovering why, in an era of increasing prosperity throughout the world, there are about 57 nations (comprising about 1 Billion people) that seem unable to progress; and are, according to Collier, regressing.

The Bottom Billion focuses on 3 causalities of the continued stagnation of these 57 nations:

1. Traps
2. Globalization
3. International Response

Although Collier believes that the situation in failing nations (Africa+, more on that later...) can be ameliorated, he is by no means a wide-eyed optimist who believes that all of the things that need to happen will happen just because there is a possible solution on the table.

Collier's adamant in stating that the success of these failing states rests upon a foundation of internal change that simply cannot be imported. However, Collier is equally adamant in his assertion that G-8 nations have the tools (and obligation) to legitimize and support these changes.

Collier's research and book are not without critics. We'll explore those counter-theories as well because the purpose of this project is not only to summarize Collier's positions, but also to critically examine the soundness of his conclusions by comparing it with other theories of the day.

So...let's get crackin'

Poor People In Developing Countries VS Poor People In Failing Countries

Paul Collier interviewed by Fareed Zakaria on "Foreign Exchange" If the video does not load, follow this link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3692837809306659969&q=paul+collier&total=49&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

"The Grim Apparatus of Professional Scholarship"

So, who is Paul Collier? What qualifies him to talk about "failing" states? Why did the Oxford University Press allow this book of criticisms and solutions to be published? And, is this book intended to be used in graduate-level classrooms in the wealthy world, or does Collier have some other hope for his book?

Well, in his own words, Collier says that this book is "written to be read" and that he has structured it in a way so as to avoid the "grim apparatus professional scholarship" with excessive quotes and footnotes that might put off the average person who wants to understand the nature of the development crisis that some nations face.

In addition, in his proposed solutions is a section that deals specifically with what "ordinary people" can do to help create an environment conducive to development and success of nations that are currently "failing."

Collier's solutions are distinctly economic in origin; his proposals assume that an economic improvement in the 58 failing nations will by natural progression lead to social improvements. While this opinion is not controversial, some of the other opinions in his book are quite so. As we explore the main themes of the book, a few of those will be discussed.

So, that is Collier's book. The question of "Who Is Paul Collier" remains.

Paul Collier is currently a professor of Economics at Oxford University and Director of the Center for the Study of African Economics. According to his homepage, his areas of interest include governance of low income countries, civil war economies and aid. Collier is the former Director of the World Bank Development Research Group from 1998 to 2003. During his tenure as Director, Collier collaborated on several reports to the World Bank about the correlation between poverty, war and the role of foreign aid.

He clearly has the theoretical qualifications to talk about development and impediments to development. But, another question remains unanswered: "Are His Ideas Sound"

Let's see, shall we...

"A Ghetto Of Misery and Discontent"

Collier chooses not to list the names of the 58 countries that he considers to be "failing" nations because he feels that naming these countries creates a "stigma" that leads to a "self-fulfilling prophecy of failure" which he believes already exists. Instead, he chooses to use some of these nations in stories that illustrate the issues that these nations face and specific ways in which the leaders of those nations (and others) reacted which ameliorated or exacerbated the problems.

Collier makes it explicitly clear that he does not believe that there is a such thing as an "Africa Effect."

In other words, Africa doesn't make things happen. Instead, African states have many of the characteristics that make a nation more prone to failure.

Collier uses the term Africa+ to describe the 58 nations that he considers to be failing; these span the globe and can be found throughout Africa, Central Asia and in areas of the Caribbean as well as a smattering in other regions.

Collier notes that these nations are very different, but they all have one commonality: they are small, which means that their per capita income is typically very low.

Collier points out that it is precisely because these countries are so small with small economies that they tend to be overlooked or devalued; if a nation does not show that it can provide some economic benefit to other nations, there will be less attention paid.

Which means that those nations/people most in need of help (absolute poor) will be overlooked in favor of those nations/peoples who have more to offer the world (relative poor).

Collier states that as time goes on these countries will form a "ghetto of misery and discontent" that will begin to impact other nations.

Afghanistan, according to Collier is an excellent example of how this happens.

http://http//www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/asia/afghanistan/timeline/index.html

Collier argues that there are reproduceable strategies that would have been able to avert the crisis in Afghanistan and these strategies can be used to avert and/or mitigate looming crises in other nations.

All that is missing. he feels, is the will and commitment to do so.

"Heading Towards A Black Hole"

Part 2 of The Bottom Billion deals with the characteristics of failing nations. Collier likens these characteristics to "traps" that hold these 58 nations back.

Collier identifies 4 traps:

1. the conflict trap
2. the natural resource trap
3. landlocked with bad neighbors
4. bad governance in a small country

Collier does not suggest that all of the 58 nations have all of these characteristics. Development is impeded by falling into one of these traps. The main feature of all of these countries at some point has been bad governance in a small country, but not all nations have fallen into the conflict trap and not all nations have exploitable natural resources.

To understand Collier's solutions, it is important to have a good understanding of what he sees as the problems. An explanation of each trap follows...

"The Kalishnakov Is The Weapon Of Choice For Any Self-Respecting Rebel"**

Collier's first trap is the Conflict Trap.

Collier breaks conflict down into two categories because his research has suggested that it is important to understand the differences between the two main types of conflicts that plague failing nations. These are: civil wars and coups.

Collier and researcher Anke Hoeffler attempted to explain the causes of civil war looking at several possible causes:

• social


• political


• geographic


• economic

Collier's and Hoeffler's research indicates that statistically, civil wars are not fought because of social or political grievances or repression. Instead, their research indicates that civil wars are fought for multi-faceted economic reasons; specifically related to low income and low growth.

(Links to articles about this research are found under the Thirst For Knowledge section).

Collier's and Hoeffler's research also indicates that coups are carried for much the same reasons as civil wars; although coups initially tend to be much less disastrous for countries than civil wars.

Collier estimates that the average civil war will cost a country (and its neighbors) about $64B. Collier also estimates that a country engaged in civil war will lose about 2.3% of its growth annually. Collier estimates that the average 7-year civil war will cause a country to lose about 15% of its growth.

These figures are particularly devastating for countries already suffering from low growth rates that hover somewhere around the 1.7% mark.

Collier notes that once a country has a civil war or coup, they are much more likely to have more in the future. And, since low growth and low income are likely to continue without some form of intervention, the root causes of these rebellions always present, making it still more likely that they will occur in the future.

Focusing on the ethnic, social, political and geographic causes of rebellions will not decrease the likelihood of costly and deadly conflict. However, focusing on the economic reasons for these rebellions will have an enormous effect on a country's ability to break free of the conflict trap.

** Read about the production of AK-47s around the world under "everything you always wanted to know about ak-47s in the "knowledge section"**

"Curses, Curses..."

The second trap is that of an abundance of a particular natural resource such as oil in Nigeria or Forests in Togo.

Abundant natural resources are not a trap in and of themselves; they become a trap when the resources and the profits from the resources are mismanaged.

Mismanagement can take several forms:

1. resources can be depleted from overzealous extraction
2. the focus of development and technology is solely on that specific resource which retards or completely halts development of other resources which may be more beneficial in the country's eventual development potential
3. funds from the resources can be mishandled in that they are used unsparingly without necessary constraints during "boom" periods. with any boom comes a "bust" which is usually catastrophic because of the unrestrained spending during better times.

Collier notes that abundant resources are not only a trap for the poorest nations. He points out that nations like Russia and Venezuela are also vulnerable to this trap. Collier uses "Dutch Disease"** to illustrate the pitfall for any nation in relying on one resource to the exclusion of all other resource developments.

Collier's research suggests that resource-rich countries switching from autocratic to democratic governments are likely to see a decrease their annual growth rate by 3%. Collier theorizes that this is due to two key facts: newly democratic resource-rich countries (Iraq, for example) have a tendency to invest too little (and make poor choices when they do) and the switch from a minimalist autocratic government to a large democratic government can prove unmanageable; which in turn leads to poor decision-making, corruption and a host of other development hindering problems.

As an example of a fantastically successful resource-rich nation, Collier describes the economic situation in Norway. The reason that Norway has avoided the resource trap is that its system of controls was in place before the country began to exploit its oil resources. The resources in turn have served to strengthen the system of controls.

While the developing resource-rich nations do not have the option of starting over to build a system of controls before exploiting their resources, they can be given sound advice on how to put these controls in place before the resources are depleted or before the market makes those resources less valuable.

**Read about "Dutch Disease" in the "knowledge" section**

"Africa Needs A RyanAir"

Paul Collier and Stephen O' Connell wanted to know if being landlocked automatically became a trap for developing nations. Their research suggests that while the situation is not ideal, being landlocked is not necessarily a trap for a developing nation.**

Fortunately, landlocked, resource-scarce countries are not the norm. Countries in this position who are also surrounded by "bad" neighbors (the 3rd trap) are unfortunately unable to do much of anything about their situations; landlocked, resource-rich countries with bad neighbors have options.

One defining feature of the problem of landlocked nations is that development aid is given on a country rather than regional basis. In that case, what benefit is there for Kenya or Tanzania to build roads that will help Ugandans get their products to port to be sold in Europe? Would the Kenyan government be willing to spend its development $$$ on that project to the detriment of their own projects? (Collier calls these types of neighborhood improvement projects "public goods" and notes that this means that they involve sacrifices that many nations are unwilling to make). To the north, Uganda is blocked by Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia. If these countries were not on the verge of collapse or in the midst of a crippling genocide, would they use their development $$$ to improve travelling conditions for Ugandan exporters? To the East, crossing Zaire, Congo and Gabon (or Angola) would prove costly and dangerous. What then, can landlocked, but resource-rich Uganda do?

Their response to this dilemma determines whether they fall into the trap or manage to avoid it. Collier gives a number of solutions to this problem including working with neighboring countries to improve security, working with neighboring countries to improve infrastructure and trying to attract aid that will help the region.

Collier concedes that some of these issues are out of the hands of the government (what can Uganda do about the situations in Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Angola or the CAR?), but he contends that a well-managed government can find solutions and notes that Uganda has done an admirable job of sustaining its growth over the past decade.

Two important technologies can be be highly beneficial to resource-rich, landlocked countries with bad neighbors; aviation and the Internet.

If (and that is a very big if, if you ask me) a country is able to manage its resources and exploit the benefits of air travel and global Internet connectivity, that nation has an excellent chance of avoiding the trap of being landlocked with bad neighbors.

**Read Collier and O'Connell's research under "knowledge" section**

"The Most Corrupt Country On Earth"

The Fourth and final trap is that of Bad Governance in a Small Country.

As Collier puts it, economies can only grow so fast, but bad governance can destroy and economy with alarming speed.

Collier also points out that a country can be well governed, but that in order for the country to be successful there have to be opportunities to exploit; without those opportunities you're left with a well-governed, very poor country.

Good governance deals with policy and how that policy is implemented. One of the major signs of poor governance is corruption; the more extensive the corruption, the more growth will be impeded.

Collier points out that this axiom is most true in smaller countries with less resources and opportunities for joining the world market. Bangladesh is tied with Chad for most corrupt nation on Earth, but Bangladesh's economy is in much better shape than Chad's. Collier says that one interpretation of this is that corruption does not really matter, but that economic policies like tariffs and exchange rates that spur and influence growth.

Collier disagrees and states that the reason for this disparity is that separate export processing zones have created "islands of better governance" which prevents rampant corruption from totally chocking off all export activity. Chad, on the other hand is landlocked and dependant on oil and aid; as such, government is the only service provider and its ability to provide services has been greatly compromised by production.

Collier firmly believes that change cannot be imported into a country; there has to be an internal movement for change. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the trap of bad governance. The people of Bangladesh and Chad are the only ones that can change the climate of corruption in a country.

Collier states that the definition of a turnaround is difficult because the definition of 'turnaround' is subjective.

His research suggests that there are 3 conditions that made it more likely for a turnaround to take place:

1. having a large population
2. having a significant percentage of the population with a secondary education (people who are intellectually capable of creating a more responsive and transparent government)
3. having recently emerged from a civil war (because there is so much change it is easier to implement more changes)

Collier's research also suggests that democracy and political rights have little to do with the likelihood of a turnaround in a society.

Collier also points out that it is not only necessary for the turnaround to occur; it must also be sustained. Collier and his research team chose 5 years as the benchmark for sustained improvement.

With these criteria in place, it is estimated that any country in any given year had only a 1.6% probability of sustaining a turnaround.

The reasons for this can be found by examining the 3 factors that make turnaround more likely:

• large population, recent emergence from civil war and high percentage of secondary education in the population: this is difficult because people in failing nations who are able to leave will leave. Who is most able to leave? People who have managed to get a secondary (or higher) level education in a nation that is falling apart. If there has been a civil war raging in the country, it is likely that many people will have become refugees in other countries; those most likely to return are those that would not have had the skills to survive in another country (or, those who are forced to return because they are seen as a burden on their new country).

Realistically, there is very little that can be done externally to deal with the internal problem of corruption. The pressure is on the governments and businesses of trading partners of these nations to require that the corrupt nation adhere to laws regulating business and trade.

The likelihood of this happening when it will surely cost these foreign governments and businesses money is small indeed.

"Globalization To The Rescue!!!"

Collier's view of the problems and needs of the bottom billion are clearly based on the belief that the problem of development is one of economics. The basic theme throughout the book is that "Growth is good for the poor."

Collier notes that he has been criticized in the past for stating that the major problem for the bottom billion is that they have not grown; in The Bottom Billion, Collier asserts that this lack of growth should be the major concern of development and at the core of all development projects.

Because of this economic approach to the problem, one might expect Collier to wholeheartedly embrace the concept of globalization; surprisingly, he does not.

Collier is not opposed to globalization and he believes that overall the trend towards open world markets is desirable and good.

Globalization has been highly beneficial to developed and developing countries; but has a negative outcome for the 50 or so failing states.

Collier writes that globalization effects economies on three levels:

1. trade in goods
2. flows of capital
3. migration of people

When globalization functions in a beneficial manner, all of these categories will be strengthened; in the bottom billion, these categories prove to be sources of problems and failures.

1. trade in goods: during the 1980s when developing countries began to break into the world markets, Africa was largely left out of the economic windfall. a number of different issues contributed to this exclusion, but the major problem was related to bad governance and policies; firms were less likely to invest in countries with rampant corruption and unstable political situations. the bottom billion "missed the boat" in effect and are now unable to compete with the low-cost, low-risk (stability wise) markets of the Asian countries, most notably, China. china now has begun to turn to some of these failing states in the search for natural resources and a new wave of resource traps are being set.
2. flows of capital: capital flows out of the bottom billion. according to Collier, Africa has twice as much public capital as private; this means that they have more aid $$$ than investment $$$. this system is counter-productive because private capital is needed to start businesses, create jobs and spur growth. large companies do not invest in the bottom billion, aid $$$ are not invested in the bottom billion and large amounts of private wealth are moved out by citizens of the bottom billion who fear that the political instability of these nations will cause them to lose their wealth.
3. migration of people: those who can leave a failing nation will do so. those who cannot, will not. this means that as time goes on, the best and brightest will leave and those with less ability and opportunity will remain. remember that one of the conditions for turnaround in a stalled nation is to have a "critical mass" of educated citizens who will be able to demand and respond to changes. as the people most able to effect and sustain change leave, the situation of those left behind will deteriorate.

Collier goes even further to state that were a country able to break free from the aforementioned traps, they would be faced with an inability to compete in a world market dominated by the cheap labor and mass production of the Asian countries. They would, in effect be in a type of limbo; poised to take-off, but held back by a lack of opportunity and means.

"Aid: The Stuff Of Rock Bands, G8 Promises And Agencies"

Now that we've have an idea of what Collier sees as the problems, we can take a look at what he thinks of the solutions.

Collier refers to these solutions as "instruments." They are:

1. aid
2. military intervention
3. laws and charters
4. trade policy for reversing marginalization

Each of these instruments has their own merits and pitfalls. Collier feels that although all of these have been used at some point in the past, they have not been well used and as such have been to an extent disregarded as being useful tools for development.

Collier outlines how each of these 4 instruments can be used in relation to the four traps in a way that will benefit not only the bottom billion, but the rest of the world as well.

1. aid: in Collier's opinion, aid is not a bad word. while it has not always been well-applied in the past, he believes that a new vision of how aid should be disseminated would go a long way towards improving the bottom billion's chances for success. Collier supports the use of aid as a "budget support." this would involve helping governments to create realistic operating budgets that are transparent and accountable.

• aid and the conflict trap: Collier states that aid can be used to help countries escape the conflict trap. his research has found that slow growth and low income are the major contributors to civil wars and coups. aid, correctly applied has enormous potential to decrease the likelihood of future rebellions. however, it is important to note that these effects are not direct, there is no evidence, Collier states, to support the notion that aid has a direct effect on civil wars or coups. aid in the post-conflict era can initially be used to provide much needed security and continued (a decade or so is a good starting point Collier states) commitment to "big aid" will eventually have the effect of raising the growth rate which will then have an effect on rebellions.
• aid and the natural resource trap: aid has not been found useful until the government is ready to attempt reform
• aid and landlocked: Collier states that these countries will need "welfare" for a long time; until their neighbors manage to get it together enough to allow them to stand on their own. the key goal of aid in these countries would be to help them improve their access to the coasts by creating regional transport corridors; this would require neighborhood agreements about the use of regional aid $$$
• aid and bad governance: not providing aid to countries with bad governance means that the most needy will not get aid. but, it is a tricky prospect because bad governance could very well mean that the aid does not get to the people in any case. what is needed is a system of accountability and restraints to ensure that the money reaches its targets. instead of increasing aid or continuously awarding aid to badly governed countries, the focus should be on using the aid to obtain the sorts of policy changes necessary to improve government.

"War...uhhh...What Is It Good For?"

According to Collier, military intervention is good for something:

1. the restoration of order
2. maintaining post conflict peace
3. protection against coups

Collier acknowledges that Iraq and Somalia represent fantastic failures of the military intervention strategy as a tool of development. Collier states that military intervention is not the problem itself; the problem lies in how that intervention is provided.

And Iraq and Somalia are textbook cases of what not to do.

An example of how to stage a successful military intervention can be found in the British intervention in Sierra Leone named "Operation Palliser."** One of the most salient features of this operation, Collier notes, was that the people wanted the help.

But, he also points out that this is not a necessary pre-requiste for intervention. If stopping a country from devolving into genocide and collapse means ignoring the sovereignty of that nation, so be it. And this is because what happens in that nation will have an impact on the rest of the world. Collier estimates that prolonged and large-scale conflicts in one nation will cost the world somewhere around $100B a year. This, of course, does not include the loss of life through violent death, spreading epidemics and hunger caused by displacement.

Collier does not provide a blue-print for a successful military intervention, but he does state that interventions based on the three categories have a good chance of being successful.

**Read about OperationPalliser in the 'Knowledge' section**

"We Have A Word For Those Who Live On The Immoral Earnings Of Others: Pimps"

Collier writes that one of the problems with changing bad governance and bad policy is that the rich nations turn a blind eye to the problems that this causes in order to make their profits higher. Collier admonishes rich nations for being "save havens for bottom billion criminals" and states that it is the responsibility of the governments of these wealthy and influential nations to enact changes in their laws so as to benefit the bottom billion and to create a st of international norms that will dictate the behavior of the governments and officials in the bottom billion.

Again, Collier believes that change in a society must come from within, but he feels that wealthy nations can support those changes, but have been unwilling to do so in the past (and present).

Collier cites two main areas of corruption in bottom billion countries that urgently need addressing (construction and resource extraction)**

While there have been steps to address these issues (Britain's Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative), it has not been nearly enough to make changes in a deeply entrenched system of bribery, kickbacks and theft. Collier proposes 4 international charters to address the issue of illegal activities:

1. charter for democracy: an international effort to promote a system of checks and balances; Collier suggest requiring that radio stations be privately owned so that the government can not use them for their own propaganda needs
2. charter for budget transparency: forcing bottom billion governments to make public the way that they spend their funds; this allows people to see what the should be getting and to have a method of filing complaints when this does not happen
3. charter for post conflict situations: guidance for international donors and security apparatus to manage the volatile period after a conflict; Collier believes that handling this situation correctly can lead to the implementation of many necessary changes that will aid development and growth
4. charter for investment: following these guidelines would be a good way for nations intent on reforming to show that they are serious about making changes; this is to separate them from those nations that are merely looking for more money without reform(the Multilateral Agreement on Investment)**

These charters are easily created and enforced, but the will of the international community must be there, and Collier admits that to this point, it has not been.

**Read about the construction response to corruption and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in the 'Knowledge' section**

"I Do Not Much Care For Rich Country Wallowing In Guilt Over Development"

But, Collier does believe that there is some responsibility that the wealthy nations owe to the bottom billion. Not out of a sense of guilt, but out of a recognition that the playing field is not level and the reality is that without help, these nations will fail.

And this is unconscionable.

Unconscionable because when a nation fails, human beings suffer and die needlessly. We are not turning our backs on errant governments, but instead on human suffering.

And so, Collier provides three possible solutions to the problem: protect the bottom billion nations from Asia, export diversification and revision of some aspects of wealthy nation trading policies.

• Protection From Asia: Collier firmly believes that some developing nations are stuck in a sort of limbo because they missed the boat on their opportunity to break into the world market. these nations are now in the position of being ready to move forward, but being prevented from doing so by wealthy nation trade policies and the dominance of the Asian countries, most notably, China. If these forward-looking countries are not able to compete with an industrialized population with an inexhaustible workforce, the likelihood that the bottom billion nations will be able to compete if they pull themselves from their traps and avoid other pitfalls, is slim to none. that is why it is necessary to create trade agreements that will allow for opportunities to tap into the global market. Collier suggest temporarily lifting tariffs against bottom billion nations that are levied against Asia. These should be palatable to Asian countries because the tariffs levied against them are time-limited; they will not be bound by them forever as the bottom billion would not be freed from them forever. Once tariffs against Asia fall, there will be little hope for the bottom billion to compete, so there is a sense of urgency to Collier's plan.
• Export Diversification: Increasing the price paid for coffee does not help diversification or improve technology, according to Collier. Instead, it merely reinforces the coffee growers need to produce that particular crop even though there may be better more beneficial crops to harvest. What bottom billion nations need to do is diversify and begin investing in technological advances that will aid growth and development.
• Revision of Trade Policy with Wealthy Nations: Agricultural subsidies hurt poor nations and are unnecessary for wealthy nations. This makes it more difficult for bottom billion countries (Haiti and rice) to diversity and thus spur growth, develop and end their reliance on international aid. Continuing to support unnecessary and hindering trade policies is irresponsible.

**Subsidies**

"The Struggle For The Bottom Billion"

We've spent the last few weeks in class learning about various theories of development and reading critiques of the implentation of those theories in the field.

One thing that I have taken away from Development Theory is that old theories never die; they are simply repackeged according to new information. Sometimes this is done in a coherent evolution of thought. Sometimes they aren't.

So, a second lesson from Development Theory is that the basis on which an intervention, development program or aid disburesement plan is based will not always be sound. In some cases, the foundation is weak that the programs intended to do good end up doing much, much more harm than good.

And this seems to be one of the lessons that Paul Collier wants his readers to learn as well. The Bottom Billion is a study of decades of mistakes made by the governments of the bottom billion nations, aid/development organizations and the wealthy countries. To be sure, Collier also points out that many of these problems are byproducts of deliberate disregard for the lives of the people that make up the bottom billion in favor of monetary interests.

The Bottom Billion is very favorably reviewes by both The Economist and The Financial Times Magazine; both publications known for their right leaning economic and social stances. The Economist is keen to point out that Collier is "sceptical" about increasing aid to the governments of the bottom billion and the Financial times points out the areas where Collier states that aid will not be useful; glossing over the fact that Collier in fact believes that aid does have its uses. (That is of course, when it is used correctly).

The Economist and Financial Times do give a passing nod to the fact that Collier believes that wealthy nations are in some aspects responsible for the situation of the bottom billion, but this is not the focus of their rave reviews. The focus is instead, that Collier does not call for more money to be spent on the governments of the bottom billion.

On the other side of these glowing reviews is J. Peter Pham, who lauds Collier for his description of the problems of the bottom billion, but remains unconvinced by his solutions to the problems; most notably with the laws and charters section. Pham points out that these are all great ideas, but they do not seem to be enforceable.

My own thoughts on that subject are that while aid to the countries themselves would not increase, there would certainly need to be an increase of funding on some level to support the military interventions that would go along with the enforcement of laws and charters. It seems to the that the Economist and Financial Times would have been slightly less laudatory had Collier enumerated the costs involved in the enforcement of charters and laws.

Overall, I would agree with the reviewers of Collier's book. He offers a clear and precise study of the problems that the bottom billion face. His assessment of the ability of the "instruments" at the world's disposal to deal with the problems of the bottom billion are realistic and sound; he recognizes that these instruments are only as good/useful as the basis on which they are applied.

Faulty planning and development will lead to more of the same problems that we have already seen.


Collier is equally as critical of the "development apparatus" as Escobar and Ferguson. He is adamant in his belief that chagne must come from withing the society and cannot be imported by "experts." He also criticizes the way in which development programs are funded; noting several instances in which promises on the part of nations were not carried out without consequence. They continued to receive conditional aid when it was clear that they were not making the effort to meet conditionalities.

Collier states that aid organizations need to change the way that they do business in order to be effective agents for change; aid should be applied regionally to further the public good. Aid organizations should be willing to accept that they will need to stay in some countries for extended periods of time instead of looking to phase themselves out. By looking at themselves as international welfare providers instead of instruments of change, they will be able to aid in the evolution of societies that they seek to help.

I also agree with Pham's review of Collier's book. Pham states that his description of the problems that the bottom billion face are much stronger than his prescriptions for those problems. Collier's suggestions about charters and military intervention are sound and well-reasone; but after decades researching the faulty application of these principles, Collier is surprisingly unable to provide much in the way of concrete guidelines for action.

He points out that part of the success of the British in Sierra Leone is that the people wanted the troops; he provides no information about what to do if the internvention is not asked for. He talks about the need for charters, but offers no information about how these charters would be enforced. Surely in all of his research it occurred to him to wonder about how these new laws would be enforced? And what would be the consequences for a nation's refusal to adhere to these charters?

Certainly Collier is not responsible for planning out the response of the world community to the Nth degree, but if he chooses to publish a book about the problems of the bottom billion and what can be done to help them, he should follow his research to its logical conclusion.

Another critique of Collier's solutions is that they are firmly grounded in the economic. This is to the absolute exclusion of any recogniton of the very real social issues present in the nations of the bottom billion.

Collier, like W.W. Rostow focuses on economic development as a cure-all for the problems in the bottom billion nations. Collier makes no mention of the position of women in the bottom billion nations. He also makes no mention of the very real effects of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in these nations.

It is as if Collier believes that social issues will be automatically cleared up once the economic environment improves. To be sure, there is no real doubt that education will be improved in the bottom billion if the economy improves. However, what is the immediate effect of an improvement in the economy on the rates of HIV/AIDS transmission in a country? A population may be better educated, but what good are they as a workforce if half of them are dying of AIDS?

Although Collier does not expressly cite Rostow, it seems clear that his solutions are influenced by the stages of development; Collier talks about the "preconditons" for change from bad governance and refers to the bottom billions as being stuck in the fourteenth century.

Collier's solutions, much like Rostow's can be criticized for ignoring the social, historical and cultural differences between nations. Like Rostow, Collier believes that it is sufficient to have good governance, good policy, investment and no corruption to modernize. And modernization looks for all countries looks remarkably similar.

Collier emphasizes the economic reasons for rebellion and insists that research (his own is all that he presents) shows that social grievances have little to nothing to do with uprisings and rebellions. While it may be true that the people who take up arms are not motivated by social concern, it is not proven true that the average citizen who supports that rebel is not.

Collier's Rostovian take on development seeks to find economic reasons for all occurrences and tries to solve all occurrences with economic solutions.

In the end, Collier's book does an excellent job of explaining the different ways in which a country can get stuck or fall behind. Some of his solutions are sound and are quite feasible with international cooperation. However, Collier's book does not provide the holistic approach needed to help the bottom billion pull themselves up; Collier's solutions are a great start, but are by no means sufficient.