"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.