100 Treatises

A Tragedy Within a Tragedy

In light of the ongoing recovery efforts in Haiti, David Brooks offers several observations regarding Haitian development as well as development in general. I certainly don’t agree with all of his analysis, but he makes some important and thought-provoking points. One is that development aid, which has amounted to trillions of dollars over the past several decades, has failed to deliver on its promises:

The countries that have not received much aid, like China, have seen tremendous growth and tremendous poverty reductions. The countries that have received aid, like Haiti, have not… There are no policy levers that consistently correlate to increased growth.

There is no question that the whole approach to development aid needs to be rethought. The many millions of dollars the US has spent on Haiti in the last 20 years alone demonstrate that. But that does not mean a William Easterly-style approach of doing away with it altogether is the proper solution. The key is not to stop investing, but rather to radically change the priorities of the investment. Brooks, for example, points out that small-scale development projects are necessary, but clearly insufficient by themselves: Haiti may have the highest number of NGOs per capita on the planet.

Another issue he raises is culture:

Why is Haiti so poor? Well, it has a history of oppression, slavery and colonialism. But so does Barbados, and Barbados is doing pretty well. Haiti has endured ruthless dictators, corruption and foreign invasions. But so has the Dominican Republic, and the D.R. is in much better shape… Haiti, like most of the world’s poorest nations, suffers from a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.

Now, these are tough words, and he does not cite any sources for these claims. Brooks has also demonstrated a pretty simplistic attitude toward culture in the past (for example, on China). However, he makes a salient point that forgives the lower-level inconsistencies, and that is the importance of seeing culture as an active component of the development process, not a neutral non-issue that has no consequences on the fate of a people. Witness, for example, the dramatic changes in English culture and social dynamics from the 16th century to the 19th century. In some ways, of course, this is a chicken-and-egg problem (does development cause changes in culture, or do changes in culture cause development?). But more attention and appreciation for culture and cultural attitudes would do a great deal of good as Haiti is rebuilt.

Finally, and equally politically incorrect as culture, is the importance of “locally led paternalism”:

…the programs that really work involve intrusive paternalism.

These programs, like the Harlem Children’s Zone and the No Excuses schools, are led by people who figure they don’t understand all the factors that have contributed to poverty, but they don’t care. They are going to replace parts of the local culture with a highly demanding, highly intensive culture of achievement — involving everything from new child-rearing practices to stricter schools to better job performance.

A tough, no-nonsense and results-oriented approach has been lacking from most approaches to international economic development, Brooks argues. I would add that this is related to the overall lack of accountability and responsibility that is by now a cliche in most development efforts. If a given NGO helps to improve people’s lives somewhere, that’s great. But if they spend millions of donated dollars, recruit dozens of locals into some project and get the seal of approval from the UN, but ultimately contribute absolutely nothing to anyone’s life, what happens? Do any heads role? Is anyone held responsible? Is there any guarantee that this expensive mistake is not repeated?

In addition to these issues of cultural, social and financial strategy, large-scale economic realities need to be taken into account. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned in the past, the Obama administration does not seem to be taking the opportunity of the economic crisis to revisit some of the fundamental assumptions surrounding economic policy, either domestically or developmentally. How about protectionism vs free trade? How about infant industry protection? How about outsourcing cheap labor and the false doctrine of “comparative advantage” (which, in many ways, has the effect of perpetuating underdevelopment and dependence)? Brooks, being a conservative, is not allowed to raise these issues (if he even sees them as issues at all). But the destructive historical impact of economic policies pushed by the rich countries on the poor are extremely important to consider in Haiti going forward.

So these are unusual ideas, to be sure. Certainly unusual as far as traditional development strategies are concerned. And that is precisely the point. No one can reasonably argue that the traditional approaches to development and poverty elimination have been a success. They have helped to alleviate some of the harshest suffering, they have been effective (as they are now) at managing crises and calamities, and they have enabled average people to keep their heads above water generation after generation. This is not success, and this is not development. This is life support. It is obviously vital in emergency situations, but it has proven to be profoundly insufficient for actually transforming societies, which should be our real ultimate goal from a moral, financial and logical point of view.

MORE ARTICLES:

China, the US and the End of the American Era