The Self-Fulfilling Tautology of the "Developing" World
To label is to negate
Well and on it goes, now Gordon Brown (who of course is bucking for Tony Blair's job) has said Britain will commit 8.5 billion pounds to give everyone in the world opportunities for primary education by 2015. Where is the problem?
The problem is that as long as we define the world into two halves, the "developing world" and the developed world, or in the vernacular, donors and aid recipients, the world will remain such. As long as we keep dividing the world the world will remain divided. The people in African and Asia (and Latin America) arent more stupid than us in the "North", why do we keep labelling them as such, as pitiful cases who need our handouts?
I was reading an Economist article about China which said that China maybe was growing so well because its finance sector is more open than other 'developing' nations. Well at this rate maybe China has a chance to not be labelled as developing much longer and can be called "China" instead of some limiting label in comparison with other countries who have the same limiting label.
It is funny (if it werent so sick) to see this continued tautology. Foreign assistant was invented to rebuild Europe after WWII, but then it stopped and Europe (mostly, except the parts taken over by the Soviets and other fascist/socialist travellers) got on with it. But then it transmuted to buy the influence of the poorer countries in the Cold War, and has continued to this day despite the Cold War's end more than 15 years ago.
These grand statist fiscal transfer schemes are nothing but 5 year plans without the necessary decentralization and will of the people to succeed. It takes a strong leader to stop the pipe of development assistance, and only a few have (Thailand, Costa Rica and the 'central europeans'; Poland, Hungary, Czech repub, Latvia, Estonia). It is not nation-states that help human development, it is humans themselves. Luckily, private philanthropists, with their own money (thus those with an idea of return they would like to see for their money) are stepping in. Maybe they will 'crowd-out' the State instead of vice-versa.
Well and on it goes, now Gordon Brown (who of course is bucking for Tony Blair's job) has said Britain will commit 8.5 billion pounds to give everyone in the world opportunities for primary education by 2015. Where is the problem?
The problem is that as long as we define the world into two halves, the "developing world" and the developed world, or in the vernacular, donors and aid recipients, the world will remain such. As long as we keep dividing the world the world will remain divided. The people in African and Asia (and Latin America) arent more stupid than us in the "North", why do we keep labelling them as such, as pitiful cases who need our handouts?
I was reading an Economist article about China which said that China maybe was growing so well because its finance sector is more open than other 'developing' nations. Well at this rate maybe China has a chance to not be labelled as developing much longer and can be called "China" instead of some limiting label in comparison with other countries who have the same limiting label.
It is funny (if it werent so sick) to see this continued tautology. Foreign assistant was invented to rebuild Europe after WWII, but then it stopped and Europe (mostly, except the parts taken over by the Soviets and other fascist/socialist travellers) got on with it. But then it transmuted to buy the influence of the poorer countries in the Cold War, and has continued to this day despite the Cold War's end more than 15 years ago.
These grand statist fiscal transfer schemes are nothing but 5 year plans without the necessary decentralization and will of the people to succeed. It takes a strong leader to stop the pipe of development assistance, and only a few have (Thailand, Costa Rica and the 'central europeans'; Poland, Hungary, Czech repub, Latvia, Estonia). It is not nation-states that help human development, it is humans themselves. Luckily, private philanthropists, with their own money (thus those with an idea of return they would like to see for their money) are stepping in. Maybe they will 'crowd-out' the State instead of vice-versa.
posted by Cameron Weber at 3:41 PM
