In his New York Times column, David Brooks discussed the underlying causes of the tremendous destruction from the earthquake in Haiti. He referred to WhatWorks in Development? edited by Jessica Cohen and William Easterly to back up his point that “we don’t know how to use aid to reduce poverty.” Countries have spent trillions of dollars in foreign aid worldwide, yet this assistance has not generated growth. According to the book:
The picture is grim. There are no policy levers that consistently correlate to increased growth. There is nearly zero correlation between how a developing economy does one decade and how it does the next. There is no consistently proven way to reduce corruption. Even improving governing institutions doesn’t seem to produce the expected results.
As part of The Status Report, a daily series of commentary with video from Brookings scholars to be featured in POLITICO's The Arena, Vanda Felbab-Brown gives President Obama a B for laying out the right strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan but taking too much time to decide on a plan. Felbab-Brown, an expert on counterinsurgency and the author of Shooting Up, writes, “Unfortunately 2009 turned out to be a year of lost opportunities in Afghanistan during which momentum continued to be lost to the insurgency, corruption, and apathy.” The amount of time required for the fall policy review, she argues, “further weakened the already fragile confidence in the United States, abroad and among the Afghan population. With respect to the objective of improving governance and thus harnessing the aspirations of Afghan people, expectations were also dashed. The international community was unprepared for the widespread corruption that plagued the Afghan presidential elections and the background dealing among Afghan powerbrokers that characterized months of the presidential campaign. And the subsequent bashing of President-Elect Hamid Karzai in the international community for corruption did little to establish the needed foundation for improved governance in Afghanistan.”
Recessions often bring high tariffs and trade wars, and recent figures from the World Bank show that industry requests for trade barriers are up 30% over the past year. But according to Chad Bown, there is cause for optimism as well. In an op-ed in the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal, Bown writes that the "global economy may still stay on a pro-trade path." He points to a recent U.S. government decision to deny new trade barriers on imports of aluminum pistons from Argentina and China's use of the World Trade Organization to formally question barriers instead of resorting to retaliatory measures. Bown discusses the WTO's dispute settlement system in his new book Self-Enforcing Trade: Developing Countries and WTO Dispute Settlement.
An op-ed in the Boston Globe argues that Congress failing to deliver on health care reform carries a significant economic cost. Linda Bilmes, coauthor of The People Factor, and Rosemarie Day, deputy director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority of Massachusetts, write:
Less health insurance equates to more premature deaths, and shorter life expectancy. It also impairs the quality of life—and hence the productivity—of those who are living. This is evident in comparing the health of Americans who live in states with high levels of insurance with those who do not.
Bilmes and Day argue that the current debate over whether the country can afford the estimated $850 billion price tag of health care reform misses the point. Doing nothing comes with a hefty cost, as well, because the uninsured impose big financial and economic costs on the United States.
Brookings fellow Vanda Felbab-Brown, author of the forthcoming Shooting Up: Counterinsurgency and the War on Drugs, joins Robert D. Kaplan (Center for a New American Security), Frederick W. Kagan (American Enterprise Institute), Stephen Biddle (Council on Foreign Relations), and Andrew J. Bacevich (Boston University) on the New York Times blog, Room for Debate, to discuss the Karzai brothers and the challenges they create for U.S. policy in Afghanistan. Numerous reports have linked Ahmed Wali Karzai, the leading power broker in Kandahar and brother of President Hamid Karzai, to drug trafficking. But as Felbab-Brown points out, the Karzais are only the tip of the iceberg: “Indeed, many power brokers in Afghanistan—including some of today’s staunchest eradicators of the poppy crop and members of the Ministry of Interior’s counternarcotics section—have been involved in the drug trade. Because opium constitutes between a third and a half of the country’s gross domestic product (and has been for 20 years), it is deeply embedded in the society’s socio-economic fabric, political arrangements and power relations.”
For generations, Americans have
believed that this formula will allow them to get ahead in our land
of opportunity. But do Americans really enjoy more economic
opportunity than people in other countries? Is each generation better
off than the previous one? Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill provide
somewhat surprising answers to such questions in a myth-busting piece
in Sunday’s Washington Post(October 31).
Bruce Riedel investigates the historical and current frameworks of the jihadist movement in Pakistan
National Interest editor, Justine Rosenthal, interviews Bruce Riedel
Who knows what the future may hold? As Pakistan breeds instability within many socio-political dimensions, a jihadist takeover of the nation might sprout the most fatal threat to security in the Middle East and for the United States. Bruce Riedel examines the possibility of the invasion of the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other terrorist factions in one of the Middle East’s most vulnerable states. In a National Interest article, Riedel traces the history of the Pakistani dilemma and links it to current developments.
Will Pakistan be the beginning of the end of terrorism in the Middle East? In his insightful analysis, Riedel says, “Pakistan is a complex and combustible society undergoing a severe crisis. America helped create that crisis over a long period of time. If we don’t help Pakistan now, we may have to deal with a jihadist Pakistan later. That should focus our attention.”
Author Howard B. Schaffer reveals the limits of American influence in the Kashmir region
The escalating dispute in the Kashmir region proves a threat to security in South-Asia and to the United States. In an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, former ambassador to Bangladesh and author of The Limits of Influence: America's Role in Kashmir, Howard Shaffer discloses the growing dangers of the conflict between India and Pakistan, warning that the dispute may instigate the emergence of a potential nuclear war. He urges independent settlement in both areas to promote India-Pakistan relations.
As for Washington’s influence, Schaffer states, "If Washington does find a propitious opportunity to play a more active role, the settlement it promotes should call for making the Line of Control a permanent border that is porous; autonomy for Kashmiris on both sides; and joint institutions on an all-Kashmir basis."
Howard B. Schaffer has spent thirty-six years as an officer of the U.S Foreign Service, through which he was appointed ambassador to Bangladesh. Ambassador Schaffer currently teaches and writes at Georgetown University and widely recognized as a leading American specialist on South Asia. He is the author of highly regarded biographies of two American diplomats who served as ambassadors to India at times when Washington was deeply involved in efforts to resolve the Kashmir dispute. They were published as Chester Bowles: New Dealer in the Cold War (Harvard University Press, 1993) and Ellsworth Bunker: Global Troubleshooter, Vietnam Hawk (University of North Carolina Press, 2003). Schaffer is also the author of many articles on South Asian matters.
In the realm of research, Washington Post writer Joe Davidson asserted that many studies on how to improve the federal government “plow the same ground and can be as dull as a worn rug.” However, in the July 8 article “Leaders Who Succeeded – And Those Who Didn’t”, Davidson cites one recent study led by Steven Kelman, author of Unleashing Change: A Study of Organizational Renewal in Government for its innovation. The study, titled “What It Takes to Change Government” [pdf], breaks new ground by examining failed, rather than successful, government leaders. Kelman and others found that failed politicians “spent too much time hobnobbing with other bigwigs and not enough time with people on the shop or office floor,” according to Davidson.
On the same day, the Washington Post published an article titled “In Retooled Health-Care System, Who Will Say No?” regarding the ever-evolving health care debate. One of the largest questions looming seems to be, as staff writer Alec Gillis puts it, “In a country where ‘rationing’ is a dirty word, who will say no?” In his study of the issue, Gillis turned to Henry J. Aaron, co-author of Can We Say No? The Challenge of Rationing Health Care. According to Gillis, Aaron said that “real cost reform would mean giving all physicians incentives to leave behind the fee-for-service model for accountable care networks,” a transition that could take some time. Asserting the reality of the situation, Aaron claimed, “We're just not going to be able to all have everything . . . regardless of cost.”
Author discusses transparency as means of driving innovation with Government Technology
With the White House blog publishing new posts nearly every day and the accompanying Twitter feed boasting more than 670,000 followers, it seems that the “open government initiative” may be succeeding. In a July 6 interview with Steve Towns, editor of the news collective Government Technology, Beth Noveck discussed local, state, and federal governments’ current transparency efforts in a digital age. Noveck, author of Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful, cited the blog and Twitter feed for the Office of Science and Technology Policy as one example of the successful integration of technology and government issues. On the simplicity and ease with which governments can utilize technology, Noveck had the following to say:
“Many of these tools are cheap. They're free. They're easy to maintain. It's just a matter of being ready and willing to put a toe in the water and say, ‘We're going to try this, and we're going to see what works for us and really try to adapt new innovations.’”
David Brooks cites WHAT WORKS IN DEVELOPMENT?
In his New York Times column, David Brooks discussed the underlying causes of the tremendous destruction from the earthquake in Haiti. He referred to What Works in Development? edited by Jessica Cohen and William Easterly to back up his point that “we don’t know how to use aid to reduce poverty.” Countries have spent trillions of dollars in foreign aid worldwide, yet this assistance has not generated growth. According to the book:
- Read the full New York Times column by David Brooks
- Learn more about What Works in Development?
Posted by Brookings Press on January 20, 2010 in Commentary, Development, Economics, Foreign Policy, Globalization, Poverty | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)