Boston Review has a symposium. Many years ago I was invited to a Fulbright Scholars program as a guest where the discussion was on development and democracy in the less developed world and in failed and weak states. The conference was held in Monterey, CA which made for a beautiful setting. But the conversation (the timing was right after Clinton was elected, but Bush I was still in power) turned scary quickly to this non-interventionist. The military adventurism of the Bush administration was condemned by the participants, but the promise of UN led troops bringing freedom, democracy, and prosperity was held by the vast majority of participants. It seemed that military adventurism was perfectly acceptable as long as it was led by blue helmets.
As you might suspect, I find Bill Easterly's contribution to be the most interesting. I only wish Chris Coyne would have been called upon to contribute to this particular symposium.
Hat tip to Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution.
Thank you for posting Bill Easterly's article. It deserves to be read on a nation-wide scale. I don't think it could have been said better.
Posted by: Dan Phillips | July 07, 2009 at 10:45 PM
"At some point, ... doubt becomes an excuse for inaction, while the problems of insecurity remain real enough." - Collier
I have not read Collier's work, but presuming that Easterly's use of the above quote is not misleading, I think Collier is either forgetting or ignoring the sceptics most important objection. By casting the issue as one of doubt, Collier suggests that sceptics are holding back for further research, more evidence, and better statistical analyses. However, I think sceptics hold back not from doubt but from conviction, the conviction that Collier's intellectual hubris will have unintended--and destructive--consequences.
Posted by: Lee Kelly | July 08, 2009 at 02:08 AM
Dr. Boettke: Thank you for the links in this blog. It seems that Drs. Easterly and Coyne give strong critiques of Collier's work on socialist-collectivist interventionism--an attitude that is akin to 'It takes a village (the UN) to raise a child (developing nations).'
I wonder how they reacted to the corporatist
equivalent that can be found offered in Thomas Barnett's 'The Pentagon's New Map', which advocates a position of unilateral interventionism?
Posted by: Rich Carpenter | July 08, 2009 at 01:38 PM