‘Austerity’ Video Launches New Media Initiative. A video by Professor Mark Blyth on the financial crisis. IPE related.
DfID must not ignore international agricultural research. First, I really must congratulate the Guardian Newspaper on setting up this section totally devoted towards International Development. Yes, this newspaper has typically been more pro-development and pro-aid (sometimes) definitely in contrast to many of Britain’s new papers and new sites. At this time when there’s a loud chorus of anti-aid and anti-development protestors in the UK, this newspaper is taking on the role that the Troy-Lib Dem (or mostly Tory) DFID has failed to do so. In this section, leading development strategists urge a need for DFID to keep the focus on agricultural research. Naturally, the current boss of DFID has argued that this is not the case.
Does the Labour Party still care about Development?. Lawrence Haddad brings up a strong point on Labour’s next step on development. Yes it can boast to have created DFID and be the front runner in international aid giving, but Labour still has made mistakes with development.
FAO senior economist responds on “made-up world hunger numbers” (by Bill Easterly/Aid Watchers). This is one of the rare occasions that I’ll post a link from the anti-aid but pro-neo-liberal Bill Easterly. You can read the background to the response letter but as Oxfam’s Duncan Green puts it, “[It’s a] lazy and supercilious attack on the latest FAO numbers by Bill Easterly is politely but [is] comprehensively trashed by the FAO’s David Dawe, supported by our very own [Oxfam’s] Richard King”.
In praise of… Ha-Joon Chang. Back to the Guardian’s Development section and this time, on my key lecturer from Cambridge, Dr. Chang. I urge readers not to simply agree with the Guardian author’s comments but look at the responses by others below. For example, one guys argues against Chang’s latest assertion that the washing machine has made a greater impact than the internet (“This kind of technological determinism and abject dismissal of women as thinking, creative, deciding indivuals (sic), shows that while he might know a lot about economics he knows very little about why women decided and continue to decide that they’ll go out to paid work rather than slaving at home for nothing, with or without washing machines.”) Also, others challenge his historical perspective that since rich countries adopted protectionism back then, this is good for today’s developing countries. (“Take trade. His mistakes are to think that: (i) just because the US and others followed protectionist policies in their past, it was actually good for them to do so. Infact (sic), if you look at the debates in the US (for example) you see plenty of voices decrying the effects of protectionism which was infact (sic) the principle cause of the civil war. (ii) even allowing for the economics of empire practised(sic) in the past, it does not follow that countries today – especially poorer ones – follow those now. To imagine that countries in Africa or south Asia, with weak governance, can go around picking winners is pie in the sky.”)