Comments on “Wax, Gold and Accountability in Ethiopia”
Last month’s post on the exchange between Helen Epstein and Ken Ohashi on Ethiopia generated a large number of comments (and rejoinders), a response from Helen herself, and references in the Addis press.
One set of comments were about the facts. Many commentators questioned whether human development indicators were actually improving in Ethiopia, while others questioned whether the political situation was as repressive as described by Helen in her original piece in the New York Review of Books. Some asked whether the facts coming out of Ethiopia (on agricultural productivity for example) were reliable. Since these are questions of fact, they can and should be verified.
Another group of comments questioned my interpretation of the facts,
namely, that the progress in health and education were due to improved service delivery which, in turn, derived from greater accountability at the local level.
For instance, Helen and others said there were no third-party civil society organizations in Ethiopia. Even if this were true, there is clearly something working with service delivery in Ethiopia, and we need to understand what it is.
Finally, a third group discussed the values we attach to these facts and interpretations. If poverty is declining and human development improving, but there is little progress on democracy, are people really better off? Conversely, if there are improvements in human rights but no reduction in poverty, in what sense has welfare improved? While they cannot be resolved by examining facts, these are questions worth discussing.
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Wax gold and accountability in Ethiopia
Please first tell us what values does the World Bank attach to facts and interpretations?
World Bank is the biggest lender. Shouldn't you be setting the example by transparently and publicly announcing and discussing your values?
Democracy and Development
It would be nice to have progress in democracy along with economic and social development. But the historical record shows that the former is not a prerequsite for the latter. Soviet Russia and China made huge strides in development under undemcratic regimes. For people who are worried about their next meal, their health and shelter, survival rather than democracy may be their top priority.
Slowly, but surely development undermines autocracy (think Russia and Eastern Europe), though not fast enough for the elites of the third world and Western society that developed dmocracy over centuries;but now, in the instatnt world of communication, demand the third world does it in a few years.
Accountability in Ethiopia
"If poverty is declining and human development improving, but there is little progress on democracy, are people really better off? Conversely, if there are improvements in human rights but no reduction in poverty, in what sense has welfare improved? While they cannot be resolved by examining facts, these are questions worth discussing."
A play of words on "democracy' and "human rights' as though these are separate issues.
Democracy is to be distinguished from mobocracy. The latter pays attention to what people in a given occasion may want, with allegedly the majority determining a desired outcome. In contrast, democracy entails pursuing avenues as per the bylaws ratified by the people who wish to practice it. The people give up a little of their rights for asecrtaining their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Each individual is an end in nature. When the individual dies the universe ends for him as does his nature. Thus his/ her rights must be respected while he/she is alive. This is the highest form of morality and of human rights - the right to life. A group of individuals constitute a set of ends, or what we call a kingdom of ends. Thus, people should respect the life of the other as an end in itself and not to satisfy or meet any other purpose. [See Zereyacob, or Kant for details].This is deaontological morality.
Liberty is freedom. How freedom is achieved and how it is measured could be deontological, utilitarian or even virtues egotism. In any case, the liberty to own property is fundamental to any definition of liberty. If democracy is not intended to ensure liberty then democracy is a word used by cleaver people to lie to others. Human rights include the right of an individual to justifiably defend his property. So, where is the distinction between the purposes of democracy and human rights.
The pursuit of happiness might involve happiness of the flesh that Zereyacob considered immutable, and John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and others including the authors of American Declaration of Independence (authored by Thomas Jefferson and edited by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams) enshrine. The pursuit of happiness that some seek may have nothing to do with issues concerning the flesh; yet, they have the right to pursue it. Whereas democracy does not guarantee happiness it none the less offers opportunities for all to pursue it to their satisfaction. How can such pursuit be divorced from human rights.
If slave commune is quite productive and some slaves are fattened what has that got to do with efforts at contrasting between human rights and democracy.
I therefore submit that the quoted discussants are at best talking heads with no respect for scholarship or they are willfully deceptive.
The human development
The human development approach takes fully in to account the political nature of development policies. It is one thing to focus on what should be done to make policies conducive to human development outcomes and another to make it happen through the political process. Sound macroeconomic policies should be followed but these policies are not adopted because of systematic biases that protect interests of elites .
Role of WB and IMF
There is no doubt that the World Bank and Imf and their agencies have been throughout the years a strong engine of development around the world. However, the success of the projects they finance depends also on the receiving governments of ezch country they lend money too. Which puts these istitutitions in very difficult and often irreconciliable situations in which they have to choose options that are not the best. Corruption, graft, parocchialism and many misdeeds by the receiving countries, and sometimes of their own internal failings produce undesired results.
All said and done their role in world development has been positive and beneficial.
Any policy is good as far as
Any policy is good as far as it benifits the general public. Policies are ment for welfare of humans.
Post new comment