Helping the Poorest of the Poor
As former director of research for the World Bank and current Director of the Center for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University, Paul Collier has spent a lifetime working to end global poverty. Collier's background also lends credibility for his withering criticism of international development agencies such as the World Bank, whose administrators often prefer to work in “developing” countries which (without the help of the World Bank) are already moving toward prosperity on their own. In fact, Collier observes that global poverty is actually falling quite rapidly for about eighty percent of the world: One billion of the world’s population are already wealthy; four billion are, albeit at varying pace, on the way to becoming prosperous; the real challenge is the “bottom billion," composed of about 50 failing states whose problems defy traditional approaches to alleviating poverty. Notably, these are states which are excluded, or exclude themselves, from the global circle of productivity and exchange. Seventy percent of them are in Africa.
Following Collier, Neuthaus notes that these failing states are caught in a four traps: the conflict trap, the natural resource trap, the trap of being landlocked with bad neighbors, and the trap of corrupt government in a small country. These "traps" virtually guarantee that they will be poorer in the years ahead--"a ghetto of misery, disease, and discontent on an otherwise flourishing planet." Collier writes:
"Change in the societies at the very bottom must come predominantly from within; we cannot impose it on them. In all these societies there are struggles between brave people wanting change and entrenched interests opposing it. To date, we have largely been bystanders in this struggle. We can do much more to strengthen the hand of reformers. But to do so we will need to draw upon tools—such as military interventions, international standard-setting, and trade policy—that to date have been used for other purposes. The agencies that control these instruments have neither knowledge of nor interest in the problems of the bottom billion."
In other words, Collier advocates for increased U.S. and European intervention among the poorest billion, including (controversially) military intervention. Collier contends that such intervention is necessary to " restore order, maintain post-conflict peace, and prevent coups." Collier is not unaware that intervention is dangerous, and requires a (politically and emotionally) strong stomach. Writes Collier:
"Don’t get me wrong: it is terrible when peacekeeping troops get killed, and it is magnificent of a nation to send its troops into a dangerous situation. But that is what modern armies are for: to supply the global public good of peace in territories that otherwise have the potential for nightmare. . . . Armies cannot operate at zero risk. . . . [P]ost-Iraq, the fact that the United States pulled out of Somalia as a result of a mere eighteen deaths looks even more bizarre. The consequence for Somalia were miserable: more than twelve years later it still has no functioning national government. By 1991 around 300,000 people had died, and beyond that there are no estimates of the deaths from continuing conflict and the failure of health systems. But the biggest killer consequent upon the withdrawal was not what happened in Somalia but the lesson that was learned: never intervene. . . . Remember that 1994 was the year of Rwanda. We didn’t want a second Somalia, with another eighteen American soldiers killed, so we got Rwanda, in which half a million people were butchered, entirely avoidably, because international intervention was inadequate."But military intervention is not to be equated with colonization. Neuthaus notes that "Collier is not advocating military intervention to advance grand geopolitical goals but simply to give development a chance among the bottom billion."
The conclusion of Neuthaus' outstanding review:
"The phrase 'policeman of the world' was presumably discredited during the Vietnam era. But even the best neighborhoods have policemen, and the worst cannot survive without them. Policemen operate under the law to prevent the depredations of the lawless. The really poor live in a large and lawless neighborhood, and, if the United States, Britain, and France—and, increasingly, Germany and Japan—do not police the neighborhood, who will? This is among the questions raised and arguments advanced by one of the most important books on world poverty in a very long time, Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It."
Comments
Alex: I've been a reader of your blog for quite some time now -- thank you for your posts!
.........
I think I disagree with Collier on this one. He obviously has a unique perspective, but his foundational assumption is that it is the responsibility of rich/powerful nations to care for others.
You quoted Collier as saying, "that is what modern armies are for: to supply the global public good of peace in territories that otherwise have the potential for nightmare." The problem with this statement is that this is not what modern armies are for at all. Nations do not establish armies so that they can bring peace and protection to other nations -- Nations establish armies to protect their own boarders and citizens. That's it. This is all unfolding in Iraq as we speak. As we have imposed our will on a sovereign nation, we are seeing that a lot of lives will be lost for people who have no desire to conform to a new government -- I spent 4 years in Iraq and Afghanistan and can tell you that most of the citizens were very content with pre-American intervention government. Democracy is good, but not for everyone. I realize that Collier is not talking about establishing democracy, but this is always what ends up happening when the US gets involved in peace keeping/nation building/etc.
The problem of the "poorest of the poor" rests on the Church. National governments are to care for their own. The Church is called to care for the least of these. Unfortunately, the Church has put this calling into the hands of the government and expects them to do our work for us. Military intervention is exactly what we don't need to do -- calling the Church to action is what we do need to do.
I hope that makes sense -- this is an important conversation to have.
Posted by: Nick Kennicott | September 8, 2007 06:33 PM
Dear Nick,
Thank you for taking the time to read this blog, and to post this comment. I can see where you are coming from, and welcome your articulating a different perspective.
Two caveats: (a) I have not yet read the book; (b) I am not sure Collier is even a Christian. What attracted me to Neuthaus' review was the connection to a talk I heard from Wayne Grudem at ETS in 2005. It was entitled Why Do Poor Nations Remain Poor? Economic Causes and Biblical Solutions. Grudem's observations seemed to be similar: "these are states which are excluded, or exclude themselves, from the global circle of productivity and exchange." Governments which make the process of getting a business loan so complicated that economic growth is stopped before it can begin. Governments that confiscate the country's wealth, making it difficult if not impossible for the common man to own property (or a small business), whereby he might improve his condition. Or corrupt governments that lack the integrity to punish crime, because it somehow serves to maintain their power base.
Some say the church's responsibility is to preach the gospel, and that individual Christians (as part of their life callings) are responsible to help the poor (out of the overflow of their own spiritual lives). But I am inclined to agree that the church as the church has a responsibility to help the poor (Jer. 29:7), both locally and globally.
But with respect to your critique, I wonder: Is it an either/or, or can it be a both/and? You say, "National governments are to care for their own." I agree that is their primary responsibility. The "city" in Jer. 29:7 is one's own city. But, we increasingly live in a global community. A relatively small group of radicals can wreak havoc across the world (NYC on Sept 11, or the London train bombings). Likewise, if I were a Christian in American government in the days when Hitler was sweeping into Poland, making life increasingly unbearable for Jews, would I really have been able to look the other way? My wife and I recently saw The Pianist, and I wondered again if America acted in cowardice by refusing to enter the war for so long.
You may say, "That's national security, not nation-building." But extreme poverty is inextricably linked to a cycle of violence, crime and tyranny. One group of brutal leaders is overthrown by others who end up being equally corrupt. Moreover, extreme poverty and never hearing of Jesus Christ often go hand-in-hand. For example, the 10-40 window is a black hole of oppressive governments, massive poverty, and (statistically speaking) very little gospel penetration. I think there is a role for missionaries and governments, for gospel-proclamation and business-creation.
I agree that this is an important conversation. Thanks again for taking the time to post your thoughts.
Posted by: Alex Chediak | September 8, 2007 11:48 PM
Alex: You have made some great points -- thank you for your considerate and thoughtful response.
I certainly agree with you concerning the obvious need for the spread of the gospel in poverty-stricken nations and that this is the responsibility of the Church. In fact, I spend a great deal of time teaching on this because I believe that nearly 2000 commands in the Bible concerning this issue have been ignored by the Church for the most part. Individual Christians cannot possibly do it on their own -- it takes the work of God and a unified effort amongst His people to alleviate poverty and injustice amongst the nations. This will only happen when the gospel becomes effectual in the lives of citizens in those nations.
I suppose my concern is with Christians who give the Church's responsibilities over to the government. Americans have assumed for far too long that we live in a Christian nation -- we don't. So sending our military and our resources to other nations is not the equivalent of spreading the gospel. When we use our military and our resources for nation-building, we are assuming that our (American) way is THE way, yet fail to acknowledge the shortcomings of the American system (i.e. tax code, welfare, government regulations on everything, etc.).
My heart is to see the Church recognize the need for the gospel amongst the nations and for God to remove the scales from the eyes of His people in those places that they may work from within to transform their cities and governments for the common good of the people. We can certainly agree that the only true nation void of poverty is the nation of God.
This is a very difficult issue -- I do not claim to have all the answers. But I would certainly love to see more Church, less government.
Thanks again -- I appreciate the forum to think through these things together.
Soli deo gloria!
Posted by: Nick Kennicott | September 9, 2007 11:56 AM
Nick,
I agree that the church ought not to abdicate her responsibilities, and that the church and state have distinct jurisdictions (God's Lordship over all of life notwithstanding). There is a very provocative book by Dr. Darryl Hart on this topic.
Thanks again for posting,
Alex
Posted by: Alex Chediak | September 9, 2007 10:05 PM