The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor

Easterly contends the cause of poverty is the absence of political and economic rights, that freedom and democracy are the only reliable paths to economic prosperity, and that even the most well-meaning 'experts' of development unintentionally sided with dictators against their subjects. Yet, China, in the last 34 years has lifted far more people out of poverty than any other nation - despite (per Easterly) an authoritarian government. I, however, contend that China was able to accomplish this because of data-driven decision-making (violating Western advice repeatedly), aided by an obviously authoritarian government. During that same period, the economic situation for average Americans has stagnated, on average, and now is clearly headed downhill - despite having the most political and economic rights. Reality - our democracy and freedom of speech has brought about a paralyzed government, torn between ideologies and unable to respond effectively.

America suffers in many areas from too many incompetent experts and excessive democracy exercised by individuals lacking even basic knowledge or understanding of major trends in several important areas. In K-12 education we've undergone 40+ years of stagnation in pupil achievement and dropout rates, despite a 250% in increase in inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending, and continue to pursue methods that have failed. China and other rising Asian nations, on the other hand, have made impressive gains in both pupil achievement levels and graduation rates. It is also worth noting that while China is now the only clearly authoritarian far-Eastern Asian nation, they ALL were quite authoritarian in the initial years just after WWII or the Korean War. Further, American economic 'experts' have repeatedly proven themselves wrong - predicting higher incomes from 'freed-up' resources pursuing new service sector opportunities as manufacturing moved out of the U.S., being oblivious to our having lost enormous amounts of manufacturing talent, experience, and capability/infrastructure, accumulating an $8+ trillion and growing trade deficit since 1980. Meanwhile, we're now also losing (off-shoring) valuable service-sector jobs - R&D, drug testing, computer programming, finance, and call-centers. True, Russia has been, and continues to be autocratic, but that wasn't the reason for its sudden economic decline in the 1990s - credit that one to incompetent advice from Harvard economists that quickly lowered that nation's standard of living at least a decade.

And how would Easterly explain the Great Depression - striking democratic America as well as increasingly autocratic Germany, thanks to both nations following poor advice from ignorant economists? Or more recently, why the U.S. and most of the world (EXCEPT China) were badly battered by the Great Recession and the misleading economic advice (deregulation, loose money) the brought it?

China was without question in dire straits under Mao - his 'Great Leap Forward,' and 'Cultural Revolution' were both economic disasters wrought by a authoritarian despot. Yet, do not forget that after Mao's death and despite Tiannamen Square, that nation made incredible progress - demonstrating, in my opinion, that the problem was not government authoritarianism, rather poor vs. much improved economic directions from the top. I cannot envision China having made such a dramatic change via democracy - at the time, a large proportion of citizens still were enamored with Mao and his dreadful thinking.

I heartily agree that there is a tyranny of experts in "development" theory and work who do not really let the poor be protagonists of their lives. I also agree that there is not enough freedom allowed to the poor and that human rights should be considered in how aid is disbursed.

But Easterly's book is inadequate for a number of reasons which I will just note. I developed this more in a blog entry I wrote.
Easterly's concern is too focused on what I might call "economic freedom" as opposed to "state intervention." He seems to see little middle ground between "free enterprise" and "the authoritarian state" - or development agencies.

Easterly seems to see most everything in black and white terms with several dichotomies:
• Free development versus autocratic development
• Conscious direction versus spontaneous evolution
• Blank Slate versus learning from history
• Nations versus individuals
• Individualistic versus collectivist values

I don't think the world - or human society - is so structured.

I also think his view of development is narrow, since it is focused on economic development. There is more to development than money. I think there can be really just societies where the incomes are low. It's not always a question of money.

There is much more that I find problematic - partly because I believe he is working from a faulty understanding of what the human person is. His individualist understanding of the person owes more to some US and European economists than to a careful philosophical consideration of the person.

There are also problems in his logic, especially in the way he intimates - while denying - that correlation and causation are linked.

Insideresque, and a reading like the muddy fields of Passchendaele, November 1917, to us poor sods of troopers on the without. Also I note that "these people" at the so-called levers of power are not experts, but they are insiders. And they, like the author, are as blind to trench realities as the subterranean masters of the universe called the Morlocks in HG Well's 1895 The Time Machine. And their behavior towards the public is of a kind with those grim, blind beast-men. I gather that much from the slough this in-need-of-a-harsh-editor book is.

Reading it gives a great deal of how history based on the economy and markets happens. The powers give "counsel" to the poor (countries). Always using a great deal of intelligence and approaching the right people, the powers, even if it is not a safe adventure, as it happened with the Mao's revolution and the "loose" of China for the West, will do whatever necessary to control the markets and resources. From an economic point of view, and taking for granted that every country is responsible for itself, why only a small bunch take steps to control the others? Very interesting, and written before the recent "change" of China to the "free" market. Highly recommended for students of world economy. Easy to read, apt for non-economists also.

Boring, pedantic and repetitious and biased.

This book is, in many ways, an update on Hayek’s 1944 work on the evils of authoritarian government. The problem with Hayek’s work is that it was written in the heat of the communist threat at the end of WW II and so is aimed at that particular form of autocracy at that particular place and at that point in time. Easterly, in contrast, gives a broad historical sweep from ancient times to the present in order to convince us that autocracy is a bad idea in all places and at all times. For Easterly the imminent threat arises not from communism, but from development experts.

The writing style is casual and so it’s not hard to find holes in the arguments, but it’s an interesting contribution to the debate nevertheless. Read this if you are starting to believe in the “Chinese model” of development.

It jumps around a bit, but overall it's a very credible and interesting takedown of the global development community's arrogant prescriptions.

The hidden reality by those who propelled themselves to be considered the Elite, serving their proper decadent interests while proclaiming themselves to be humanistic problem servers.
A must read.

Easterly sets out to use experience of the nations to show central planning cannot work. He found that the folks that set goals to bring about commendable results in "third world" nations just do not have the knowledge to bring about permanent change on the ground.

However, his logic, while reserved for development planners, results in a very powerful argument for less central planning and more chaos of the market place even in the first world. He shows quite explicity that Smith's Invisible Hand holds way too much knowledge and experience for the ivory tower folks to ever be able to produce something so efficient as the chaotic free market.

While he does clearly believe in the free market for societies, he makes an argument for government where government is truly needed.

This is an excellent viewpoint on what has been emphasized and ignored in development theory. An eye opener!!! This should be required reading for those interested in global transformation.