Klein's Shock Doctrine

[Norfolk]

She used to have a column in the Globe and Mail, maybe still does; she still appears there from time to time. Her principal credentials appear to be her family and social background; she is married into one of the great political families of the country, and to a prominent CBC reporter and journalist at that. Think of her as a sort of Canadian Naomi Wolf, for much the same sorts of reasons.

While I do agree with her on some aspects of economics and globalization, her journalism is in no way professional, even by the standards of our day. Gave her the benefit of the doubt at first, but I have since stopped reading her columns years ago. Fluff.

[Firestaller]

I "read" the book (actually ... an MP3 audiobook) about a month ago.


Klein's thesis is that crisis is intentionally triggered in a country to implement Neo-Liberal economic policies (later known as the Washington Consensus.)


While the merits of Neo-Liberal economics is disputable, there are many more examples of the implementation of these economic policies without a crisis taking place. Moreover, one of the countries that she cites is China after the Tienamen Square incident. China's economy is a hybrid of Neo-Liberal and Keynesian-like economic theories and doesn't fully adhere to the "Washington Consensus."


The best explanation to the change of a countries economy after a crisis or disaster is that the economy is the primary focus by a country's citizenry to recover from a disaster or crisis ... hence the famous quote, "It's the economy stupid."

[John T. Fishel]

I had read the Wikipedia bio but missed the U of Toronto ref. Must have been the virus I've been battling this past week. Since she never notes it in her bios, I wonder if she ever graduated.

I'm not sure what the relevance is but her sister is on the faculty here at the U of Oklahoma. I don't recall whether the sister is in the social sciences, history, or foreign language but not in Pol Sci.

Cheers

JohnT

[relative autonomy]

I "read" the book (actually ... an MP3 audiobook) about a month ago.


Klein's thesis is that crisis is intentionally triggered in a country to implement Neo-Liberal economic policies (later known as the Washington Consensus.)


While the merits of Neo-Liberal economics is disputable, there are many more examples of the implementation of these economic policies without a crisis taking place. Moreover, one of the countries that she cites is China after the Tienamen Square incident. China's economy is a hybrid of Neo-Liberal and Keynesian-like economic theories and doesn't fully adhere to the "Washington Consensus."

The best explanation to the change of a countries economy after a crisis or disaster is that the economy is the primary focus by a country's citizenry to recover from a disaster or crisis ... hence the famous quote, "It's the economy stupid."

i think this is bit dishonest to Klein and makes her seem analysis seem more conspiratorial than it is. She doesn't say that crisis is intentionally triggered but that the crisis is used as the opening to push through neo-liberal economic policies. she does talk about the shock of coercion to enforce neo-liberalism, though, but i think is different that "intentionally triggering a crisis."

she is more polemical than rigorous, though, that is pretty clear and it the enduring problem among many on "the left." You are right to say that China's "market stalinism" isn't the greatest example, either.

also the merits of neo-liberal economics are very disputable, just like any body of ideas. If you put something outside of the realms of debate in some privileged untouchable category, then you an extremist plan and simple. Free-market extremists are as delusional and dangerous as religious extremists.

remember: when politics permeates the totality of society, we call it totalitarianism; when religion permeates the totality of society, we call it theocracy; when market relations permeate the totality of society, we call it freedom? I think, we should call it fascism. Let us not forget Mussolini's famous quote "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." What is the privatization frenzy if not this?

[Ken White]

...
Free-market extremists are as delusional and dangerous as religious extremists.

remember: when politics permeates the totality of society, we call it totalitarianism; when religion permeates the totality of society, we call it theocracy; when market relations permeate the totality of society, we call it freedom? I think, we should call it fascism. Let us not forget Mussolini's famous quote "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." What is the privatization frenzy if not this?

delusioned and dangerous -- which is why most people ignore them but prudent folks keep a jaundiced eye on them.

Unrestrained capitalism is dangerous, excessive government intervention is dangerous. Most people intuitively understand that. The difficulty is in finding the correct balance when confronted with a constantly shifting beam in shape and size and a moving fulcrum. No nation has done that well -- though we did fairly well before we started aping Europe and became over regulated (in some senses and in some areas, usually the wrong areas...).

Fascism is a much misused and overused word.

Not that much of this thread including this post of mine has a lot to do with warfare or small wars...

[relative autonomy]

Ken, I see you're point on the balance between government and intervention. The thing is, though, that capitalism needs to do more than continue to meet the needs of the middle classes in the advanced industrial world. we have all the crap we need! instead manufacturing needs and pursuing a cynical model of globalization, which all to often is a race to the bottom, business needs to take a risk, invest some money and try to meet the very real needs the developing world. i think benjamin barber on the bill moyers journal talks about this a lot more intelligently than i can and you can check that out here:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12.../profile3.html

Fascism maybe overused but I also think people need to incorporate a critique of authoritarian forms. You can't have true democracy when the economy is run by authoritarian structures like TNCs. You can have a plutocracy but i don't think that is value anyone should spill blood for. i should have said plutocracy instead of fascism in my first post becuase its much more accurate and less polemical.

i do think this conversation is very central to "small wars" becuase "winning the hearts and minds" often comes down to who can deliver the economic services people need to live a decent and equitable life. i feel an exclusive focus on the military aspects can leave this out and, then, all the bullets in the world can't delay inevitability.

I still think, instead of dumping endless money into a needless invasion in Iraq, we should have put diplomatic pressure on regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and done "civic action" or peace corp type programs to make life less desperate for the people in the margins, whom, i feel, are legitimately attracted to extremist ideologies becuase they have few other options. For a fraction of the cost of the invading Iraq we could have provided clean drinking water, medical treatment and other humanitarian efforts which, beyond the shadow of a doubt, would have done more to win "the war on terror" than unilaterally invading a secular, quasi-socialist authoritarian state, which had no love for Islamic radicalism nor any connection to 9-11.

Klein's polemics aside, I think here is where the shock docterine can be important: to make clear the overlaps between "small wars" and ultra-right economics. if "small wars" can defeat extremist movements and help create liberal democracies they can't be used to push certain political agendas. her anaylsis isn't perfect but no one's is. she deserves some credit for undertaking an ambitious argument that few people would even attempt to undertake.

[Ken White]

Ken, I see you're point on the balance between government and intervention. The thing is, though, that capitalism needs to do more than continue to meet the needs of the middle classes in the advanced industrial world. we have all the crap we need! instead manufacturing needs and pursuing a cynical model of globalization, which all to often is a race to the bottom, business needs to take a risk, invest some money and try to meet the very real needs the developing world. i think benjamin barber on the bill moyers journal talks about this a lot more intelligently than i can and you can check that out here:

Capitalism does do more than that, though not to the extent Barber and you want -- I doubt that it will ever do that. Nor, I would add, are a lot of government attempts to force it to do so likely to have much effect. Neither do I think it necessary; most of the world will do alright if only provided a level playing field; capitalism per se rarely denies that to anywhere near the extent that politicians do (see subsidies, tariffs, et,al.)

Fascism maybe overused but I also think people need to incorporate a critique of authoritarian forms...

Possibly true but valid critiques will not focus on one aspect but will fairly critique all authoritarian forms -- to include rampant socialism which has proven to be ineffective, as authoritarian as fascism and more pernicious as it is couched in idealistic terms (see Klein, N.)

You can't have true democracy when the economy is run by authoritarian structures like TNCs. You can have a plutocracy but i don't think that is value anyone should spill blood for. i should have said plutocracy instead of fascism in my first post becuase its much more accurate and less polemical.

What is a value that anyone should spill blood for?

The economy, world type, is not run by TNCs but by their owners and investors. I'm one. I assure you I'm not a plutocrat.

i do think this conversation is very central to "small wars" becuase "winning the hearts and minds" often comes down to who can deliver the economic services people need to live a decent and equitable life. i feel an exclusive focus on the military aspects can leave this out and, then, all the bullets in the world can't delay inevitability.

Starting at the end and working backwards, who is using an exclusively military focus?

"Hearts and Minds" is a myth, a dangerous myth. It presumes (in the worst sense of the word) to know what others want or need, then to deliver it and thus to convert them into mini clones of the presumer. Fatal fallacy. No foreign power is ever going to win the heart or mind of anyone in any real sense. People will do what is perceived to be in the interest of themselves and, in many societies of their family, clan or tribe. Only the people can determine what those interests are and while they will take what is freely offered that they want or can use, they will utterly reject giving anyone their heart or mind. They will assert their independence in various ways -- as well they should. That's what is inevitable.

Hearts and minds is pure bunkum, sold by snake oil salesmen who believe all people are innately good and will behave just as said salesmen behave (or want others to behave...). People are not innately good nor are they all equal in any sense. Michael Jordan plays basketball several orders of magnitude better than I ever could. Of all the people in the world, about half are good ranging to great and the remainder are poor ranging to dangerously bad. Kant may have had some things wrong (as is true with all of us) but he had the selfish and own interest parts right. There are a lot of evil folks out there and most will take an idealistic thought and parlay it to their advantage and then slit your throat.

I still think, instead of dumping endless money into a needless invasion in Iraq...

Money supply isn't endless. As for needless, that is at least arguable. There were admittedly other ways to do what was done (shake up the ME in an attempt to speed up the inevitable from five or six generations -- or even more -- to just two or three) and the invasion was admittedly a calculated risk. Whether it achieves the goal is to be determined.

...we should have put diplomatic pressure on regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia...

What do you think we've been doing to both those nations since the 1950s? Didn't get much traction, did it.

...and done "civic action" or peace corp type programs to make life less desperate for the people in the margins...

Civic action is somewhat overrated but in any event, it takes the willing acceptance of the sovereign nation of your program to be effective. Lacking that acceptance and a massive program, the probability of any success is slim. The Peace Corps is a mixed bag, it has many dedicated volunteers who do good stuff. It also has really, overall, been only marginally effective. In any event, if you think either nation would have accepted a lot of Americans in their country to 'help' them, you don't understand the pride and sovereignty factor. If you think hiring local contractors or funneling money to the local government to do the job in lieu of sending Americans, you don't understand the local mores on skimming money from gullible fools while doing no or little work -- and that sub standard.

... whom, i feel, are legitimately attracted to extremist ideologies becuase they have few other options...

True but do not buy the myth that those disaffected are the poor and downtrodden. Those folks are too busy staying alive to indulge in revolutionary foolishness. The disaffected who do engage are predominately educated and at least moderately well off and imbued with radical fervor because the society from which they come irritates them to some degree and / or cannot productively employ them.

For a fraction of the cost of the invading Iraq we could have provided clean drinking water, medical treatment and other humanitarian efforts which, beyond the shadow of a doubt, would have done more to win "the war on terror" than unilaterally invading a secular, quasi-socialist authoritarian state, which had no love for Islamic radicalism nor any connection to 9-11.

Clean drinking water and medical treatment where?

The "secular, quasi-socialist authoritarian state, which had no love for Islamic radicalism nor any connection to 9-11." also had the misfortune of possessing an unloved dictator, pariah status, a largely ineffective military and, most importantly, geographic centrality in the Middle East. Tough but them's the breaks in the real world

Klein's polemics aside, I think here is where the shock docterine can be important: to make clear the overlaps between "small wars" and ultra-right economics. if "small wars" can defeat extremist movements and help create liberal democracies they can't be used to push certain political agendas. her anaylsis isn't perfect but no one's is. she deserves some credit for undertaking an ambitious argument that few people would even attempt to undertake.

We can disagree on most of that with agreement on the word "help" -- war cannot do that, this one can open a window for that to occur, no more. That's all we've done.

[relative autonomy]

Capitalism does do more than that, though not to the extent Barber and you want -- I doubt that it will ever do that. Nor, I would add, are a lot of government attempts to force it to do so likely to have much effect. Neither do I think it necessary; most of the world will do alright if only provided a level playing field; capitalism per se rarely denies that to anywhere near the extent that politicians do (see subsidies, tariffs, et,al.)



Possibly true but valid critiques will not focus on one aspect but will fairly critique all authoritarian forms -- to include rampant socialism which has proven to be ineffective, as authoritarian as fascism and more pernicious as it is couched in idealistic terms (see Klein, N.)



What is a value that anyone should spill blood for?

The economy, world type, is not run by TNCs but by their owners and investors. I'm one. I assure you I'm not a plutocrat.



Starting at the end and working backwards, who is using an exclusively military focus?

"Hearts and Minds" is a myth, a dangerous myth. It presumes (in the worst sense of the word) to know what others want or need, then to deliver it and thus to convert them into mini clones of the presumer. Fatal fallacy. No foreign power is ever going to win the heart or mind of anyone in any real sense. People will do what is perceived to be in the interest of themselves and, in many societies of their family, clan or tribe. Only the people can determine what those interests are and while they will take what is freely offered that they want or can use, they will utterly reject giving anyone their heart or mind. They will assert their independence in various ways -- as well they should. That's what is inevitable.

Hearts and minds is pure bunkum, sold by snake oil salesmen who believe all people are innately good and will behave just as said salesmen behave (or want others to behave...). People are not innately good nor are they all equal in any sense. Michael Jordan plays basketball several orders of magnitude better than I ever could. Of all the people in the world, about half are good ranging to great and the remainder are poor ranging to dangerously bad. Kant may have had some things wrong (as is true with all of us) but he had the selfish and own interest parts right. There are a lot of evil folks out there and most will take an idealistic thought and parlay it to their advantage and then slit your throat.



Money supply isn't endless. As for needless, that is at least arguable. There were admittedly other ways to do what was done (shake up the ME in an attempt to speed up the inevitable from five or six generations -- or even more -- to just two or three) and the invasion was admittedly a calculated risk. Whether it achieves the goal is to be determined.



What do you think we've been doing to both those nations since the 1950s? Didn't get much traction, did it.



Civic action is somewhat overrated but in any event, it takes the willing acceptance of the sovereign nation of your program to be effective. Lacking that acceptance and a massive program, the probability of any success is slim. The Peace Corps is a mixed bag, it has many dedicated volunteers who do good stuff. It also has really, overall, been only marginally effective. In any event, if you think either nation would have accepted a lot of Americans in their country to 'help' them, you don't understand the pride and sovereignty factor. If you think hiring local contractors or funneling money to the local government to do the job in lieu of sending Americans, you don't understand the local mores on skimming money from gullible fools while doing no or little work -- and that sub standard.



True but do not buy the myth that those disaffected are the poor and downtrodden. Those folks are too busy staying alive to indulge in revolutionary foolishness. The disaffected who do engage are predominately educated and at least moderately well off and imbued with radical fervor because the society from which they come irritates them to some degree and / or cannot productively employ them.



Clean drinking water and medical treatment where?

The "secular, quasi-socialist authoritarian state, which had no love for Islamic radicalism nor any connection to 9-11." also had the misfortune of possessing an unloved dictator, pariah status, a largely ineffective military and, most importantly, geographic centrality in the Middle East. Tough but them's the breaks in the real world



We can disagree on most of that with agreement on the word "help" -- war cannot do that, this one can open a window for that to occur, no more. That's all we've done.

I understand your points. I'm not going to respond on economics because i think its pretty clear neither of us are going to convince the other. The only thing i will say is that there is a big difference between an you everyday investor and someone with a controlling share. everyday investors can send in their proxy statements and it doesn't mean much. investors with controlling shares set policy.

As for critiquing authoritarian forms, i don't really understand you point. I never said the only authoritarian forms that needed to be critiqued exist in the economy so i am not sure what you are getting at.

You point about hearts and minds is basically the problem of culture. if that's your position i don't understand how you can justify a the US invading any country that isn't western Christian nation. Culturally and historically, when the US intervenes in a formerly colonized nation with a different religion it is more likely than not to be understood as imperialism, plain and simple.

The leaders of Al Queda maybe educated but i bet the people doing the grunt work are the downtrodden Afghans, Iraqis and whomever duped into dying for one of the few organizations that they see as culturally relevant and anti-imperialist. If i was Afghani or Iraqi, I would be fighting the Americans too, any patriot would.

Toe the Bush Administration line on Iraq if that makes you feel better but that doesn't change the fact that intelligence was manipulated and the country was duped into supporting an invasion for reasons that turned out to be lies. There are no WMDs in Iraq. No one can say otherwise. When that reason was exposed as a total lie and lost all viability, all of sudden it became about democracy. If we were interested in democracy in Iraq, Saddam wouldn't have been on CIA payroll killing democratic socialists, liberal democrats, and like from '58-'68. The US helped the Baath party come to power becuase they were anti-soviet. The US gave the Saddam regime weapons throughout the Iran-Iraq war. People tend to conveniently forget that history. If you think this war is really about making Iraq a democracy, i feel sorry for you. This is were I think its important to consider Klein's argument, especially in light of the reforms Bremer pushed through.

As for the US policy toward Saudi Arabia and Pakistan since 1950, it hasbeen a lot more complicated than that your one sentence suggests. I know more about Pakistan so I will talk about that. The US supported Pakistan immediately after the partition of the Raj becuase they saw it as a necessary anti-soviet bulkhead. The US had complex relationship with Pakistan various military dictators (Khan, Yahya, Zia and now Musharraf). In all cases pressures for democratization were undercut by the imperial demands of the cold war/war on terror. The case of Pakistan's civil war with what became Bangladesh's is instructive. The US didn't put pressure on Zia to end the war until Zia helped the Nixon administration engineer their diplomatic reapproachment with China. If you don't believe me see: Pakistan's Foreign Policy: A Reappraisal by Shahid M. Amin

Back to Klein shock docterine, i think her work is important becuase it addresses the larger context that "small wars" are fought in. If all a "small war" can do is open political opening that could lead to anything from civil war and ethnic cleansing to liberal democracy and rebirth, then, i am not sure if they even worth fighting, especially, as in the case of Iraq, there were many chances to realize a democracy that were dashed by the cynical hands of foreign meddling.

[Dayuhan]

Ken, I see you're point on the balance between government and intervention. The thing is, though, that capitalism needs to do more than continue to meet the needs of the middle classes in the advanced industrial world. we have all the crap we need! instead manufacturing needs and pursuing a cynical model of globalization, which all to often is a race to the bottom, business needs to take a risk, invest some money and try to meet the very real needs the developing world.

I think this misses the point entirely. If you look around the world you will see very quickly that the incidence and severity of poverty is harshest in countries and regions within countries that are isolated from the capitalist global economy. The fastest improvements in economic and social conditions (observe east Asia for examples) have been in areas that have embraced economic integration. Maybe "we have all the crap we need", but if we stop buying that "crap" then the people who make that "crap" lose their jobs. The argument that living simply allows others to simply live is based on a false assumption: that whatever one has must be taken from another. In reality, consumption leads production, and production generates employment. The best way to help poor countries is to allow and encourage them to produce and sell goods and services.

people need to incorporate a critique of authoritarian forms. You can't have true democracy when the economy is run by authoritarian structures like TNCs.

Who says "the economy" is run by TNCs? Which economy?

TNCs actually play an important and largely beneficial role in many developing economies, one which the Naomi Kleins of the world don't generally acknowledge. Many developing economies are totally dominated by rapacious local elites that are more far more authoritarian and more exploitive than TNCs could ever dream of being. These elites generally have the political and legal clout to suppress local competition. TNCs provide a balance to their power and an alternative source of supply and employment.

In the Philippines, where I live, jobs with TNCs are highly sought after because they offer better pay, better working conditions, and better opportunity for advancement than local employment. Widespread hiring of English-speaking graduates by foreign investors has pushed wage scales up and forced other employers to pay more (competition for employees raises wages far faster than strikes). These employees spend a large percentage of their incomes locally, unlike the previously dominant elites, and generate follow-on jobs.

I still think, instead of dumping endless money into a needless invasion in Iraq, we should have put diplomatic pressure on regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and done "civic action" or peace corp type programs to make life less desperate for the people in the margins, whom, i feel, are legitimately attracted to extremist ideologies becuase they have few other options. For a fraction of the cost of the invading Iraq we could have provided clean drinking water, medical treatment and other humanitarian efforts which, beyond the shadow of a doubt, would have done more to win "the war on terror" than unilaterally invading a secular, quasi-socialist authoritarian state, which had no love for Islamic radicalism nor any connection to 9-11.

I'm a former Peace Corps Volunteer, and I can tell you that the Corps is about 99% show and 1% go, and the volunteers receive far more benefit (in experience and training) than the host communities. It's not a bad thing, but if your solution to poverty is the Peace Corps, God help the poor.

Humanitarian aid is important and necessary. It can alleviate the worst effects of poverty, but it does not eliminate or even reduce poverty. If you give a poor community a water system, they will have water and be healthier, but they will still be poor, and they will probably depend on you to come back and maintain that water system.

If you want a poor community to stop being poor, you have to create sustainable employment. That means somebody has to invest money in producing and/or distributing goods and services that can be profitably sold in a free market - if the production is not profitable or requires external subsidy, it's not sustainable. Once a community has jobs and income, they can build their own water system, buy their own mosquito nets, etc, etc...

I guess that's a rant, and maybe it makes me a "neo-liberal". I've never encountered that term outside the academic cloister, and I'm not convinced that anyone who uses it really knows what it means, except that it covers all the stuff they don't like. But what the hell, if this be neo-liberalism, let us make the most of it. It still works. It doesn't work perfectly (not much in this world does), but there's a good deal to be said for it.

[Rex Brynen]

I guess that's a rant, and maybe it makes me a "neo-liberal". I've never encountered that term outside the academic cloister, and I'm not convinced that anyone who uses it really knows what it means, except that it covers all the stuff they don't like. But what the hell, if this be neo-liberalism, let us make the most of it. It still works. It doesn't work perfectly (not much in this world does), but there's a good deal to be said for it.

I think there has been a powerful neoliberal impulse in the aid and development community—notably in the international financial institutions, stretching as far back as the Reagan Administration, and often attacked by critics such as Klein. However, I would argue that its all become a bit of a strawperson.

Developmental approaches have become much more nuanced. Almost everyone these days accepts that most employment and growth is generated by private sector activity and investment, and that you can't create large numbers of sustainable jobs with aid money. There's broad acceptance that TNCs can have positive effects (although, in some contexts, negative ones too.)

On the other hand, almost no one--not even in the World Bank or IMF—believes that unrestricted free markets are a good thing, or that you can get equitable and sustainable growth without effective state institutions to provide an enabling environment (rule of law, anti-corruption measures, security, critical infrastructure, education, health, social safety nets, environmental regulation, enforcement of labour standards, etc). It is also important that stakeholder consultation be done properly, ideally through a political system that is responsive to the needs of all affected groups, not just those with money.

The World Bank in particular has made major adjustments in the way it works, partly because of external and internal criticism, and partly out of learning from experience. The IMF remains more of a bastion of narrow classical economics, but critics miss the point that it should be—it is an institution that is all about promoting fiscal solvency. In doing so it provides a useful reminder of the dangers of unsustainable state expenditure. Think of the IMF as your parents: No, they weren't always right, and certainly not very cool, but in retrospect aren't you glad they lectured/reminded/nagged you at times?

Sadly, it was the case that some of the initial US development personnel in Iraq—political appointees or recent hires in most cases, not career USAID folks— were ideologically blinkered neoliberal/neocons, who treated it as a bit of a sandbox for ideas about radical privatization. Almost none of this worked out very well, and much of it was later abandoned or revised.

[Surferbeetle]

Humanitarian aid is important and necessary. It can alleviate the worst effects of poverty, but it does not eliminate or even reduce poverty. If you give a poor community a water system, they will have water and be healthier, but they will still be poor, and they will probably depend on you to come back and maintain that water system.

If you want a poor community to stop being poor, you have to create sustainable employment. That means somebody has to invest money in producing and/or distributing goods and services that can be profitably sold in a free market - if the production is not profitable or requires external subsidy, it's not sustainable. Once a community has jobs and income, they can build their own water system, buy their own mosquito nets, etc, etc...

As a person who has worked in Central America and Iraq these are topics that I wrestle with. What's appropriate, acceptable, sustainable, and will be perceived as a hand up as opposed to hand out given the time and resource limitations that I am working under? How do I apply my language/cultural, biology, civil engineering, and business administration skills to produce sustainable quantifiable change?

Loss of the Cold-War construct has allowed for rapid observable changes in international affairs. Although they are only analogies, and many caveats of course apply, I find it helpful to use the concepts of ecological succession and geomorphology when considering the why's of what is occurring.

I find China's approach to international development and other things pretty fascinating. It's an interesting study to compare their methodologies with ours. When I do this I keep in mind that the 2009 Economist's Pocket World in Figures reports China's GDP at $2,645 bn and the US at $13,164bn.

Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Central Europe, and Central Asia are on my radar screen as places of rapid change where the application of various international development strategies are particularly visible. Tom Odum used the phrase Gunpowder or Gold the other day, and it's one that captures neatly the approaches on display.

On the other hand, almost no one--not even in the World Bank or IMF—believes that unrestricted free markets are a good thing, or that you can get equitable and sustainable growth without effective state institutions to provide an enabling environment (rule of law, anti-corruption measures, security, critical infrastructure, education, health, social safety nets, environmental regulation, enforcement of labour standards, etc). It is also important that stakeholder consultation be done properly, ideally through a political system that is responsive to the needs of all affected groups, not just those with money.

The World Bank in particular has made major adjustments in the way it works, partly because of external and internal criticism, and partly out of learning from experience. The IMF remains more of a bastion of narrow classical economics, but critics miss the point that it should be—it is an institution that is all about promoting fiscal solvency. In doing so it provides a useful reminder of the dangers of unsustainable state expenditure. Think of the IMF as your parents: No, they weren't always right, and certainly not very cool, but in retrospect aren't you glad they lectured/reminded/nagged you at times?

Sadly, it was the case that some of the initial US development personnel in Iraq—political appointees or recent hires in most cases, not career USAID folks— were ideologically blinkered neoliberal/neocons, who treated it as a bit of a sandbox for ideas about radical privatization. Almost none of this worked out very well, and much of it was later abandoned or revised.

The IMF provides interesting datapoints and can be commended for many things but its relevance/authority/direction is being challenged. This is not necessarily a knock, but if you are up for sharing references, as always, they would be greatly appreciated.