tv Book Discussion CSPAN November 10, 2014 1:35am-2:01am EST
off. >> host: how are we conducting this vice? >> guest: a lot of it is the american aid agency and some of it is through private philanthropy like the gates foundation. they are giving money to technical solutions and i think they are being politically neutral or indifferent, the president of the crowds that they are kind of colluding with the autocrats in power. one was 2012 when he died of natural causes. he had been praised as contributing a lot to the movie
eulogy continuing his policies this is all great but what is not so great a if he does putting a peaceful dissident in jail for 28 years in the year 2012 he implemented the program where they moved farmers from gunpoint. when you're violating the rights of the poor you are not making them better off you are making them worse off. if shows they felt worse off so he felt like he needed to praise them to operate in ethiopia but he winds up being people worse
off. >> host: how does that tie into the usaid? >> guest: it keeps the cover and the successors in power. he used it to keep himself in power because at one point the reference was given only to people that were the supporters that kept away from anyone that wasn't in the ruling party and that was exposed by the human rights watch but it's so spread it generated a ripple that's why
a company to protest in this book and to give voice to the people that are being protested. >> host: don't the u.s. aid program to keep an eye on where the money is being spent? >> guest: this intersects with u.s. foreign policy agenda. ethiopia is an ally in the war on terror and if that is perfect for the reason that the aid is going there but it's distorting the debate on democracy because we are pretending that he's a good guy but he's anything but a. we are not even allowed to talk about the human rights and political rights in the development. >> host: why is this the privileged way of doing things? >> guest: wow, it's so much
easier. the world is a messy place and we can get a government agency out. many examples say that uganda has been of the world bank and its also run by an autocratic government who says the stories were taking away their land. thinking we are being politically natural is the easy way out. we hope we are doing good for the material into the reality is we are supporting autocrats. >> host: who are the experts but you refer to in the title? >> guest: the intellectuals that carry forward from bill gates to angelina jolie and i
have to include myself. i used to be blind to some of these issues i'm talking about now in this book. it was sort of a penance for my own expert tasks being so insensitive to the right of dignity for people. >> host: what are some of the sentence in your few? >> guest: i was in the world bank for a long time and we were in different that the autocracy of the places that we were hoping but now it's a big way that the development happens. they can stop people from doing bad and that is part of the recipe that we developed.
it's not that controversial to say a lot about the political and economic freedoms that made it possible this creativity and infrastructure that fueled the american development that there's some kind of a double standard where we recognize the role but we don't recognize the same freedoms for poor people developing now. >> host: if you could restructure how the bank's work, how would you do if? >> guest: will they don't find the repression by the dictators that they are on the people's aspirations to deny credit
rights for writing a blog that's the most obvious thing. second it's larger than the bank or the u.s. aid. we want to go to the path of the chinese communist party or japan, south korea is a debate going on in the world right now but the voice of the people on the global poverty has a censorship we do not allow so we are on the wrong side of this global debate on freedom.
>> host: are they working in tandem? >> guest: the gates foundation is one that is getting it wrong and there are the others in the human rights watch that he is campaigning and others like the open society foundation but there's not there is not enough that they are getting it right and there is a vision we worry about the material deprivation and it's a very good thing to be concerned about that we ignore their rights as human beings do not have their rights violated.
>> host: so what do we do? >> guest: we have to consider what comes first, action or caring. it is not an action of the plan but it's that most people don't care about this issue so the first thing is to try to get people to care. it's like the civil rights issues to convince people to care and convinced that black people have the same rights that white people and that's where we are right now fighting global poverty. too often they don't care about the rights. once we get them to care.
it's a slow process. i left the bank in 2001 under the cloud of a previous book and i've been on a long intellectual voyage that most recently made me aware of this issue. >> host: you have a chapter on robert moses here. >> guest: there's always the threat and one example was an urban center in new york that wanted to tear down one of the richest areas of new york where small apartments go for $3 million. there was a top-down planning or
he can't see any potential but there were democratic resisters especially jean jacob in the paper just struggling artists creating some of the great works for the modern art and he saved them by advocating that tyrannical terror down the whole neighborhood into that made possible this explosion of wealth. >> host: but at the same time artists can't afford to live in soho today. >> guest: when you about the city to not be move out of the city to not be planned for an expert but just emerge naturally
-- i also feel sad that they got priced out of the neighborhoods but the democratic program protected them somewhat and about about some of them to still be there today in the neighborhood that some of them were driven out or they sold out for good profits to go somewhere else less-expensive. that's the kind of rough and tumble freedom creates that some game and some lose but overall when you allow freedom and when you allow the democratic rights .-full-stop the government's ability and that is a right people should have. >> host: you take on mohammed younis and microloans is that an approach that you support? >> guest: it's an attempt to
give people the right to start their own business with small credit. there is a search for the panacea and prosperity and ending poverty that's been one of the panacea's people have hoped for. it happens when you give people rights they have the ability to choose among many different options. it might be growing coffee or the growing market as the farmers are now doing. it might be microcredit starting your own business but the experts usually get it wrong and it hasn't panned out in the panacea.
>> host: how much do the nations matter if there is one number which the rights of millions would be sacrificed if this -- national gross domestic product growth rate that justifies itself as an economic management part in growth into the broad lesson is the emphasis on the development of the nations over individuals was yet another tragic misguided choice on the road. >> guest: of course growth is important. what we fail to realize is that the growth is often the result of a lot of noise going on. you might be likely.
the difference between the alternative estimates of the same growth rate. what often happens in the growth rate is we get enormous -- there's an autocrat with enormous credit to the autocrat and you usually give him all the credit and the evidence doesn't support that. it's something that bubbles up from the low. it's not usually these bodies that never went autocrat. by definition they tended to be
the worst people who get power into that's not what we should be supporting just because we see high growth rate. south korea is interesting it is a transition that happened with the ability of the entrepreneurs to flourish and there is an example of a successful entrepreneur that found these garage repair shops so it's like one of the most successful car companies and then at some point they also made a lot of efforts and demanded their political rights. that happened in the late '80s
and they were successful since it is now a foraging prosperous place. china is a more complicated place and misunderstood. they don't understand that the economic growth which is why china gets attention is about the changes so what we should be looking for is there a positive change in the free time the citizens enjoy and you say compare that with how they were. i was in hong kong and benevolently in the heavens and down on the came down on the people that was the mindset but of course really ugly horrible things like the cultural revolution and the family that
killed as many as 3 million people in the great leap forward and compared it to the dark days they enjoyed both more political rights and economic rights. they are a long way from democracy and freedom but that released a tremendous burst of energy considering they had kept down by not just him but the japanese invasion in world war ii and compared to all of that data bad stuff that lies in the past there has been a change for the ordinary freedom in the economic growth and it will not continue. the evidence of history is clear on that. they have a lot of positive
evolution. >> host: professor of professor of economics at the university and codirector at the new york development research institute which is the development research institute. >> guest: it is funding the research on how it has happened. we had the success project that does bubble up. >> host: the most recent security of expert the forgotten rights of the porpoises booktv.
he did have some advantages. let's start with the territory, 750 square miles, the agricultural empire and the union wasn't there. >> that is exactly right and that's something a lot of people don't really appreciate because it's so obvious that it escapes attention that unlike most revolutionary movements, the confederate states of america began with complete military control of nearly all the territory they claim to control. they didn't have to fight to gain control of statutory of the political institutions. they already had it so basically they could win the war by
surviving. that's a huge advantage because it takes more to invade and conquer them to defend and survive. another advantage or quality was potentially strong military leadership not only on davis himself but a large number of prominent officers at west point that made the commitment to join the confederacy west virginia joined the confederacy their names were well known. these are some of the most talented officers in the old united states army united states army and they were making a commitment to meet up in the be the new confederate states army so davis even though the the
north had twice as much the population and several times the industrial resources and commercial resources that are valuable the south still had a lot of advantages which made it possible although he expected a difficult and a long war also to be confident they could win in a sense of surviving. >> you can watch this and others online booktv.org. >> here's a look at books being published this week. thanks mac