Great post. I appreciate your focus on the specifics of how this game is played. Highlights why it's so important for developing countries to increase capacity in their private sectors and technical competence within their governments.
Of course, none of this should be surprising. It's how the game has always been played. Post-WW2, when economics was in the thrall of high Keynesianism and the importance of fixed investment, the aid sector pushed big infrastructure projects. Then when the Solow-Swann growth model replaced Harrod-Domar, investments in health and human capital became the dominant intervention. Then came structural adjustment and liberalized external accounts. The governance, capacity-building and "program ownership." And now the push is for climate action.
Of course, all of these things are important but the way they get deployed to the developing world tends to reflect the concerns of donor countries first and the specific needs of the receiving country second. And the way the pendulum swings back and forth from one trend to the next means none of these approaches are ever fully realized before it's on to the next one.
"Failure to reliably electrify large consumers of energy will make them likely to lock-in dirtier energy sources in their final consumption, and make the transition process down the road more expensive (both politically and economically), and therefore harder."
I'm reminded of Ezra Klein's concept of "Everything-Bagel Liberalism". I imagine many World Bank employees are political liberals working in DC. Whatever forces which are causing "Everything-Bagel Liberalism" in US politics could also be at play in the World Bank (causing "Everything-Bagel Development"?)
Great post. I appreciate your focus on the specifics of how this game is played. Highlights why it's so important for developing countries to increase capacity in their private sectors and technical competence within their governments.
Of course, none of this should be surprising. It's how the game has always been played. Post-WW2, when economics was in the thrall of high Keynesianism and the importance of fixed investment, the aid sector pushed big infrastructure projects. Then when the Solow-Swann growth model replaced Harrod-Domar, investments in health and human capital became the dominant intervention. Then came structural adjustment and liberalized external accounts. The governance, capacity-building and "program ownership." And now the push is for climate action.
Of course, all of these things are important but the way they get deployed to the developing world tends to reflect the concerns of donor countries first and the specific needs of the receiving country second. And the way the pendulum swings back and forth from one trend to the next means none of these approaches are ever fully realized before it's on to the next one.
This point seems really good:
"Failure to reliably electrify large consumers of energy will make them likely to lock-in dirtier energy sources in their final consumption, and make the transition process down the road more expensive (both politically and economically), and therefore harder."
I'm reminded of Ezra Klein's concept of "Everything-Bagel Liberalism". I imagine many World Bank employees are political liberals working in DC. Whatever forces which are causing "Everything-Bagel Liberalism" in US politics could also be at play in the World Bank (causing "Everything-Bagel Development"?)