Category: Uncategorized

From a New Yorker article by Jill Lepore on Fox News president Roger Ailes‘ biographers, admirers, and detractors:

It was easy to despise [William Randolph] Hearst. It was also lazy. Hating some crazy old loudmouth who is a vindictive bully and lives in a castle is far less of a strain than thinking about the vulgarity and the prejudices of his audience. In 1935, the distinguished war correspondent and radio broadcaster Raymond Gram Swing observed, “People who are not capable of disliking the lower middle class in toto, since it is a formidable tax on their emotions, can detest Hearst instead.” Ailes haters, take note.

This reminded me of what I wrote about a year and a half ago about the bashing of the New York Times‘ Nicholas Kristof that was then (and still is) fashionable in the development blogosphere:

This is a post about the emphasis on “culture” and nationalism, and about what it means when the state does the former and pushes the latter.

I have been mulling the contents of this post for a long time — I have been thinking about some of the arguments I am about to in some form or other since I was in college in the late 90s — but I am not sure my point will be the most coherent and clearly argued. But bear with me, first because I think the general point I am about to make is seriously under-appreciated, and because my best posts are usually those that were the most difficult to write.

Efforts by wealthy countries to help their poorer counterparts began in earnest after World War II with the Marshall Plan. By the early 1960s, Western powers were busy helping former colonies develop their agricultural and industrial sectors. These plans appeared to work; in the decades that followed, global poverty plummeted. But along the way, economic development morphed into something else: a multi-billion-dollar industry characterized by mission creep. Today, development has come to mean too many things — so many things, in fact, that development has become all things to all people so that by all possible means it might save some, to paraphrase the apostle Paul. The resulting scattershot approach, which dilutes resources, is harming the world’s poor.

That’s from my article (possibly gated; if so, please email me for a copy) in Foreign Affairs earlier this week about how mission creep in international development ultimately does more harm than good. It builds up on and expands a post I published in the fall also titled “Development Bloat.” That post caught the eye of the Foreign Affairs editors, who subsequently asked whether I’d be interested in writing a longer piece.

If I judge by the number of tweets and retweets this has generated, it looks as though there was definitely a certain demand for the thoughts I express in my article.