Easterly tries to craft global solutions, but fails to come up with practical proposals that will work in the messy world beyond his neighborhood." Publishers Weekly published a critical review of the book, concluding, "This loose, sometimes incoherent collection of high-minded notes does not add up to a convincing thesis or argument. The New York Times called the book " bracingly iconoclastic." Instead of trying to find them, policymakers ought to simply respect individual rights-including the rights of poor people." Clive Crook also reviewed the book favorably for Bloomberg View. Book reviews ĭalibor Rohac reviewed the book favorably for The Umlaut, writing, "There are no silver-bullet solutions to poverty and underdevelopment. Įasterly also wrote an op-ed for Seattle Times describing the themes of his book, and taking issue with the approach used by Bill Gates to fight poverty. Shortly after the release of the book, Easterly wrote an article for Foreign Policy summarizing the key arguments of the book. This has led many reviewers to criticise it for not presenting practical solutions. Consequently, it does not present practical solutions to modern economical development issues, but rather argues for debates to take place for the best way forward in development economics. The book argues that in order for development to succeed, the principles of development should be correct first and must be built bottom up. The book is similar to Easterly's earlier books on economic development, The Elusive Quest for Growth and The White Man's Burden. The book argues that there are no silver bullets for promoting economic development and that the best hope is to support economic, political, and personal freedom worldwide.
0 kommentar(er)
