In many respects, Timothy Mitchell's Rule of Experts appears to be a cautionary tale of unintended consequences for modern policy makers and economists of the western world, as these experts work to decipher market relationships and implement market policies in non-western nations. But Mitchell's book, with its message seemingly so obvious, goes much deeper as it challenges the very framework historians use when examining non-western cultures. Mitchell does this by bringing into question the creation of the nation-state of Egypt and by tracing the genealogy of how "the economy" came to arrive at its present meaning. He also studies the term capitalism, arguing that it is not as definitive as is assumed in western culture. To examine how these ideas build a framework to help the reader understand their importance in studying poverty, Mitchell uses several themes, three of which will be examined here: first, terms that represent accepted ideas often conceal more than they reveal; second, capital can develop characteristics that allow it to function as both human and nonhuman; and third, property equals power, thus no property equals no power.
First, Mitchell spends a great deal of time tracing the history of the transformation of the term "economy" to "the economy." While this may not seem to be directly related to a discourse on poverty, Mitchell explains for the reader how economy, until the twentieth century, referred to a husbanding of resources or a"'proper governing' of the community's affairs" (pp. 81-82), even when used in relation to a nation-state. It was only through colonialism that the transformation from "economy" to "the economy" was made, and it is the colonized nation of Egypt that Mitchell examines. Here, Mitchell shows how another accepted western idea - that of the nation-state - created great wealth for some in Egypt, while creating or increasing the poverty of others. His argument is well researched, and traces how the European estate along with the production of cotton and sugar cane as cash crops led to property disputes and eventually to land seizures. This, tied to the creation of the Aswan Dam's shrinking the area of arable land, impoverished the "peasant" class to subsistent levels. This study of "the economy" allowed the experts to distance themselves from their object of study (Egypt), and in so doing, allowed them to conceal both their own role within the economic structure, and their failure to address the underlying issue causing the growing poverty of the "peasant" class. The economy, the nation-state, and even the peasant, Mitchell argues, should not be accepted as given; to understand the use of these terms and their impact, their genealogy and current meanings must be questioned.
Second, Mitchell examines Marxist ideas on capital as both a human and nonhuman entity; after examining this theory in chapter one, Mitchell alludes to this theme periodically throughout the book. In chapter one, he uses a particular example, Ahmud 'Abbud, to show how this personification of capital is possible. After obtaining capital, 'Abbud became an agent of his capital in several instances (most of these involved his efforts to obtain government contracts for various projects, with the most notable involved with the Aswan Dam) as he sought new ways to increase his wealth. With this clear example eloquently portrayed for the reader, Mitchell's use of this theme returns in his sections, Peasant Studies and Fixing the Economy, as he examines first Fathy and his village at Gurna. While Mitchell is writing about Fathy to illustrate the larger issue of the making of a nation by establishing an Egyptian past that has remained unchanged for six thousand years, he nonetheless alludes to the personification of capital as Fathy received his contract to build his village for the peasants, because he came from a well-to-do family of architects that sought out government-funded projects. Only the wealthy and the government could afford the architectural services of Fathy; therefore, Fathy had to represent his capital as he (or his family) sought out these well-paying contracts. This same theme returns again as Mitchell examines the expertise provided by western entities (mainly the U.S.) as government agencies such as USAID, in order to provide a future market for U.S. wheat, provided detailed analyses describing why Egypt needed to import U.S. wheat. This expertise, while supplied on the pretext of modernizing Egypt, served the largest owners/producers of the wheat they recommended that Egypt buy.
Last, Mitchell illustrates repeatedly the idea that property equals power, and therefore no property equals no power. Again, much of the groundwork for this theme is laid in chapter one as Mitchell examines the history of Egypt, beginning with the malarial epidemics of the 1940s, the dam built at Aswan, and the property policies that allowed Egyptians such as Ahmud 'Abbud to accumulate large tracts of land for growing sugar cane. While 'Abbud was increasing his land holdings, he was increasing his power. By the same token, many of the "peasants" that had to give up land for 'Abbud, and others like him, were becoming landless. This, in turn, made them more powerless than before, because now they had to become day wage earners, and very often they did not earn enough to live on a daily basis. This lead to indebtedness, and a form of indentured serfdom. This theme returns again in Peasant Studies, as Mitchell writes his chapter entitled, "Nobody Listens to a Poor Man." The title alone speaks to the theme; Mitchell's examination of the central power of the state, or rather, the constructs assuming central power of the state, is apropos, because the power is not in the fields of the laborers. This theme is also present in the third section of the book, as Mitchell examines the fixing of the Egyptian economy. Again, the peasant is powerless and has no voice (with one notable exception: the bread riots) as the central government of Egypt complies with demands made by the International Monetary Fund, even though these demands have the intended consequence of making the poor poorer, at least in the short term.
To understand Rule of Experts in relation to poverty, the reader must examine some basic themes: first, terms that represent accepted ideas often conceal more than they reveal; second, capital can develop characteristics that allow it to function as both human and nonhuman; and third, property equals power, thus no property equals no power. It is with these three themes that Mitchell creates a coherent body of essays, serving the overarching idea of challenging the basic constructs western historians use when examining non-western cultures. He shows the reader why it is necessary to question basic assumptions that social scientists, economists, and policy makers ascribe to if they are used out of context.
