13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent introdiction to Bauer and great as a stand-alone, May 19, 2001
This review is from: From Subsistence to Exchange and Other Essays (Hardcover)
"From Subsistence to Exchange: and other essays" (FSE), is a wonderfully insightful little book that throws light on the problems of the Third World economies, egalitarianism, the "mathematized" economics profession, and, among other things, offers rigorous arguments against foreign aid and Western guilt (for allegedly causing Third World poverty).
I found this book to be both a great introduction to development economics and Peter Bauer, as well as a handy catalog of refutations of popular economic myths. Additionally, the critical essay on the mathematization of the economics profession is valuable: It helps to buttress Bauer's thesis that economics is not an "ivory tower profession" (my words): It is a social science that must rely heavily on historical investigation and direct observation; it is not, nor can it ever be, like the natural sciences of physics and chemistry. The attempt to make it more "respectable" by hiding simple truths among complex formulae, or worse, by deriving conclusions from mathematical models that do not resemble the real world, has resulted in putting elaborate clothes on a non-existent emperor (Bauer's words). It has also fueled fallacious attacks on the entire field and reduced both public understanding of and respect for economics. Bauer's essay on that topic is a breath of fresh air.
In discussing popular myths, Bauer tackles the "viscous circle of poverty," among numerous others, e.g., that the West is rich because the Third World is poor. Often these myths are based on similar false premises. For example, the refutation of the vicious circle argument also undermines the exploitation one (noted above).
Here's how: If the vicious circle of poverty is correct, then this statement is also: Without outside investment, third world countries cannot break out of the circle of poverty, because they can not save in order to invest in capital, because they live at a subsistence level and (usually) produce only enough to meet short-term needs.
Bauer states it better, but that's a decent summary. Bauer takes this to the limit of its logic: If the above were true, then the human race could never have left the stone age: the world never received capital (or any) investment from outside of itself. The vicious circle argument ignores the factors that Bauer notes are crucial to finding answers to economic problems: namely, "that economic performance depends on personal, cultural, and political factors, on people's aptitudes, attitudes, motivations, and social and political institutions."
That kind of outlook, intuitively valuable, is inimical to modern applied "mathecomics," the practitioners of which typically deride an outlook like Bauer's as mere "empiricism." Indeed, Bauer discusses just such a caricature.
The argument against the circle of poverty implies that there is no fixed amount of income to be distributed. Again, for someone with an eye on economic history, that should be intuitively true. Yet if there is no fixed income, then the people in the West are not necessarily rich only because the Third World is poor. Bauer notes, having extensively studied the Third World countries and its people, that those with the least number of ties to the West are the worst off!
There are so many other insights in this book that to adequately catalog them all would require thousands of words. Yet FSE is short and easy to understand. I read this book alongside Chomsky's "World Orders Old and New" until I realized that Chomsky, when he actually gave an argument, was eviscerated by Bauer's arguments and knowledge. Of course, this represents the merits of Bauer's historical and observational approach to Chomsky's pronouncement from on-high approach. Bauer lives in and describes reality. Chomsky does neither.
As a final note, although this book is repetitive as the reviewer below me noted, Bauer's points need to be drilled into people's minds. Repetition of key points and arguments helps to cement them in one's memory; Bauer's excellent and fascinating writing does not get the justice it deserves from this review, and it is not something that, once read, you will want to forget.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Beyond the economics of self-denial, February 1, 2004
This review is from: From Subsistence to Exchange and Other Essays (Hardcover)
"We have sunk to such a depth that the restatement of the obvious has become the first duty of intelligent men." So wrote George Orwell, whom Peter Bauer quotes approvingly. Indeed, "From Subsistence to Exchange" is little more than an attempt to dispel popular misconceptions in the conventional wisdom of development economics.
The heart of Lord Bauer's argument is to take issue with the widespread excuses that have been put forth to explain why certain countries seem unable to prosper. Writing in times when state planning was in its intellectual apogee, Lord Bauer offered an alternative where the role of the individual and the market were central.
From this basic outlook follow many attacks on the fallacies of development economics. Lord Bauer dismisses with great ease the assumption that countries are poor due to the lack of adequate resources: at some point, he writes, every country was poor; if infusion of capital was a necessary condition for growth, then the West would still be living in the Stone Age.
But Lord Bauer does not stop there. He takes on other issues such as foreign aid. Not only is foreign aid based on the false premise of the vicious cycle of poverty, but it also creates a mentality of dependence. Even worse, the result in the recipient countries is the emergence of powerful interests whose sole purpose is to obtain a bigger piece of the aid cake.
Why then do rich countries offer so much aid? The answer for Lord Bauer is simple: guilt. Western and African intelligentsia does what it can to cultivate the belief that Africa's evils are of European doing. No matter that the evidence for this claim is scant or non-existent. After all, Lord Bauer writes, Africans were poor before Europeans got there and remain poor for long after they have left.
In the end, the message is clear. The legacy of post-war development economics was to construct a distorted image of why some countries are rich and some poor. At the basis of the convolution was the desire to find excuses for the failure to grow economically. "From Subsistence to Exchange" is a collection of essays that have rescued us from this intellectual trap.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good, yet repetitive, September 18, 2000
This review is from: From Subsistence to Exchange and Other Essays (Hardcover)
This book serves as a good introduction to the work of a leader in the field of economic development. Bauer would definitely be called a right-wing economist by those who need a simple classifier, but he might also be called libertarian or, like Amartya Sen is sometimes called, post-libertarian. As with so may economics books, the material is unbelieveably repetitive, being culled from articles and reworked speeches over about 20 years. The main points deal with the foolishness of foreign aid programs, the workings of collective guilt in promulgating said programs, the disregard and obfuscation of the results of these programs and other economic facts, and basic factors involved in the actual development of less-developed countries. Very good for someone interested in the literature of development, or someone who favors a more laissez-faire approach and has not read anything on development economics, a topic not often addressed in popular economics books.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
