I was able to attend last nights Munk Debate on the efficacy of aid to developing countries. It was a pleasant and welcome surprise -- no talking points, no trotting out of tired old tropes (well, almost none) and four truly world-class participants. There were about 1400 in attendance, most in the main hall and a minority in an overflow theatre watching on closed-circuit. The debates are also live-cast online.
The debaters were Dambisa Moyo and Hernando De Soto arguing against the efficacy of aid and our own Stephen Lewis and Paul Collier arguing for. Of the four, De Soto was by far and away the most effective.
His argument, in brief, is first that while it is difficult to criticize well-intentioned aid, such aid brings a great deal of baggage with it and second that there is vastly more potential in formalizing property rights in developing societies in ways that allow them to participate in the global economy.
Moyo, who I have written about previously, is clearly the rising star. An African who is passionate about Africa taking a seat at the world table rather than receiving crumbs from it, she communicates a conviction that much more than aid, Africa needs help in joining the global economy. We are going to be hearing much more from this incredible young woman.
While Lewis was at times impassioned, his and Collier's defence of the traditional aid model quite frankly seemed tired -- more of the same old thing from a couple of aging social democratic warriors.
More important, however, was that this debate occured in a public forum. I have felt for some time that more than anything, it is a lack of informed debate such as this that stifles innovative public policy in Canada. We are quick to point to the many short-comings of American society, but in this particular area they are far ahead of us. Peter Munk is to be thanked for making this type of public forum available.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment