Paul Collier: The Bottom Billion & "Englightened Self-Interest"

Right now, I’m reading The Bottom Billion, by Paul Collier, a professor and former research director at the World Bank.  The book focuses on four “poverty traps” that countries have fallen into and ways for these countries to escape them.

To get a flavor for Collier’s arguments about the bottom billion, I recommend watching at least a few minutes of his TED Talk. Towards the beginning of it, he introduces a wise maxim for policymakers as well as for individuals: “What I’m going to offer you is a recipe – or combination – of the two forces that change the world for good, which is the alliance of compassion and enlightened self-interest.”

This raises the point that even aid – something we think of as altruistic – is partially self-interested.  Collier pointed to the Marshall Plan as an example of this.  (The Marshall Plan was certainly an act of compassion by the United States for Europe, but it also was designed to help the United States economy.)

Collier handles this seeming contradiction by inserting the idea of enlightened self-interest...  But what does that mean?

If self-interest can be enlightened, then it immediately follows that it was “dark” to begin with.  So then, can self-interest really be enlightened, or does it become something else?  It seems simply to suggest a kind of self-interest that doesn't harm anyone.

But why wouldn’t it be better if aid policy was far more altruistic than self-interested?  He argues that both compassion and enlightened self-interest serve valuable, distinct functions. Collier says we need “compassion to get ourselves started” but we need “enlightened self-interest to get ourselves serious” about dealing with poverty.

Even if the primary goal of aid is altruistic, it need not harm the donor.  Rather, striking a balance between true, selfless altruism and absolute greed is likely to produce the best results.

Museums & Their "Sordid Commercial Interests"

I recently discovered that there is an entire subculture of museum workers. An academic circle of writing, debating museum curators actually exists.  What’s less clear is whether or not they actually really have much of a following outside of their own little group.  Kinda weird...

But over the past couple of weeks, I’ve had an opportunity to look in on this world of museums in one of my classes.  I’d like to consider myself one of the curious, privileged few.  Or you can just call me a little obsessive; that works, too.

One eminent topic in “museum literature” is the idea of the business of museums.  In museums, or any private educational institution, for that matter, there is a conflict between trying to make money and trying to educate the public. 

Mary Miley Theobald in her book Museum Store Management writes (link) about the ethical problem of museum gift shops.  She writes, “If the shop’s only reason for being is money, then the museum is operating a gift shop rather than a museum store and it has little justification for existence.”

Aside from gift shops, museums raise revenue by charging for admission, so museums have a huge financial incentive get people in the door.  In order to accomplish this, curators may feel pressure to give the masses what they are looking for rather than creating the most accurate or educationally valuable exhibits.  But then again, as one classmate put it, isn’t an “EPCOT” understanding of the world better than nothing at all?

Other museum-oriented writers are a little more philosophical and focused on language, like Stephen Weil who writes (link) about metaphors we use to think about museums.  He argues that the temple, in its sacredness, describes the museum, and asks do we not imagine museum objects as being “in constant danger of pollution . . . by . . . the spiritual pollution of sordid commercial interests?”

Do the ends justify the means?  Without money, museums would not be able to stay open, and thus, they would be unable to fulfill their purpose of educating the public. But more fundamentally, do museum gift shops actually corrupt the very essence of the museum?  Do they really destroy its educational value? 

Several of these academics who write about museums tend to speak normatively, in imperatives. ("We must...")  I find that a lot of these arguments--Weil’s in particular--tend to come off as somewhat melodramatic.  

The museum is both a business and an educational institution.  It is a great example of self-interest and altruism functioning simultaneously.

(Image from: voices.suntimes.com.)

Mukesh Kapila

Originally, I had intended to finish up a blog post on foreign aid to Africa.  But I changed my mind earlier this evening after hearing a lecture at the Illinois Holocaust Museum given by Mukesh Kapila, who was the United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan in 2003, as the genocide in Darfur was beginning to unfold.  One can only begin to imagine what that job would have been like.

Kapila was one of the first whistleblowers. He was among the first to plug in the GPS coordinates of attacked villages into computers and to realize the disturbing patterns.  When he went to the Sudanese government, he was given excuses.  When he went to the UN headquarters, he was met with silence.  So he went to the world.

During the question and answer period after the lecture, an audience member raised the topic of the Rwandan genocide. Kapila mentioned a grim incident in which altruistic intentions went horribly wrong:

Shortly after calls for the annihilation of Tutsis surfaced on Rwandan airwaves, 5,000 Tutsis, fearing for their lives, sought refuge within the walls of a UN compound.  The local UN peacekeeping force let the people in and agreed to protect them.  But about a week later, the UN in New York ordered the local peacekeepers to leave.  Within a few hours of the peacekeepers’ evacuation, a Hutu mob had macheted to death each and every one of the 5,000 Tutsis and then proceeded to bury them in a grave no larger than the room we were sitting in.

Kapila concluded this story by making the point that it would have been better if the UN had not allowed the Tutsis to enter the compound in the first place. Had these Tutsis been denied entrance, they would have fled to another country, to the wilderness, or to any variety of places, and perhaps some would have lived.

His message was one of honesty: if the UN was unwilling to act, the UN should have admitted that it was unwilling to act. The UN should have told the fleeing Tutsis: “This is regrettable, but you’re out of luck. There’s nothing we can do. Good bye.”  In effect, the UN’s half-baked altruism actually created a concentration camp – it concentrated a group of people which facilitated their efficient murder, en masse (albeit unintentionally).

Kapila raised one other point that I thought was relevant to this blog: the United States spends $300 million each year on a UN peacekeeping mission in Sudan that, more or less, does nothing. (For this, he told the audience that we were stupid Americans. Literally. He yelled at us.) He argued that this is actually harmful, because it allows us to say to the human rights advocates that we are doing something, while we are actually doing nothing.  So it seems that this $300 million is more self-interested than it is altruistic.

Another example of this, but one that he did not mention, is the 100 peacekeepers the U.S. has deployed to Central Africa to provide logistical support to African armed forces.  Invisible Children pushed for government action, and the intentions are certainly good on their part.  But one really has to wonder what 100 peacekeepers will do more: stop the LRA or discredit the arguments of human rights activists.

Overall, I thought the lecture was disturbing in many ways.  If we cannot manage to be altruistic in the face of genocide, who are we?

Wal-Mart Comes To Town

Wal-Mart has expressed its desire to open a 150,000 square-foot store in my hometown. While some welcome the idea, hundreds—if not thousands—of “NO WAL-MART” signs have cropped up all over town in the past few weeks. The village government has held some public forum meetings to discuss the heated issue. 

Just for a little context: the Illinois suburb which I call home can be described as relatively wealthy. A few years ago, when we did not allow Costco to open up shop on the border edge of our town, Costco instead built its store in what is technically part of a neighboring village. So for all intents and purposes, our town still has a Costco... but not the tax revenue.  The nearest Wal-Mart is 13 miles from my house.

Many arguments, including the ones pertaining to Wal-Mart, can be underpinned simultaneously by both genuine altruistic desires and by self-interested motivations.  I decided to break down the arguments I’ve heard in this debate and separate the altruistic ones from the self-interested ones.

Here it goes:

The self-interested Wal-Mart oppositionist says:

“Wal-Mart would create more traffic, which would be a nuisance to me.”

 (Homeowner says:) “Wal-Mart would lower the value of my home!”

(Local business owner says:) “Wal-Mart would drive me out of business!”

“Wal-Marts are such eyesores. Yuck.”

“Wal-Mart will increase the crime rate. This will put a burden on the local police force, costing the taxpayer. Something could happen to me! ” (Interesting: click here)

The altruistic Wal-Mart oppositionist says:

“Yes, a 150,000 square-foot big box store might offer lower prices than the local grocery store.  But I am willing to forego low prices because I believe in local business.”

“Wal-Mart will increase the crime rate. Somebody else could get hurt!”

“Wal-Mart’s ethics are questionable. They treat their workers poorly, are environmentally unfriendly, etc. To me, morals outweigh low prices.”

The self-interested Wal-Mart advocate says:

“It’s unfortunate that local businesses will lose revenue if Wal-Mart comes to town, but above all, I want the lowest possible prices. And hey, it’s the free market.”

“I need a job. I hope Wal-Mart comes to town and hires me.”

“Wal-Mart will be a big source of income for local government. Maybe if they had the money, the village could finally fix up the park/library/downtown that I go to all the time.”

The altruistic Wal-Mart advocate says.

(Wealthy person says:) “It is true that a local Wal-Mart would be a nuisance to us all, and might even drop my property value. There are a lot of affluent people in our community, like myself, who might be able to afford the higher prices at local businesses. But there are also a lot of people who are not as fortunate. It’s easy to forget that relatively poor people exist in our town.  People in our community who don’t have much money would certainly welcome Wal-Mart for its low prices and job opportunities.”

What do you think? Which of the four lines of argumentation above, if any, is the best? The worst?

(Image of Wal-Mart from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart.)

Welcome!

I’m off to college next year. It’s time to start figuring out what kind of life I want to lead. Do I want to live my life altruistically and make as big an impact on the world as humanly possible? Or should my primary goal be to forge a career path for myself and simply to live a happy, ethical life? 

Would I rather be off in some failed state or be working comfortably in a Manhattan high-rise? Yes, those are extreme and unlikely examples. But they’re both hypothetically possible for someone with my set of interests. I recognize that the answer will, in all likelihood, lie somewhere in between.

This should be a forum for me to do my own thinking, and I hope you’ll keep checking back for the ride. It should be interesting.

Ancient religious doctrines from ahimsa to zakat speak to the value of altruistic behavior. Machiavelli said infamously that all men are essentially self-interested and evil; zoologists have observed altruistic behavior in the animal kingdom; psychological egoists hold that we give merely for our own self-gain, even if only for that small “reward” we feel when we place a one-dollar bill in a donation jar or hold a door open for a stranger. A surprising number of people take a stance on altruism as it relates to human behavior.

Some have argued that it’s best to just embrace self-interest. If everyone acts in their own self-interest, it is best for the system. The Scottish economist Adam Smith wrote of an “invisible hand” that would enable the forces of self-interest in a free market to benefit all of society; the concept of realism in international relations is little more than a nerdy glorification of self-interest. 

So as far as this blog goes, topics will run the gamut from my personal observations to international news, but it will all be viewed through a lens of altruism versus self-interest.  Some topics will be light-hearted and some will be a little more weighty. (I have a hunch that a wildly amusing YouTube video entitled “MUST WATCH -- ALTRUISTIC CATS! (Part 3/7)” will be more readily available than one on psychology of self-interest as it pertains to international relations theory.) But if it doesn’t interest me, I won’t waste your time with it.