Easterly is against the notion of Big Push, Big Development, and Planners
top-down approach = The "White Man's Burden" or neo-colonialism
o it doesn't allow for poor countries to implement their own development
plans
o imprisons poor countries in big plans drawn by Western "technical"
development experts
o infringes upon sovereignty
it is not about providing more aid (money) but about bad governance
He uses Empirical Evidence to argue that there is no such a thing as the "poverty
trap"
He argues that searchers not planners should provide the answer for what is there
to be done
o planners sort out what to supply, but searchers figure out what is in
demand; this is a more effective way of providing development
E. argues for homegrown solutions, often provided by the poor themselves
"Rich have markets, poor have bureaucrats"
‘pockets of poverty’,
‘knowledge transfer’.
What precisely are the global moral obligations towards the poor in MICs?
Should aid allocation be targeted equally to poor people in the poorest countries and in
MICs, or should special weight be given to the poor in poorest countries?
How, if at all, should international agencies with a focus on poverty reduction re-
calibrate their engagement with MICs?
Will this pattern of concentration of the poor in MICs continue in the future?
What is the rationale for differentiated strategies between MICs and LICs and how would
it be affected by the new reality that the bulk of the world’s poor now live in MICs?
Why should development assistance flow to countries whose average per capita income is
nominally now above the international poverty line, with the implication that poverty
persists solely because of inequality in these countries?