The Bottom Billion: why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it? (review)

Let us start with the positive. This is a brisk, bold and ebullient book. It is written clearly. It is presented simply. The argument is plain and easy to follow. It is jargon free. It steers clear of ponderous academic debate. It is appropriately politically incorrect. It engages the reader at every turn. It is focused. It is practical. It kindles hope.

Let us now set the scene. Collier believes the notion of the Third World is obsolete since most has developed or is developing. However, he has identified a core of countries that are stuck at the bottom of the heap and are unlikely to develop in present circumstances. He has worked out that this is due to a combination of four lethal factors – the conflict trap, the natural resource trap, the trap of being landlocked with bad neighbours and the bad governance trap. These countries have missed the boat of development, which sailed in the seventies and eighties and, left to their own devices, they cannot escape their predicament.

Let us clarify one point: despite protestations to the contrary, the book is definitely about Africa – as the jacket picture confirms – even though it claims to look at the poorest, and least developed, countries across the world.

Let us present the solution. By means of the judicious use of four key instruments – aid, military intervention, laws and international charters and appropriate trade policies – the author suggests clear and workable policies that would trigger development in the BB. Such a solution is not complicated technically, Collier argues, but it requires enormous political will on the part of the West, which only the heads of state can muster. This ought to be at the top of the G8 agenda. It is a moral, political and security imperative, which the West cannot escape. Our future depends on it.

Let us now reflect. Although judging by the information provided in the author's website, to which he refers in the bibliography, the book has been universally praised, there are three fundamental problems: it is a-contextual, it is a-historical and it is largely ignorant of Africa. I take them in turn.

It is a-contextual in that it takes for granted that the intense study of statistics will, ultimately, provide a sufficiently clear picture of causalities. By poring over the quantitative indicators of human (political, social and economic) activities, it is possible to work out sufficiently coherent correlations as to make sense of trends and causally significant factors. This has the advantage of dispensing with most contextual complications, or fuzz. However, it is a leap of faith that borders on the religious. Even if statistics were reliable, which they are not, and meaningful, which is doubtful, there is simply no way in which such an approach can deliver on the analytical claims made. Without context, we have no way of knowing whether the statements made are plausible or merely common sense.

It is a-historical in that it considers these countries wholly outside of their historical trajectory: they are defined by indicators, regardless of their genealogy and their socio-cultural sedimentation. The only real-world factor that is taken into account is geography since the author believes that a key reason for their condition is being landlocked (with bad neighbours). Now, the fact that, other than Africa, the other BB countries would appear to be the formerly Soviet Central Asian states is surely not an irrelevant historical consideration. Nor is the fact that many non-landlocked African countries are failing to develop.

It is ignorant of Africa in that none of the examples given provides evidence of a deep understanding of the country concerned. Indeed, these countries are seen merely as ciphers: they illustrate more general arguments about the BB. The author has clearly travelled in Africa, as he tells us, but he seems to...