Global governance and the new wars: the merging of development and security by MARK DUFFIELD. (London: Zed Books, 2001, pp. x + 293, £16.95 p/bk, £49.95 h/bk)

✍ Scribed by Oliver Morrissey

• Book ID: 102351784
• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2002
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 37 KB
• Volume: 14
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0954-1748
• DOI: 10.1002/jid.891

✦ Synopsis

in the reform of national economies must regard the outcome as generally successful ' (p. 68). Anybody who has read recent Bank publications on this will realise that they do not regard the outcome as generally successful, usually because countries have not implemented enough reform. Critics argue that adjustment has been unsuccessful because countries implemented reforms. These apparently incompatible views can be reconciled, but it requires a more careful and informed economic analysis than provided by the author.

Chapter 5 reviews the effects of liberalization of trade, investment and capital flows. The problem, as throughout the book, is that only the negative evidence is presented (it would be appropriate to at least acknowledge that there is alternative evidence). As a specific example, no mention is made of the fact that one of the most trenchant and powerful critics of IMF intervention during the East Asian crisis was Joe Stiglitz, then Chief Economist at the Bank (shortly, of course, to resign). Many people who, given their institutional affiliation, the author would appear to place in the 'neoliberal camp' adopt in fact a far more nuanced view of economic policy and development.

The orientation of the book is neatly captured on the final page. There is a table of the world's priorities as revealed by annual expenditure in $US billion (taken from UNDP). The lowest priority at $6b is basic education for all, exceeded by cosmetics in the US ($8b). Basic health and nutrition is a lowly $13b. Top priority is global military spending at $780b. Clearly global leaders have the wrong priorities. If one looks closer, it is revealed that the figures for basic education and health refer to the additional (or marginal) cost of achieving universal access in developing countries. It is not surprising that this marginal cost is minute compared to total military spending, but this is a fabricated comparison (and one can envisage the table being reproduced by others without the clarifying footnote). If total military spending was compared with total spending on health or education, the priorities would look different (quite possibly being reversed globally, though not for all individual developing countries). Alternatively, one could ask what share of military spending by developing countries, if reallocated, would be required to finance universal access to health care and education. This would allow a constructive point to be made. Although one may exist (most probably in the US), I am not aware of any economist who has claimed that increased military expenditure would benefit the poor more than increased spending on health or education. So why make a misleading comparison? It irritates the careful reader and misinforms the careless. The book preaches only to the converted.