Ouch! As an economist, what Mr Anil Bhattarai wrote did hurt-but, what he is pointing out is true. Most economists take the traditional methods and processes as the panacea to all our development issues. However, I would not lump all economists as being “dangerously delusional” or using “selective statistics and concocted graphs.” I would argue that there are many economists who are doing good honest work and have strong academic and methodological approach to their analysis.
To be fair, all the possible ventures that economists told the Bookworm participants are not nostrum as Mr. Bhattarai calls them. In fact, most of the things on the “long list” are actually pretty good ideas and make a lot of economic sense—although, I could do without the cement factory. The problem, as I see it, and I think Mr. Bhattarai is trying to get at, has to do with "how to" not "what to." The list is valid. However, how to go about achieving those goals is, and should be, of concern. So, yes, we should look into exploring “minerals with the Chinese help” and growing “fruits and vegetables for the growing middle class in India,” but do so in a way that is sustainable and has minimal negative impact on local ecology and culture. And, yes, we should promote regional tourism and get the Indians and Chinese “to visit our beautiful mountains or sacred temples and monasteries,” but do so while following the guidelines for eco-tourism so as to create a sustainable system. In other words, we need to have a “systems thinking.” We should not engage in economic activity just because it provides us with a short run profits with complete disregard to social and environmental factors. Doing so will most certainly cost us much more in the long run--all the negative issues Mr. Bhattarai points out about India and China will become our own!
To be fair, all the possible ventures that economists told the Bookworm participants are not nostrum as Mr. Bhattarai calls them. In fact, most of the things on the “long list” are actually pretty good ideas and make a lot of economic sense—although, I could do without the cement factory. The problem, as I see it, and I think Mr. Bhattarai is trying to get at, has to do with "how to" not "what to." The list is valid. However, how to go about achieving those goals is, and should be, of concern. So, yes, we should look into exploring “minerals with the Chinese help” and growing “fruits and vegetables for the growing middle class in India,” but do so in a way that is sustainable and has minimal negative impact on local ecology and culture. And, yes, we should promote regional tourism and get the Indians and Chinese “to visit our beautiful mountains or sacred temples and monasteries,” but do so while following the guidelines for eco-tourism so as to create a sustainable system. In other words, we need to have a “systems thinking.” We should not engage in economic activity just because it provides us with a short run profits with complete disregard to social and environmental factors. Doing so will most certainly cost us much more in the long run--all the negative issues Mr. Bhattarai points out about India and China will become our own!
So, I do think the list is valid and do not criticize the economists for correctly pointing them out. But, I agree with Mr. Bhattarai that the local leaders, economists, and developers have to think outside the box and come up with new ways of doing business. We need to focus on development methods that promote sustainability, equity, and preservation of local traditions and cultures, while trying to capitalize on “enormous advantage of growing prosperity in our vicinity.”
May be a presentation on various alternative economic/business models could be a program that Bookworm can put together.
