The email sent will contain a link to this article, the article title, and an article excerpt (if available). For security reasons, your IP address will also be included in the sent email.
Max Borders of TCS Daily has a critique of Tom: A Blueprint for Inaction?
Tom's comments:
No offense to Max and the cutesy title, but the critique amounts to: this is really hard to pursue when you involve international financial institutions like IMF and the WB as currently configured and operated.
Point taken. New rule sets required.
Borders is right on this, for example: we turn naturally to our closest allies for trickiest work of institution-buildling, like rule of law. Where we turn logically to New Core (as I note in my current brief) is more in the simpler, less elegant, 3-sigma-like solutions on rapid construction of infrastructure networks. So yeah, assign SysAdmin roles according to the logic of comparative advantage.
So great point by Max, just a bit OBB (overtaken by the brief).
His larger critique that I focus too much on nation-building vice institution-building is at worst a misrepresentation of my ideas (BFA is full of discussion on the latter, which, quite frankly, is logically indistinguishable from the former--to wit, what is a nation but a collection of institutions?) and at best an argumentative ploy (reminding me of the criticism that "Barnett should think less about shrinkíng the Gap and more about growing the Core," to which I reply "Fine, call it whatever you want.").
Borders' points about the complexity of the challenge are all good and his emphasis on, and articulation of, the goals of institution-building are most welcome. But he needs to put his considerable brainpower to the "how' answers, not just the "how not" summaries of past experience.
Max could have reached a lot higher in this piece. He has--I suspect--far more original insight to offer on these tough subjects than he reveals here.
Return to Article
