The Miracle of Poverty

By LEON LOUW
Updated Aug. 29, 2002 12:01 a.m. ET
Poverty is miraculous, perhaps the most extraordinary accomplishment of most modern governments. Poor countries are the world's true
"economic miracles," not post-war Germany, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Botswana or Mauritius. Prosperity in such countries is the
natural outcome of relative economic freedom. It is normal. If there are "economic miracles," they are backward countries, where governments
have succeeded in preventing prosperity.
India, like South Africa, is a nation of manifestly energetic, resourceful and enterprising people. If left alone, they would prosper. This was
confirmed when India implemented modest pro-market reforms and was rewarded with one of the world's highest growth rates. The same is
true of the Asian Tigers, incidentally. South Korea, which today is a member of the OECD, had a GDP per capita lower than that of most
African nations before Seoul embraced the world trading system.
However, eco-imperialism, espoused by many first world governments, academics and scientists, NGOs and passionate activists, threatens to
hamper the progress of developing countries.
In a recent tour of Bombay, New Delhi, Agra and other Indian cities I was able to witness poverty beyond belief. At the same time I noticed that
newspapers I had with me as I was driven through the squalor of urban and rural poverty carried surreal reports of new esoteric and costly
environmental, health and safety laws, promoted by vocal opponents of spontaneous development because it is supposedly "unsustainable."
All of this forms the backdrop of the UN conference in Johannesburg taking place at the moment. Such neo-imperialists do not want poor
countries to follow the development paths that made the prosperity of their own countries possible. Advanced countries mined minerals,
harvested timber, converted jungles (rain forests) and swamps (wetlands) into cities and farms, domesticated and commercialized their wild life,
and labored under harsh conditions in freely chosen preference to worse alternatives. These enemies of "globalization" seek to impose
first-world conceptions of environmentalism and human development that would hinder poor countries from attracting foreign investment,
importing cheap goods, and exporting competitively to rich countries.
People in developing countries should no longer be polite about, or be influenced by, such agendas. Decent people, aware of the suffering
inflicted by real poverty, should agree on at least one simple principle: that the most urgent priority is to achieve maximal growth and
development. The unknowable needs of future generations and the attainment of a low-risk environment must, by any caring calculus, be
secondary.
Despite the constant stream of bad news, much of it emanating from this week's World Summit on Sustainable Development, the world is
actually getting better, and few environmentalist scare tactics are actually supported by sound science. Bjorn Lomborg's "The Sceptical
Environmental" laid to rest many of the environmental movement's myths about devastating crises and depletion of natural resources.
Despite this evidence, the first world insists that the developing world achieve "sustainability." This view focuses on preserving the status quo
without recognizing the evolutionary nature of the earth. Sustainable for how long: 10, 100, 1000, a million or a billion years? For whom?
Advanced people with unknowable future technology, needs and resources? What must be sustainable? Exploitation of so-called
"non-renewables?" Why not consume them? They are resources only if used. For how long are we supposed to conserve them? Must our
decedents, by the same twisted logic, do likewise? Forever?
Development is by its very nature sustainable, providing the human, financial and technological resources to render it so. The best thing we can
do for future generations is generate maximum wealth, empowering them to live better lives. If anything is unsustainable it is the alternatives to
development: stagnation and regression.
If the developing world is to enjoy liberation from poverty, its leaders have to be bold and wise. They need third world policies for third world
countries and should do what rich countries did to become rich, not what they do now. They should minimize government intervention, reduce
taxes, maintain the rule of law and separation of powers, respect property rights, avoid discretionary law and insist on due process. In short,
they must liberate their people from excessive government. They will then exchange the "miracle of poverty" for the non-miracle of
entrepreneurship and enterprise and the scenes I witnessed will disappear from the world.
Mr. Louw is director of the Free Market Foundation of South Africa.