By William Easterly

The report of the World Bank Growth Commission, led by Nobel laureate Michael Spence, was published last week. After two years of work by the commission of 21 world leaders and experts, an 11- member working group, 300 academic experts, 12 workshops, 13 consultations, and a budget of $4m, the experts’ answer to the question of how to attain high growth was roughly: we do not know, but trust experts to figure it out.

This conclusion is fleshed out with statements such as: “It is hard to know how the economy will respond to a policy, and the right answer in the present moment may not apply in the future.” Growth should be directed by markets, except when it should be directed by governments.

My students at New York University would have been happy to supply statements like these to the World Bank for a lot less than $4m.

Why should we care about the debacle of a World Bank report? Because this report represents the final collapse of the “development expert” paradigm that has governed the west’s approach to poor countries since the second world war. All this time, we have hoped a small group of elite thinkers can figure out how to raise the growth rate of a whole economy. If there was something for “development experts” to say about attaining high growth, this talented group would have said it.

What went wrong? Experts help as long as there are useful general principles, such as could be established by comparing low-growth and high-growth countries. The Growth Commission correctly pointed out that such an attempt to find secrets to growth has failed. The Growth Commission concluded that “answers” had to be country specific and even period specific. But if each moment in each country is unique, then experts cannot learn from any other experience – so on what basis do they become an “expert”?

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below

Read the debate - contributors so far include Paul Seabright, Roberto Zagha and William Easterly.

By Martin Wolf

“A full decade after Europe’s leaders took the decision to launch the euro, we have good reason to be proud of our single currency. The Economic and Monetary Union and the euro are a major success.” Self-congratulation is in order at birthday parties. So nobody should be surprised at the effusive remarks in the foreword by Joaquín Almunia, commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, to an excellent study of “Emu@10” (sic).*

How could anybody dare to question the achievements of the single currency? It is considered a credible rival to the US dollar. Jeffrey Frankel of Harvard even predicted in March that the “euro could replace the dollar within 10 years”.** This is a far cry from the scepticism, particularly in English-speaking circles, that greeted both its launch and the subsequent period of declining value against the US dollar. This is a credible currency.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

Read the debate - contributors so far include Desmond Lachman, Roland Vaubel and Alberto Alesina

By Martin Wolf

Is the spread of prosperity in the interests of citizens of today’s high-income countries? Is globalisation of their economies in their interest?

These distinct questions are raised in my mind by two important columns from Lawrence Summers (“America needs to make a new case for trade” on April 27 and “A strategy to promote healthy globalisation” on May 4). In these, Mr Summers argues that the international economic policies of the US need to be coupled more closely to the interests of its workers. Many Europeans will concur.

This is not to argue that the interests of citizens of high-income countries are more important than those of others. On the contrary, the view that increases in incomes of the poor offset equivalent losses for the rich is morally compelling. But politics is national. Unless or until a global political community emerges, politics will respond only to perceptions of national interest.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

Read the debate - comments from, amongst others: Adrian Wood, Kevin H. O’Rourke and Robert Wolfe.

By Devesh Kapur, Pratap Mehta and Arvind Subramanian

Is a liberal international economic order losing intellectual support? Should developing economies be worried? If Larry Summers is the canary in the intellectual mine, his two columns in the Financial Times (April 28 and May 5) suggest that the answers to both questions are yes.

The liberal economic order of the last several decades was premised on two assumptions. First, that the proliferation of prosperity across countries was a good thing. Second, there would be winners and losers but, on balance, a majority of people in both developing and developed countries would benefit. Mr Summers now appears to be questioning both assumptions. He has not stated outright that the proliferation of prosperity is undesirable but his columns do suggest that globalisation creates competition for America.

This is an obvious fact. For the first time since the 17th century the west’s economic pre-eminence is being seriously challenged. But he goes on to draw the disturbing conclusion that the process of globalisation should be attenuated, precisely because it poses potential threats to the US. In doing so he, perhaps unwittingly, presents the rise of the poorer parts of the world (whose standards of living are still a fraction of US levels) more as a threat than an opportunity to the US. In effect, globalisation is justified only when it serves American interests.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

Read the debate - contributors so far include Larry Summers .

By Martin Wolf

Oil at $200 a barrel: that was the warning from Goldman Sachs, published last week. The real price is already at an all-time high (see chart). At $200 it would be twice as high as it was in any previous spike. Even so, it would be a mistake to focus in shock only on the short-term jump in prices. The bigger issues are longer term.

Here are three facts about oil: it is a finite resource; it drives the global transport system; and if emerging economies consumed oil as Europeans do, world consumption would jump by 150 per cent. What is happening today is an early warning of this stark reality. It is tempting to blame the prices on speculators and big bad oil companies. The reality is different.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

Read the debate - comments from, amongst others: Desmond Lachman and Martin Wolf.

By Martin Wolf 

Paul Volcker is the giant among contemporary central bankers, both literally and figuratively. He it was who had the moral courage to crush inflation as chairman of the Federal Reserve between 1979 and 1987. When Mr Volcker speaks, people listen. What he had to tell the economic club of New York last month was well worth listening to. His summation, cited above, was so devastating, because so true.

Mr Volcker noted that this crisis is not unique. On the contrary, “today’s financial crisis is the culmination, as I count them, of at least five serious breakdowns of systemic significance in the past 25 years – on the average one every five years. Warning enough that something rather basic is amiss.” Those who do not heed such warnings are fated to suffer something yet worse.

So what is to be done? There is a part of me – quite a large part, in fact – that says: “Forget regulation: it will never work. Apart from normal laws against fraud, let the financial system live and die by the laws of competitive markets. If businesses fail, let them simply go down, with all their shareholders, customers and employees. Meanwhile, we will remind users constantly of the dangers.”

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.