What arguments/evidence do the authors use on these points to make these issues persuasive? http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/13/the-ideology-of-development/ a) Resistance is futile b) Freeing...
What arguments/evidence do the authors use on these points to make these issues persuasive?
a) Resistance is futile
b) Freeing the poor
c) A shift of money and power
d) The power behind the throne
The “points” that you mention below are the headings of sections in these two articles. Let us look at the main points the authors use in these sections to try to make their arguments persuasive.
The article entitled “The Ideology of Development” argues that rich countries and their institutions (like the IMF) are wrong to force all poor countries to try to develop in the same ways. In the section headed “Resistance is Futile,” the author argues that experts are wrong to think that there is only one way for countries to develop. He says that the experts think that their model of development is the one true way to solve all of the world’s problems. He says that this one true method has not worked but that people continue to believe in it because they want to believe that there is a simple solution to the terrible problem of global poverty and lack of development. His main way of persuading us that this is true is to point out that the “Asian Tigers” of the past developed without doing what the experts thought was right and that China was also developing (this was written in 2009) in the “wrong” way.
In the section entitled “Freeing the Poor,” the main persuasive technique is a discussion of the way in which the rich world developed. The section starts out by saying that the average American after the American Revolution was as poor as the average African today. The author argues that America developed because it was allowed to do so in its own way. This, he says, proves that countries should be allowed to develop on their own.
The article entitled “The New Colonialists” argues that the rich countries are propping up the poor countries instead of forcing them to be accountable for their own actions. In the section headed “A Shift of Money and Power,” the authors argue that NGOs are taking over for governments in running aid programs. The rich countries’ governments are doing less to help the poorer countries. The NGOs are also bypassing the poorer countries’ governments and doing work on their own. The authors persuade us of this by using statistics on how much money governments give and how much money NGOs give. They also use anecdotes about instances in which NGOs have taken over important government functions in poorer countries.
In the section entitled “The Power Behind the Throne,” the authors argue that the NGOs become “the power behind the throne” by doing all of the work of government while the official government does little. The authors try to persuade us of this by describing all of the powers that the NGOs have taken in Georgia and, in particular, in Afghanistan. They use this evidence to persuade us that the NGOs are getting more and more power and are weakening the local governments.