| OCR Text |
Show 56 The acaeptance of this rationale was widespread and few economic thinkers challenged it. are I think the following words of Gunnar Myrdal particularly appropriate. humiliated to recall how many of profession yielded to the temptation of aid to urging underdeveloped countries by stressing that it As an economist, I am in that era our It was simply assumed could help save them from Communism. that thi s was SO--"Y1'i. thout bothering to undertake any serious research or even to apply critical thought to the socio political processes implied, regard to which the in conven tional economists had developed blinkers. It "Tas undoubtedly done for the best of purposes: aid to to the politicians and palatable development general public in the United States and-other developed But in the end, a good purpose cannot Western countries. 14 be served by paltry thinking. make more the , The •• secuty argument evolved from one which stressed the threat of Communist takeover of third world countries to tication and realism, It stresses the threat to the developed countries, especially the U.S., disparity in incomes between them and This threat is exacerbated ·the by the fact primarily whi te and the poor are not, This security that are develop more sophis- security of the from the that rich countries growing are 15 between rich argument (the growing disparl ty particularly applied in justifying the comes of underdeveloped countries, poor) remains the primary "why aid" rationale It is one largest recipients and which are (e.ge, Pakistan, India, Brazil). in the United States, aid to those countries which making a case as real effort to Professor Edward Mason, considered one of the Harvard, who has long been foreign aid field, puts the and "wise men" in the followsl which a foreign aid program The relatively firm basis on to be the demonstrated me to seem can and should be built a larger part of the less facts (1) that in at least of |
