Reinventing the Wheel: Why no-tech ancient civilizations still can't catch up.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/11/reinventing_the_wheel

by cwan • 16 years ago

53 68 16 years ago

lionhearted4• 16 years ago

> In fact, the principal beneficiaries of Western largesse today -- African autocrats and dysfunctional regimes -- are themselves the main obstacles to development. If there's anything that "must be done" to spur future development, it's to create the conditions necessary to empower the ordinary individuals who will create new and unforeseen technologies out of old ones.

I agree with all of this.

After reading lots of history, it seems to me that the most enduring and effective form of government is the decentralized imperial republic. This is not a common viewpoint among non-historians, but the key elements of this form of government tend to produce healthy, growing, prosperous, safe societies. Here's the specific elements in more detail:

Decentralized means allowing local areas in the republic to set largely their own laws, have their own worship, and their own customs. The head government sets minimum standards, and local governors see to it that they are met. These are basic conditions of infrastructure like roads and hospitals, communications networks, defense/garrisons, a few universal laws, and taxation. Everything else is up to the local regional governor.

Imperial will be the most controversial element of this, because there's been a large movement for self-rule in the post WWII era. I think there's lots of merit to that movement, but I wonder if the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater to some extent. Imperialism works as a natural check and balance against corrupt government - in a world where imperialism is more acceptable, it's basically "fair game" to go conquer any dysfunctional place. Thus, you don't get governments like you have in Venezuela with the government bringing in trillions in oil money that supposedly belongs to the people, but 1/3rd of the population are living on less than a dollar a day, and then the country has one of the highest murder rates in the world and the government is basically a mafia. In an era where imperialism is acceptable, Chavez gets exiled or executed, and the Chinese or Americans or British or whoever install a local governor that brings peace, stability, infrastructure, and rule of law to Venezuela.

Republic means some form of representative democracy. I think representative democracy actually performs worse on average than monarchy because corrupt, waste, and crime gradually increase in republics until the nation breaks, and it's very hard for a single leader to clean house. However, republics don't fall under the trap of having one horrifically bad leader who ruins the entire civilization. It's a tradeoff. I thought the British Empire did a good job with this, with a balance between the House of Lords, House of Commons, some strong constitution-type documents like the Magna Carta, the military, and local governors. Power was distributed in a decentralized way. The Prime Minister or Monarch could step up and assert authority when times got dire or massive house cleaning was necessary, but most of the time the Empire had some significant republican democratic elements to it keeping the aristocracy in check.

Of course, this is all very unfashionable these days, and everyone compares ideas to the current era. But for producing high levels of science, commerce, invention, quality of life, safety, peace, rule of law, health, art, and other key things - decentralized imperial republicanism has absolutely outperformed just about every other form of government.

revorad5• 16 years ago

And how do you propose one goes about establishing these decentralized imperial republics?

Whatever the side effects may have turned out to be, the British empire certainly did not set out to "empower ordinary individuals who will create new and unforeseen technologies out of old ones."

Superpowers pitying undeveloped countries and nominating themselves as Imperial rulers as the only solution to their plight sounds rather self-serving, don't you think?

cturner2• 16 years ago

Pretty hostile response. If you're angry, then the post arethuza made is a fine example of a response.

The parent to your post didn't propose going about establishing them, he was just pointing out the advantages.

    Whatever the side effects may have turned out to be,
    the  British empire certainly did not set out to
    "empower ordinary individuals who will create new
    and unforeseen technologies out of old ones."

Good intentions have a poor record in politics and public policy, and are probably a weak place to start to make a point.

yxhuvud• 16 years ago

EU would fit the bill, as long as it don't end up too federalized.

lionhearted4• 16 years ago

> And how do you propose one goes about establishing these decentralized imperial republics?

Decentralize governance, establish an intelligent government with some democratic elements if there isn't currently one, and expand internationally by taking control of areas that are grossly misgoverned. China could put Burma under better governance, for instance. Or anyone could put North Korea under better governance.

> Superpowers pitying undeveloped countries and nominating themselves as Imperial rulers as the only solution to their plight sounds rather self-serving, don't you think?

Well, it would have to serve a successful country for them to put lots of resources into the project. I think the more important question is, could it work? I think the answer to that is yes. People point to some wrongs done by Britain or Rome, not mentioning that many of the places that wrongs were done were much worse before going under British rule. Again, I'm not claiming it's a perfect model - just that it outperforms a lot of other models of government.

arethuza2• 16 years ago

Here is a comment on HN discussing stating that the British Empire was "more evil than the Third Reich":

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1775336

While I'm not sure that I agree with this statement I do have to admit that the negative aspects of Imperial rule aren't exactly widely communicated here in the UK.

Britain wasn't exactly squeamish about using some fairly brutal tactics - the use of concentration camps during the Second Boer War being one of the better known examples.

notahacker• 16 years ago

I'd have said the negative aspects of Imperial rule weren't communicated precisely because there was a broad consensus that colonisation should never be returned to, despite the "failed state" status of much of the decolonised world.

The problems with the British Empire (and other imperial Empires) resulted from an approach more or less the polar opposite of the fanatical evil cult of the Third Reich: it was essentially government determined mainly by influential individuals' profit motives. Food exports and protectionism whilst part of the population starves happen frequently with home-grown regimes; the problem is one of distribution of wealth and influence and not of remoteness or ethnic differences. And you'd be hard pressed to show me a country that _didn't_ use brutal tactics, including against civilians, during warfare; the chief novelty of the British concentration camps was that they kept records of casualties and fiercely debated the appropriateness of the tactics they used

zeemonkee5• 16 years ago

Unfortunately the British Empire collapsed for a reason.

Recent imperialist ventures - Iraq comes to mind - where the US and its allies overthrew the local dictator - have led to a worse mess.

Let's not forget the long-term effects of British rule in places as far-flung as Ireland, Cyprus and - of course - Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. A policy of divide-and-rule led to pretty awful consequences.

British government during the 18th and 19th centuries was spectacularly corrupt - the rotten boroughs and the Opium Wars being two examples.

Where decentralized British rule "worked" was where the Brits deliberately or accidentally wiped out or effectively displaced the native populations - Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

(Disclaimer - I'm British, and have reasons to be proud of my country, but our Imperial past is not one of them).

paganel• 16 years ago

Maybe we shouldn't focus only on the British Empire as the ultimate example, I'd say that the Austro-Hungarian monarchy of the second half of the 19th century is a better example, maybe also one that better fits what lionhearted had in mind. I know that you can blame a lot of things on this particular political entity (the War in Yugoslavia 100 years later being just one example), but it also did a lot of things very well. Actually, come to think of it, large swaths of the European Union are modeled on the Austro-Hungarian example, but those in Brussels are just too scared to admit it.

smackay2• 16 years ago

Conquest as a purely military endeavour is not the best way to think about it - after all the people being conquered are going to be doing most of the dying.

Being part of the Roman Empire probably offered many advantages - certainly being a Citizen had numerous advantages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship. Similarly being part of the British Empire presumably also had advantages. So the real work of establishing decentralized imperial republics is going to be in the social and adminstrative functions applied after the dust of conquest has settled.

This approach seems to the one followed in Iraq and Afghanistan but the Western powers do not seem to be quite so competent as the Romans.

electromagnetic• 16 years ago

> Let's not forget the long-term effects of British rule in places as far-flung as Ireland, Cyprus and - of course - Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. A policy of divide-and-rule led to pretty awful consequences.

If you're citing divide-and-rule don't quote Iraq. It has 5 races in it, 2 very dominant religions and several suppressed ones (it did once have a history of Christianity and Buddhism). The recent problem of Iraq is that it wasn't divided and the only thing keeping it from all-out civil war was one of the most fascist dictators in recent history who had a policy of if you get out of line you, your family and your friends die or disappear.

Cyprus is another bad example of 'dividing' it was a country that was held together by geographical location not by national identity. When the problems occurred, Turkey tried to intervene, but had to pull out because they were under threat of Soviet invasion (who had interest in Cyprus) and the US clearly stated they wouldn't help in a military invasion of the Turkish homeland.

Where decentralized British rule worked was where it was used. India and Hong Kong are the two countries you purposely failed to mention who have been doing fantastically after British rule. To mention that HSBC was the only bank operating in the UK that survived the global recession was in no way due to the rules the British established in Hong Kong where HSBC started.

lionhearted4• 16 years ago

> Recent imperialist ventures - Iraq comes to mind - where the US and its allies overthrew the local dictator - have led to a worse mess.

Too soon to tell. If you told people that Japan would be the second largest economy in the world thirty-five years after WWII, people would've thought you were crazy. I wouldn't be surprised if Baghdad is a top international city in, say, 2045.

Well, Iraq and the Middle East is actually a good example in the other direction - it was ruled by the Ottoman Empire fairly decently for quite a while (it did get corrupt and ugly at the end). Anyways, I don't say it's a perfect governance or all roses all the time, just that it's outperformed most other models on most key metrics.

metageek4• 16 years ago

Recent imperialist ventures - Iraq comes to mind - where the US and its allies overthrew the local dictator - have led to a worse mess.

Apples and oranges. We overthrew the dictator, but we didn't conquer the country--at least, not overtly, the way an empire would. A full-on conquest, made by a federalized empire with experience of conquest, would be entirely different.

(Not necessarily better, but different enough that you can't easily extrapolate.)

gaius2• 16 years ago

Unfortunately the British Empire collapsed for a reason

Except the British Empire DIDN'T collapse. Rather the British decided that running an empire was actually more trouble that it was worth, and it was converted to what is now the Commonwealth in an orderly and deliberate fashion, and Britain enjoys good relations with the vast majority of its former colonies.

Nick_C• 16 years ago

> decentralized imperial republicanism has absolutely outperformed just about every other form of government.

Epitomised by the Romans. No one else has mentioned it, so I must:)

Life of Brian

Reg: But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

PFJ Member: Brought peace?

Reg: Frustrated Oh god, peace, SHUT UP!

eru3• 16 years ago

The Romans did not do much to further technology. And after their fall [1], agriculture even picked up. The Greek did some real things to further science and technology. Especially in the period when Archimedes and friends where around. It's, of course, this very period that described as decadent by old-fashioned historians.

[1] It was the Empire that fell, the Republic wasn't around any longer to fall.

pvg• 16 years ago

It's helpful not to confuse comedy with a historical theme with actual history.

revorad5• 16 years ago

I've read your comment a few times now and I'm thoroughly confused as to what point you're actually making.

Self-rule is good, but it's been taken too far. So let's conquer "dysfunctional" places and install foreign rule. Oh, but let's call it representative democracy. Wait, what?

If we pause to consider what's in all this for the benevolent superpower, it appears to me that the subtext here is that it makes sense for their own economic and security gains.

Let's please not sugarcoat these discussions by failing to mention ulterior motives.

lionhearted4• 16 years ago

> Self-rule is good, but it's been taken too far. So let's conquer "dysfunctional" places and install foreign rule. Oh, but let's call it representative democracy. Wait, what?

It's actually not that complicated. Yes, having representatives from a place in the government is a good thing. The lack of this representation is why the American colonies fell out with Britain, for instance.

Self-rule has good things, but has been taken too far - yes, Zimbabwe's much worse now than it ever was when it was British Rhodesia. A functional local government might be superior to a functional foreign government. But a functional foreign government is far superior to local rule-by-madman. I don't see how anyone could prefer Mugabe to Cecil Rhodes.

And yeah, dysfunctional. No need to put it in scare quotes - I think anyone sane can agree places like North Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Burma have dysfunctional governments.

dtby• 16 years ago

You may enjoy Hans-Hermann Hoppe's _Democracy: The God That Failed_

http://mises.org/hoppeintro.asp has the introduction to give you something of the flavor.

randomtask3• 16 years ago

> or producing high levels of science, commerce, invention, quality of life, safety, peace, rule of law, health, art, and other key things - decentralized imperial republicanism has absolutely outperformed just about every other form of government.

While we're painting a picture with broad strokes: imperialism is also responsible for the oppression of Catholics in Ireland, apartheid in South Africa, and the disenfranchisement of a large number of indigenous groups the world over.

mattmanser• 16 years ago

This article makes absolutely no sense.

China was technologically more advanced once. As was the Middle East. The Mayans. We could go on listing 'peoples' who were at one point technologically advanced but are now way behind economically.

This is just mistaking the effect of accumulated capital for technology. This is just wrong on so many levels, so obviously wrong.

cturner2• 16 years ago

He's picking a particular point in time, and saying that this was important, not that it's a 500 year window that shifts continuously.

dan00• 16 years ago

"This is just mistaking the effect of accumulated capital for technology."

And how do you accumulate capital? By hammering on stones?

CWuestefeld• 16 years ago

China was technologically more advanced once.

This doesn't work as a counterexample, because they are once again one of the world's largest economies.

As was the Middle East.

I wonder how (the absolute lack of) natural resources figures into this. Also, Easterly notes the terrible impact that bad leadership can have (indeed, I think that was a major sub-point of the article). And considering all the wars there, I'm guessing that a real infrastructure based on that technology can't accrete very deeply.

About the Mayans, I don't know enough...

Symmetry• 16 years ago

The Mayas compared well with the ancient Greeks in many areas but were still stone age some. If you're looking at contemporary comparisons they support the article's point.

alphaoverlord• 16 years ago

So, let me get this straight, the conclusion is that European countries are rich and African countries are poor?

I'd hate to say the emperor has no clothes, but this does not seem revolutionary in any sense. In fact, there seems to be more counter-examples than examples when we look to the fact that the Middle East, India, China, and North America does not fit the pattern. The Middle East was technologically advanced in the 1500s, China was cited as a counter-example, and there was not much development in North America. In fact, the movement of people and ideas seems to contradict the authors thesis.

This conclusion also fails on closer examination. Superficially, this might work when comparing Europe as a whole vs. Africa as a whole, but Finland is also noted as a previous technological backwater with high GDP now. I'm skeptical of any predictive power of this model.

On the other hand, the author is relatively eloquent. I like the line: "There's a Thomas Edison born every minute. We just have to help them turn the lights on." Just not particularly insightful.

thalur• 16 years ago

What if the analysis were to be done based on where the people came from rather than modern geographical borders? I felt it a bit odd that the analysis was done by overlaying modern geographic boundaries on historical technology, considering how many modern countries owe their technological progress to other countries in older times. (e.g. America <- Britain/France/Spain <- Europe <- Middle East + Asia + Rome <- Ancient Greece). I think its less about who had what technology when, more about who inherited that technology.

sliverstorm• 16 years ago

This mostly just reminds me I need to finish reading Guns, Germs, and Steel

pbourke• 16 years ago

William Bernstein's "A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World" is also quite interesting. It correlates social and technological development with increased trade by examining various societies throughout history.

http://amzn.com/0802144160

nck4222• 16 years ago

The article reminded me of that book too.

GG&S's explanation would be that the environment for certain regions of the world produces technology a lot faster than other regions. So yeah if one region was tech. advanced 1000 years ago the advantage would snowball over time.

ThomPete• 16 years ago

The main reason is protectionism and trade barriers it's really that simple IMHO.

Right now western companies can sell rice cheaper in africa than the africans can themselves and they have no access to the western markets unless it's somehow owned by european or american companies.

They can't catch up because they are not allowed to play the game.

smackay2• 16 years ago

There is a risk of looking at this as just another "The West is best" article but for me the most interesting part was the examples of technology that were cited. Most were easy distributed and had no need of some form of central organization that made it difficult if not impossible for governments to control. A lot of new technology is now inherently centralized or has choke points that make it easy to stifle their use or adoption - though in the case of mobile phones it might be as an act of desparation for a goverment to restrict use.

Perhaps the path of development needs some rethinking to ensure they are inherently transferrable or at least have a high-level of empowerment in situations where the level of capital required is substantial or out of reach of individual or small groups.

JoeAltmaier5• 16 years ago

Rome ignored gunpower, horse collars, innovations in shipbuilding out of arrogance. Not a good example of innovation.

alan2• 16 years ago

Eh? Citation needed. Most anything I've ever seen suggest that gunpowder was unknown world wide before the Western Empire fell, and horse collars were just being introduced.

meric• 16 years ago

Countries are richer when its population inherits more technology from their ancestors, except when bad governments are in charge. That is kind of obvious, really. If I was asked the question "Why are some countries richer than others in 2010?" yesterday I'd have provided the same explanation - It's because they were richer before that.

What the article is saying can be reduced further: Descendants of civilizations that have moved ahead of others will stay ahead unless they stop moving.

And further still: When you move ahead of someone in a race, you'll stay ahead until you slow down.

That might be nice to point out, but his mission at World Bank was how to bring the less technologically advanced countries forward, not explaining why countries who used to be technologically advanced happens to be richer today.

Obvious point, well argued.

He says interesting things about people carrying technology around. I wonder what you can do with immigration to make your country become more technologically advanced.

__bjoernd• 16 years ago

Apart from the points appearing obvious, the article also points out that this was exactly not what his employer did back in the 80s and 90s. And his arguments appear to be more researched than some answer you and I could come up with by using plain intuition.

kia• 16 years ago

Single page:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/11/reinventing...

ahi• 16 years ago

"When I worked at the World Bank..."

Sit down and shut up, you've done enough damage.

As far as I can tell his thesis is that civilizations that weren't technologically developed aren't technologically developed. Uhh, ok.

nl3• 16 years ago

Guns, Germs and Steel has already been mentioned in this thread, but there are two Hans Rosling talks that also provide some interesting data points:

The rise of the Asian economies: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_asia_s_rise_h...

Talking to foreign aid policy workers: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_at_state.html

Reinventing the Wheel: Why no-tech ancient civilizations still can't catch up.

Related Stories