I guess it is a rhetorical question. The answer is in the report (pag.69-70)-"professionals who are otherwise quite capable of solving numerical problems , struggle to interpret data correctly when the implications of the data conflict with their mental models". Sometimes, interpreting statistics just with the eye of a researcher can lead to some sort of blindness.  It is a lot to say, but do not wish to tackle the intricate issue of politics/power/spheres of influence/world banking system.

Still trying to have a deliberative system of thinking... :)

Anda

Poverty have differernt feartures in terms of region and cultural patterns. In Latin America, rural poverty y totally different with urgan poverty in terms of non monetary instruments to exchange, for instance. Savings in the rural (and informal economy) case is not monetary, is in assets, in the second case with some  kind of mobility (like electronical stuffs, cars, etc.) Sam Popkin wrote about the "rational Peasant" in terms of a different rationality related to the people in urban areas. Migration  (land to the cities) change in some specific patterns the urban rationality. 

In my view the main source of bias in the report is failure to consider the cognitive biases affecting government policy development. Please see the link to my blog post on the report.

http://wintonbates.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/what-is-missing-from-mindsociety-and.html

In my opinion, this kind of reports, particularly those that are prepared by international  organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF, among others, reflects the Western point of view of the main subjects included in these reports, the mentality of those involved in their preparation, their scientific knowledge, most of the cases acquired in Western universities, and the way of living of the authors or experts involved in the preparation  of these reports.

It is difficult by these persons to understand the situation facing most of the developing countries and in almost all cases, the measures suggested to be applied by the industrialized countries to solve the specific economic situation that this group of countries could face in a given moment, cannot be applied to solve a similar situation in developing countries. To understand the economic problems facing developing countries,  and suggest rational solutions to them, you should live and work in these countries. From outside it is difficult to suggest measures that could help them to solve their economic problems.

The two ideas that you mention in your comments in the post are not so complicated to answer: the first one related to the fact that poor people safe too little cash is not difficult to understand if you live in a poor country, because most of the poor people living there, even those that earn a little more money, they need to use them almost entirely to satisfy the immediate needs of their families, because putting the money in the bank will not be of any help. The other idea that the poor also borrows too much money is also easy to understand if you live in a country and you do not have sufficient money to feed properly your family. I know countries that the price of many products and services are higher that in the USA or the EU, despite of the fact that the level of the salaries in those countries are very far from the level of the salaries in the USA and the EU. Under this circumstance, how a poor person could save money or not borrow it for specific needs. This is almost impossible.

However, these reports should be studied carefully because this is only manner to understand the philosophy and the content of those behind the elaboration and promotion of certain economic policy and measures to be applied in developing countries.

This is an unfair and poorly thought-out critique of an excellent synthesis provided in the report that draws from a number of well-researched studies. This area of work is not new and it is high time that we recognise the limits of some economic approaches and make amends in development policy.

Dear Thilak, so would you reject that the Approach of the report is strongly biased? Or do you think well-researched studies are a priori not biased? Because of what?

I would not criticize WB report since it probably has also positive points.

I would like to point some comments on its 2 observations (seemingly trivial but contradicting rationality) about poor: a) why do they save too little cash? b) why do they borrow too much?

Obviously, this contradicts rationality because borrowing is expensive and they undermine their intertemporal budget constraint.

If I try to put myself into poor's shoes, with my knowledge of economics, it is still possible to explain such behavior. If there is perfect knowledge about future income and costs - they they are wrong by saving too little and then borrowing. Apart from the extreme case of non-saving just to survive today.

Having some communication with poor people, I have observed that they often have some irrationality, like spending too much fraction of income on what they should not spend (like buying expensive medicine at the expense of food, that in the end does not work because they do not have sufficient nutrition).

Another observation is constant belief in good luck (tomorrow their income will suddenly increase, but those who promise them paradise go away when tomorrow comes).

There are always too many random shocks for their budget, like one need to pay flat or electricity bill by certain date, and this is a large fraction of monthly income, and they need to borrow.

It is good for them if they can borrow from a friend or neighbor often without interest). But failure to repay in time leads to less chances to do it in future. Some banks allow for negative account (like 2-5 thousand euro), and poor get used to it. But huge fraction of their income go for interest repayment. In fact, it is too costly and irrational to have this substantial debt. But once person is there, it is difficult to escape.

Dear Yuri! Thank you for your reply. Your observation fits exactly with the US debt mentality: no savings and good luck. Unfortunately they require more debt than all the poor together. And yes, it's irrational and damages the world's economy.

Dear Alexander,

I agree, we are all biased. As the WB report and much of the work that the report draws on such as Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky has focused on sources of bias, including our inability to know everything. Being ware of such limitations in our decision-making can help us better develop policies. 

The reports by international agencies now incorporate greater social concerns brought about by the works of Thomas Piketty and Stiglitz. Greater balance in recommendations would follow which would help restore their efficacy and acceptability in crisis hit countries.

I dislike intensely the phrase 'Western point of view'.  If you mean very many different ideas expressed without repression, under some form of democracy and carried out with full human rights then I can go along with Western and proud of it.  Is Greece now  non-Western?  Then I must also be in that camp since I entirely support efforts to create stimulus (as was done in Germany via the Marshall Plan, as well as East Germany).  Now joining the Euro for Greece was a mistake but country's should NOT be punished for peaceful mistakes as they were with the destruction of their industry and hih unemployment the past few years.  Anyway I'll leave that issue since the news is full of all that today.

On poverty, probably none of the people reading this article would starve in a drought in, say, Somalia.  Why not?  You have money or access to it. Hence people are poor simply because they dont have cash.  Dont make me laugh about the fact that they cant save..out of what?  Now how to channel cash to the poor?  Let's see the next World Bank Report on that, covering such issues as basic income, transfers, subsidies and yes, of course, how to pay for all that?  With historically low interest rates (except in developing countries - Kenya has rates of 15%..crazy!), enormous wealth exists in the world (the odd trillion dollars on pretty useless 'defense'), technology allowing most people NOT to work...clearly management and willingness must rank highly!  Recent reports of unhappiness with management at the World Bank by staff (not for the first time) might suggest that that organisation ought to be examined in more than one way!

Dear Sir

I must be apologetic to differ from your esteemed views.

The WDR 2015 cannot be adjudged as a biased one. Rather, it presents a different perspective which is not predominantly the economic one. It shows the better side of the work other behavioural sciences are making for a better understanding of the human kind, its organization, and motives and circumstances of action or inaction. It does not cast any aspersions on the poor man's behaviour. 

The report does not entail mental duality. It shows the impact of the peripherical and historical experiences and environment on the thinking process of an individual, especially the one facing the circumscribed circumstances. 

The report, for all good reasons, questions the long held mainstrem economic assumption of human rationality which is unildirectional and predominantly the self-interest directed one but which yields nothing for jugding human action in its entirety. See for instance, the spirall of unending consumerism and false consumer self leading to narsicistic individualism which is but the classical rationality dear to liberal economics.

Thanks and sorry for any excesses.

First Im quite surprised that there is a strong defense for the behavioral approach in development economics. I'm glad to achieve these critical responses.

To Mr. Kahn: of course as well the poor are infected by consumerism which damages their daily survival. So there may be an educational approach to protect them to lose their small cash on beer, cigarettes, cars and whatever. And yes, narcistic individualism works as an economic accelerator, but in few countries only.

So in my eyes the bias starts by transferring views and practices that may be working in one culture but not in the other.

The "moral hazard" in behavioral economics is rooted in the self-interest hypothesis of Adam Smith.

To Michael Hopkins: It's remarkable to learn the Marshall Plan in Germany created stimulus. It's only meaning at the time was to widen the American markets and to fight communism. The stimulus at the time was within the social capital of the Germans who did the most anti-capitalist act of solidarity in the German history: an asset levy of 50 per cent on all real estate from 1948 on.

Good idea of you to mention the low interest rates and bringing up the idea to pay a basic income. Such a direct transfer would be much more effective than complicated "stimulus" approaches.

I attach a small study I did in rural Sao Paulo where I found out that the people getting a basic income immediately serve to their neighbours.

In many poor rural areas basic income could really improve the social capital.

@Emilio: Could you please have a look at my study in Brazil? Would that work in other Latin American countries as well?

In a world, where there is no universal rationale and objective except the politicians, where border of a country is not defined by the sky and tectonic plate, where heterogeneities are immeasurable, where inter-generational equality is still not translated into a universal Act, where animal kingdom and plants do not have any representation, where material achievement is the only indicator of ‘success’, where the ‘qualified, clever and rich’ (as opposed to educated, honest and poor) guide the politicians & leaders for future policy, no development policy can save the earth for long. In a short notice, it will teach final lesions to the humans. Even in a country with very old civilization and contemporary democracy, sheer social ‘power’ rules supreme from the village to the metropolis in all parts of India except partly the Himalayan region.

I am very sorry to say, only massive earthquake, massive flood, massive cyclone, extreme drought and widespread epidemic can assemble diverse people into a common bond, collective spirit.

Poverty! Existence of intense poverty appears to be a necessary condition for the survival of democracy. If a poor steals a piece of sweet, he is invariably jailed; no lawyer comes forward. But being powerful you can cheat billions of rupees and buy ‘justice’.

And mental poverty! Most qualified rich people (except those like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Ratan Tata and the like who have achieved richness by sheer innovative skills and intelligence) are ‘mentally poor’.

Shakespeare wrote some 500 years ago: “When beggars die, no comet is seen. The Heaven itself blaze forth the death of the princes.”

Russell told us only 70 years ago: “The trouble with the world is that the stupid is cocksure, while the intelligent full of doubt.” Or, “Where the environment is so cruel, or prejudiced, or stupid, it is a sign of merit to be out of harmony with it. To be out of harmony with one’s surroundings is of course a misfortune, but it is not a misfortune to be avoided at costs.”

Carry on.

Dr. Buddhadeb Ghosh, India

Thank you, Dill,  for raising this question. I had the opportunity to read some parts of WDR 2015. 

It is true that WDR 2015 is highly biased, because they focus too much on psychology of people. However, is it right to judge a report such as WDR on the bases that it is biased? Any recommendation by a specialist is biased. The report is an item of a big public library. It is not wise to expect a magical solution in a book. It is necessary for us to possess a framework by which to put the Report on a right shelf. 

I have read Chapter 7 on productivity. The writers give various examples how they or others could succeed in promoting productivity by stimulating workers incentives. Their examples may be useful in some particular situations. If you are a manager of a firm and worrying decreasing motivation of your workers, the Report may be worth reading. It may include one or two hints to improve the moral situation in your firm. 

The main problem with WDR 2015 is that writers claim that their findings (three models of decision making) are of "first-order importance for development policy, poverty alleviation and the policy design process itself" (p.25). It may be of first-order importance for correcting psychological misunderstandings which spread widely in management, policy making and implementation. 

I understand those writers. They only wanted to emphasize the importance of their findings and knowledge. Even though, it could not be said that their finding are of "first order importance for development policy”, because development necessarily includes many other aspects. What they have discovered is only one fact among many facts that we must know when we want to work in relation to developing the economy of a country. 

Economic development is too complex a phenomenon that we can solve all the problems by a piece of magical knowledge. It requires a concerted effort of thousands of good practice, knowledge, tool and methods. It must cover working place practice, trading customs, financial system, property rights, work efforts, human relations, transportation, tax system, social security, education, rules of law and others. (A simple question of productivity contains as much complexity as above. See, for example, questions and answers

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_could_be_major_factor_determining_the_Inter-country_income_disparities/1)

To reduce this immense dimension of the problem to a cognitive dimension of decision makings is a grave error. However, let us be tolerant for them. Although the report is a work of narrow-viewed specialists who do not deeply know the development problem, it may contribute to enrich our arsenal for the systematic science of development processes. More important and urgent problem than to criticize the Report is to make this science itself. This must be the main target of development economics. 

After I have written my last post about one year ago, I was writing two papers. You see them below. These works helped me to re-assess World Development Report 2015 (WDR 2015).

In one paper, with the title Micro Foundations of Evolutionary Economics, I argued why and in which way we have to re-formulate economic behavior. The basic concept is not very different from WDR 2015, but I think there is one crucial difference. WDR 2015 does not provide any reform program of the actual economics (be it mainstream or heterodox). There would be some phases that a better understanding of human economic behavior helps to adjust a development policy to a right way. However, these chances are rather few, because almost all development policies are devised through an economics. If standing economics does not change, we cannot make up a good system of development policies. 

What is ironic is that WDR 2015 comprises a chapter such as “Thinking with mental models” (Chapter 3). The chapter points that “[m]ental models include categories, concepts, identities, prototypes, stereotypes, causal narratives, and worldviews.” (p.62) However, I could not find any mention that economics is one of the strongest metal models hat binds the imagination of development economists and policy makers. 

At the conclusion, the authors writes:

• Economic and political forces influence mental models, but mental models can have an independent influence on development by shaping attention, perception, interpretation, and the associations that automatically come to mind.  

 If so, economics itself influences our thinking on development by its theory on how economy works, how it develops, what disturbs spontaneous development, etc.  

 What the authors say in this Chapter must be all true. But, the whole chapter comprises an important flaw. They do not know or acknowledge that neoclassical “market is best” thinking gave and is giving disastrous results for many countries and for many occasions.

My first paper “Micro foundation of evolutionary economics” is to change the total structure of economics from the very basis and reconstruct a new economics. It is successful or not, we now know well that the actual economics is seriously flawed and requires reformation. My paper is one of such trials.

 When we talk about development, foreign trade policy occupied and is occupying essential part of development policy. However, as far as I see from the table of contents, there is no mention on the present state of the international economics and its policy recommendations. They mention on trade policy only once in the mains text (two other s in references). They write:  

• Trade policy may offer an example. Industries suffering losses are more likely than others to receive trade protection (Trefler 1993; Baron and Kemp 2004). Intuitively, the prospect of losing tens of thousands of jobs in old sectors may loom much larger than the prospect of creating many more jobs under free-market policies in new sectors (Freund and Ozden 2008).

They note no words about the historical experience that many countries developed their industry by certain level of protections. They are thinking that the conclusion of economics is the best or true policy recommendation. This means that authors are not aware of the fact that they themselves are a slave of their mental model, i.e. neoclassical trade theory.

In this field too, a fundamental re-organization is required. What I tried to do in my second paper “New theory of international trade / a general introduction” is such kind of trials. At the end of the paper, I argued on the possible implications to development economics. Although it is not still a well developed theory which can produce a new system of trade policy, I am thinking that it opens a new sight on international trade policy and the policies to raise real wage rate. 

My papers are still in a draft state. Comments are welcome. If someone can give comments within two weeks or so,  they may be reflected in the published papers. 

Working Paper Microfoundations of Evolutionary Economics

Working Paper The New Theory of International Values: An Overview

It is interesting and thought-provoking that the report abstracted from conventional mainstream Economics to Psychology and Behavioral Economics. Me thinks there may not have been deliberate intention to be biased. However, global generalizations may be the problem. Cultural differences condition people's behavior hence those findings should have been culturally-contextualized. Augmenting and comparing those findings with ones from different global cultures would have added more value to the report, while removing the notion of bias or in deed attempt to ram "Western" culture on the rest of the world.

Dear Alexander, I usually look at the World Bank and the work of the researchers supporting their efforts the same way I look at FAO and the work of the researchers do supporting the FAO, each time they reinvent themselves they are moving away from the main goal of each organization to sub-goals and then sub-sub-goals to justify their existence.

The main goal of the World Bank is to eradicate poverty through the provision of income security so it affects the demand side of markets; and the main goal of FAO is food security through the provision of sustainable food supplies so it affects the supply side of markets.

Now the world bank has a problem of conflict of interest as besides the goal of eradicating poverty it is a bank and it has to make money so it is easy to imagine that a rational bank will deal with poverty in a way that it can still make money….Because of this conflict of interest I once suggested to create the world poverty organization(WPO) with the sole purpose of dealing with the global poverty issues and leave the world bank to do what it does best….making money.

In the case of the WDR 2015 and its bias or apparent biased as it may be, the way I look at it is that:

a) the poor saving less and borrowing more in less developed countries as they say does not surprise me, what surprised me was to see them/the world bank moving their attention away from providing income security(jobs or redistribution programs) to helping the poor to be better savers and borrow less in a way that appears to be irrational behavior….it is rational behavior to me at that moment to meet your family or your basic needs, you will use whatever cash you have under those conditions and you will borrow if you can….the idea of to live another day….

b) I am also not surprised too to see that in so called developed countries like in Canada the working poor, those who have up to three jobs, are still having difficulties securing decent living conditions, they too are saving less and borrowing more, but I have not heard the bank of Canada say they are irrational for doing that, they just cautioned them that if interest rate spikes they may be in trouble….…but again, it is rational behavior to me at this moment to meet your family or your basic needs or to try to live as your parents or grandparents used to live you will use whatever cash you have and you will borrow if you can….the idea of again to live another day….

c) So saving less and borrowing more has another explanation other than having irrational decision makers in developed and developing countries, it has more to do with economies failing to provide job opportunities and enabling a better distribution of development benefits….

d) However if you see the situation from the poverty point of view the situation is getting out of control, but if you look at the situation from a banker point of view that seems to be a very risky but profitable opportunity….remember that one of the twisted beauties of markets, they have no hearts…

e) The decision to save or save more and  to borrow little or nothing; and the decision not to save or save less and borrow more or as much as you can in my humble opinion depends on whether or not you live under income security or income insecurity, no matter where you live.

As food for thoughts Alexander, you may be interested in related ideas in the following article:

Pointing out the expected price and cost impacts on consumers and producers from implementing water privatization under conditions of income insecurity and scarcity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281276543_Pointing_out_the_expected_price_and_cost_impacts_on_consumers_and_producers_from_implementing_water_privatization_under_conditions_of_income_insecurity_and_scarcity

Have a nice day

Article Pointing out the expected price and cost impacts on consumer...

“Rationality” in Behavioral Economics

When behavioral economics (BE) talks about “rationality,” it does not mean pure and simple rationality. It is a behavior that neoclassical economics thinks rational. By this fact, behavioral economics possesses ambiguous attitude with regards to neoclassical economics (NE).

In one side, BE accuses NE being not accurately descriptive. BE has found many economic behaviors that NE has or would have estimated rational were not in fact observed by majority of experiment participants. With these contributions, BE is critical and destructive of NE. As BE’s findings are tested with the modern science standard experimentation procedures, NE can hardly deny its validity. All that NE can do is to neglect or deny the importance of those findings.

In anther side, as Lucio Muñoz points it, BE accuses sometimes quite reasonable behavior as irrational, because it does not distinguish adequately between rationality of human behavior and the rationality concepts of NE. In the same way, BE accuses NE but the situations and questions BE sets are still under the strong influence of NE. For example, BE economists have a strong tendency to suppose a simple economic situation separated or abstracted from many complex conditions that are normally associated in a real life and ask the participants to think as if they are in such a simple situation. BE is not sufficiently aware of this tremendous fact that BE is strongly influenced by NE.

We have to build a good theory how an actual human being is acting in a complex world with its bounded rationality. There is no absolute criterion to decide which is rational and which is not. Human behavior is an entity that evolves. It depends on the history. People have repertoires of behaviors and each of them is a pattern of cognition-reaction. We may call them CD-transformations (meaning Cognitive-Directive).

In a concrete situation, people recognize the state as one of predetermined stylized situations just like Garbage Can theory (C-part of CD-transformation) and act as a predetermined directive dictates (D-part of CD-transformation). For the details of this point, see my paper Microfoundations of Evolutionary Economics which is cited in my previous post above. I understand that John C. Anyanwu is referring to this aspect of human behavior.

BE knows well that people has no infinite rationality in the sense that they calculate all possible situations and compare the results (utility maximization paradigm). Even though, BE still prefers psychological experiments and ask questions how people reason or calculate. Calculation intervenes in some phases but in many occasions people do not calculate and act (or respond) like a reflex action.     

Daniel Kahneman knows all of this (see his Thinking, Slow and Fast), but many economists who work in BE or Experimental Economics do not understand that their formulation and terminology require a fundamental reorganization.

Dear Lucio, dear Yoshinori,

thank you for your very valuable contributions first! Although I'm not on the payroll as a professor I can't contribute to theoretical only discussions anymore. I'm heading a project within the United Nations Sustainable Goals Partnerships

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=11706

to considering, measuring and enhancing Social Capital instead of GDP. Up to  now fighting poverty is regarded as an increase of the GDP per capita which is absolute nonsense e.g. because the prices increase as well and the ratio of rich and poor doesn't change.

So when we assess Social Capital, especially trust, solidarity, helpfulness, friendliness and hospitality we often discover common wealth in poor regions.

The development agencies, acting in the spirit of the World Bank, are blaming us for this and say: "You have to identify and to address poverty, not social goods."

They finally fight to protect the unilateral GDP-growth-to-overcome-poverty- perspective  That's not only an emotional thing because the allocation of capital would change if GDP is no longer the standard.

Economic sciences are totally unilateral biased- that's a fact to considering. Therefore it changes nothing for the development countries if the focus is on Kahneman, Sachs, Keynes, Friedman or whomever.

It's always unilateral biased US bullshit and we should stop to discussing it. If the scholars from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia would have any good idea on how to improving society by economic action or theory they would make the US being best practice.

But the opposite is the case. The US is a failed state and therefore their scientists cannot address other countries.

Dear Alexander,

My felicitation that you are now heading and leading a project within the United Nations Sustainable Goals Partnerships.

Too many economists are contaminated by the idea that people are isolated rational  animal. In fact, human being became human as mutually helping group members. If not, we would not have language and no intelligence.

Cheers and three yells for you!

Yoshinori   

Dear Alexander, some feed back here.

I can almost smell your frustration in the standard economic approach, but you will not find the socially responsible answer if you are thinking inside the box, you are still thinking about “Growth/GNP.

Does not the UN is in the green growth/Geeen GNP wagon today(UNCSD Rio +20/2012/The future we want? Have not you heard now there are 17 goals attached to the shift to green markets.

So in you case to continue to look for a socially friendly GNP when we know it is bound by a socially and environmenally neutral externality assumption is not the right way go...You can not address social issues with the traditional market directly as it is an exogenous issue, they hoped to do it indirectly with the trickledown effect assumption, but it never came. So the shift to green markets. 

And now that we are in green markets you also can not address social issues with the green market directly as it is an exogenous issue, they are hoping perfhaps to do it indirectly with a greeen trickledown effect assumption, but we should expect it will never come.

Thefore to do what you want to go and get a type of GNP that deals with poverty directly you have to think outside the box. That is the way I am going as my aim is to think in terms of socially and environemtanlly friendly markets one day....

Of course those behind old GNP and the new green GNP will be defensive, but piling evidence of degradation we know lead to paradigm shift....enviromental degradation led to green markets....social degradation on day will lead to sustainability markets

Have a nice day

Dear Alexander, I am sharing here two papers that you may find interesting or see some food for thoughts in them in terms of how market thinking has changed and it is changing away from traditional micro-economics and microeconomics since the 2012 paradigm shift to green markets....

Respecpectfully yours;

Evolving Development Paradigm Choices: Are We Moving Towards Sustainability through Development Waves?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303897495_Evolving_Development_Paradigm_Choices_Are_We_Moving_Towards_Sustainability_through_Development_Waves

Perfect Green Markets vrs Dwarf Green Markets: Did We Start Trying to Solve the Environmental Crisis in 2012 With the Wrong Green Foot? If Yes, How Can This Situation Be Corrected?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305067067_Perfect_Green_Markets_vrs_Dwarf_Green_Markets_Did_We_Start_Trying_to_Solve_the_Environmental_Crisis_in_2012_With_the_Wrong_Green_Foot_If_Yes_How_Can_This_Situation_Be_Corrected

Article Evolving Development Paradigm Choices: Are We Moving Towards...

Article Perfect Green Markets vrs Dwarf Green Markets: Did We Start ...

Dear Alexander,  Congratulations on a deeply insightful analysis and evaluation of such an important piece of inferential logic emerging from the WB DevRep 2015!!  May its authors continue to advance their understanding of the real world.  They sorely need to! Perhaps they suffered a childhood devoid of the group experiences necessary to avoid an intelligence deficit.

I can only echo the sentiments of your friend and my RG friend and mentor, Yoshinori, and say 'Cheers and four yells for you!'.... while I get back to focussing on the homework he has given to me.

Robin

The World Bank has long been engaged in what is essentially "blaming the victim" for poverty. It has wholeheatedly endorsed what Loïc Wacqaunt has called the myth of "meritological individualism."  Even though it has funded Conditional Cash Transfer Programs for poor families, such transfers are essentially "workfare."

After three years, where are you with the dismay of WDR 2015?

Africa must not despair. The people of Africa can think like everyone else. However, Africa has lacked a jolt similar to the Enlightenment. Still, technology is a powerful equaliser. Whichever way, the marginalisation of Africa will end faster than many people think.