The Big Push

Jeffrey Sachs is the economics profession’s leading advocate of mega-reform. Whether it is stabilization of hyperinflation in Bolivia, shock therapy to leap from Communism to capitalism in Poland and Russia, or a “Big Push” to end world poverty , Sachs’ recommendation throughout his career has been to do it fast, do it big, do it comprehensively, and do it with lots of Western money. Sachs’ approach, as set out in vivid detail in his fascinating new book, raises an interesting debate for economists about the merits of “the Big Push” vs. incremental reform. This carries on the debate begun 15 years ago about shock therapy vs. gradualism in the exCommunist countries. It taps into a long-standing intellectual debate about social change in general, dating at least as far back as Edmund Burke’s critique of the French Revolution. Burke preferred gradual reform to revolution, just as in the 20 century Karl Popper argued for “piecemeal democratic reform” as opposed to “utopian social engineering.” Earlier in the 20 century, there was a debate about planning versus markets. This debate is particularly relevant for economic development, where “utopian social engineering” has attracted more intellectual support than in other fields of economics. Because the tragedy of the world’s poorest peoples is so heart-breaking, an appropriately large response is more appealing in development economics than in more emotionally neutral areas like, say, the efficiency of the stock market. The Big Push appeals because it seems to promise a quick end to