-
Two Cheers for de Soto Nov 26, 2000 (218 of 235 found this helpful)
Attempts to explain why the 3rd world (and the 2nd world, now that communism has largely collapsed) is different from the developed world tend to fall between two poles. At one end are those who seek an Archimedean point--a single underlying cause which, once grasped, will allow us to quickly move developing countries up the socio-economic ladder. Such explanations have the virtue of being useful to people who actually work in 'development', because they convince us that we know how to produce fundamental change. But they run the risk of oversimplifying and, if taken as a guide to policy, of raising expectations only to see them dashed by the complexities and historical quirkiness of the real world.
At the other pole are holistic, multifaceted explanations, taking into account history, culture, economics, religion--the whole nine yards. Such accounts may be more intellectually satisfying, but often lead to frustration by convincing us that the problems are too complicated, too resistant to quick fixes, for practical solutions.
The Mystery of Capital falls for the most part in the first camp. It's author, Hernando de Soto, is one of the 3rd World's most dedicated and intelligent reformers. He wants desperately to do something to help the poor, and has been heroically influential--and successful--in arguing against the failed statist solutions long in vogue in Latin America. Now he wants to move beyond criticism to a positive agenda for change. De Soto's impeccably pro-capitalist credentials make his initial criticism especially convincing: actual capitalism in most of the world is restricted to a small elite, while most remain on the outside looking in.
The question is whether de Soto's solution is equally convincing. He does not believe poverty is due to the evil intentions of capitalists or capitalist countries (though he acknowledges that powerful interests in developing countries do not want to make the system more inclusive--a subject which could use more discussion). Nor is it because of culture or any inherent faults in the poor, or in poor countries. No, the real problem lies in a kind of intellectual or historical blindness, which has kept everyone from seeing what the real source of wealth is: real property, or more exactly well-defined and socially accepted property rights. Once a society has this, it has the secret of capital, since these assets can then be used to generate loans, credit, insurance, liabilities and the whole apparatus of capitalism.
It is hard to argue, looking at the real experience of the undeveloped or maldeveloped world, that the lack of property rights is not a huge impediment to economic growth. De Soto and his team have done tremendous work in documenting exactly how this holds back and frustrates the poor and disenfranchised.
But it is equally hard to believe that this is the key or only reason. More accurately, it seems--from de Soto's own account of what is required--that having property rights is a sort of 'meta-cause'. It depends on such a host of other developments in the economy, in society, in the political system (where access historically often depended on property, limited to a few), in the legal system, in the informal norms and mores, that it is hardly practical to point to it as 'the solution' to 3rd world poverty. For this reason, it seems unlikely that simply pointing out that developed countries have complex systems of property rights, though useful, will be enough to allow for the development of similar systems in the developing world.
If de Soto is right, why is China developing so fast, without anything like the formal, all-encompassing property system he thinks is essential? Why did European economic development begin to outpace the rest of the world centuries before the property systems which, he points out, in most Western countries were only arrived at within the last 100 years?
As a recipe for action, The Mystery of Capital i
-
Brilliant Sep 15, 2000 (94 of 106 found this helpful)
I spent 5 years in Cambodia doing development/legal reform work and never could figure out why it was so often frustrating and kept running into dead ends. I only wish I had had this book at the beginning of my time there. It reveals what needs to be done to bring the third world out of poverty. Full of simple but powerful ideas. I only hope the development bureaucracy will adopt it. Sound property laws enable land and other assets currently not marketable, saleable or mortgageable to be used as collateral for enterprises (as in the West), and there is more of such property out there in the world than all the Western aid since the beginning of time to all other countries! The author has done his homework on the ground and has compelling and important ideas. An interesting read even if you are not involved in this area.
-
Trickle-Up Economics Oct 13, 2000 (74 of 78 found this helpful)
The Mystery of Capital, by Hernando DeSoto, could be among the most important books on economics of any century. DeSoto notes that more than a decade after the fall of Marxism, the expected capitalist revolution has not occurred. Capitalism has been successful only in the developed nations and has made little progress in the third world or in the former communist states.
He and his team are convinced that the problem is the lack of well defined property rights. He notes that the poor in under-developed countries have assets, but that their real property is often owned informally, and thus cannot be used to generate capital. As a result, the crucial role of real property is simply absent in under-developed countries.
He proposes the obvious solution --- formalization of informal property rights and notes that acquisition of property through informal means (squatting) has a storied history in the United States and other developed nations. DeSoto understands that formalization will be politically difficult, but points out that both rich and poor will benefit economically. One might call it "trickle up economics."
Finally, formal property rights are under attack in developed nations, through overly intrusive land use and environmental regulations. It is well to reflect upon the potential for slipping toward a system that allows virtual squatters to seize or nullify property rights through regulation, threatening a principal source of national income.
Wendell Cox
-
This Ain't Your Father's Economics! Jan 31, 2004 (55 of 56 found this helpful)
In the past five years I've read a shade under a thousand books, and this is easily the most important of them. In it, Peruvian economist de Soto sets out to do nothing less than explain why capitalism has worked in the West and been more or less a total disaster in the Third World and former Communist states. This has long been a pivotal question for anyone interested in the world beyond their own back yard, and there have been plenty of attempts to explain it before (often in terms of history, geography, culture, race, etc.). However, de Soto's is the most compelling and logically argued answer I've come across. But it's not just me. I don't generally quote other reviews, but my general reaction echoes the most respected policy journals, newspapers, and magazines, who tend to repeat the same words in their reviews:"revolutionary", "provocative", "extraordinary", "convincing", "stunning", "powerful", "thoughtful". Perhaps my favorite line comes from the Toronto Globe and Mail: "De Soto demolishes the entire edifice of postwar development economics, and replaces it with the answers bright young people everywhere have been demanding." Of course readers (especially those on the left) will have to swallow a few basic premises from the very beginning, such as "Capitalism stands alone as the only feasible way to rationally organize a modern economy" and "As all plausible alternatives to capitalism have now evaporated, we are finally in a position to study capital dispassionately and carefully." And most importantly, "Capital is the force that raises the productivity of labor and creates the wealth of nations.... it is the one thing that the poor countries of the world cannot seem to produce for themselves no matter how eagerly their people engage in all the other activities that characterize a capitalist economy." No matter how badly some of us may want to hold on to cherished ideals of collectivist economies, the reality is that at present these are only viable on a micro scale. For the moment, capitalism has won, and the only question is how to make it work to improve the lives of the bulk of the world. De Soto writes: "I do not view capitalism as a credo. Much more important to me are freedom, compassion for the poor, respect for the social contract, and equal opportunity. But for the moment, to achieve those goals, capitalism is the only game in town. It is the only system we know that provides us with the tools required to create massive surplus value."
According to De Soto, the problem outside the West is that while the poor have plenty of assets (land, homes, businesses), these assets lie overwhelmingly in the extralegal, informal realm. De Soto's on the ground research reveals that this is the result of an accelerated process of urbanization and population growth, coupled with the inability of legal systems to adapt to the reality of how people live. What has happened is that throughout the Third World, the costs of making assets legal (obtaining proper title to a house, registering a business, etc.), are so prohibitive both in terms of time and money, that the assets end up being what de Soto calls"dead capital." In the West, a web of financial and legal networks enable people to use their assets to create further wealth, through such tools as mortgages, publicly traded stocks, and the like. Outside the West, most people live and work outside the kind of invisible asset management infrastructure that we take for granted, and thus are unable to use their assets for the "representational purposes" we are able to. Thus the full set of capitalist tools are not available to them and it becomes incredibly hard to realize any kind of upward mobility.
One of the key sections of the book is "The Missing Lessons of U.S. History", in which de Soto demonstrates how the US faced the exact same challenge several hundred years ago. The difference is that the legal system was flexible enough over a century and a half to realign itsel
-
Brilliant Analysis Nov 14, 2000 (54 of 58 found this helpful)
In The Mystery of Capital, de Soto has gotten to the roots of why capitalism has developed into an effective system in the West: a system of official property ownership that was accessible to the average citizen. Using that understanding, he has developed a clear solution to problems in the Third World. Unlike many other solutions to poverty, de Soto's is rooted in the understanding that poor people control assets, and that official recognition of those assets can change their economic status. De Soto's brilliant analysis of how property ownership developed in the United States shows how this can work. As someone who worked in social change programs in the US for years, I am overwhelmed with the clarity, the simplicity and the pragmatic nature of de Soto's approach. Application of his principles can make effective, practical change.