What do you think?
Rate this book
The Plundered Planet: Why We Must--and How We Can--Manage Nature for Global Prosperity
Paul Collier's The Bottom Billion was greeted as groundbreaking when it appeared in 2007, winning the Estoril Distinguished Book Prize, the Arthur Ross Book Award, and the Lionel Gelber Prize. Now, in The Plundered Planet, Collier builds upon his renowned work on developing countries and the world's poorest populations to confront the global mismanagement of natural resources.
Proper stewardship of natural assets and liabilities is a matter of planetary urgency: natural resources have the potential either to transform the poorest countries or to tear them apart, while the carbon emissions and agricultural follies of the developed world could further impoverish them. The Plundered Planet charts a course between unchecked profiteering on the one hand and environmental romanticism on the other to offer realistic and sustainable solutions to dauntingly complex issues.
Grounded in a belief in the power of informed citizens, Collier proposes a series of international standards that would help poor countries rich in natural assets better manage those resources, policy changes that would raise world food supply, and a clear-headed approach to climate change that acknowledges the benefits of industrialization while addressing the need for alternatives to carbon trading. Revealing how all of these forces interconnect, The Plundered Planet charts a way forward to avoid the mismanagement of the natural world that threatens our future.
Proper stewardship of natural assets and liabilities is a matter of planetary urgency: natural resources have the potential either to transform the poorest countries or to tear them apart, while the carbon emissions and agricultural follies of the developed world could further impoverish them. The Plundered Planet charts a course between unchecked profiteering on the one hand and environmental romanticism on the other to offer realistic and sustainable solutions to dauntingly complex issues.
Grounded in a belief in the power of informed citizens, Collier proposes a series of international standards that would help poor countries rich in natural assets better manage those resources, policy changes that would raise world food supply, and a clear-headed approach to climate change that acknowledges the benefits of industrialization while addressing the need for alternatives to carbon trading. Revealing how all of these forces interconnect, The Plundered Planet charts a way forward to avoid the mismanagement of the natural world that threatens our future.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
About the author
Paul Collier
115 books470 followersPaul Collier, CBE is a Professor of Economics, Director for the Centre for the Study of African Economies at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St Antony's College. He is the author of The Plundered Planet; Wars, Guns, and Votes; and The Bottom Billion, winner of Estoril Distinguished Book Prize, the Arthur Ross Book Award, and the Lionel Gelber Prize.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
June 18, 2020
I like Bottom Billion and some of the other work I have read by Collier on resources, democracy and conflict. I have not always agreed with, but I respect his work. In this context it pains me to write that this is one of the most startlingly bad books I have read by a professional academic.
Collier starts with a spectrum of people's response to environmental issues, the romantic (my words, anti-capitalist, primativist with 'ideological baggage') to the Ostrich (my words, the consumer, short-termist Neo-liberal). This spectrum is designed to place him in the middle as a rationalist, however he does little to justify his position against these two straw men in the spectrum. These unchecked ideological assumptions begin to look laughable as he argues that peoples arguments are 'encumbered by ethical baggage'[p.195]. He ends up being much closer to the ostrich than the position e creates for himself in the centre of the artificial spectrum.
This really is a book that argues for economics over nature. He admits that economists have done little to gain the trust of economists, before condemning them for their romanticism. A bad start. He argues that the two professions need each other while ignoring the long history of economists engaging with environmental issues such as Schumacher. He does little to engage with ideas that sit outside the orthodox economic dogma and even less to understand contributions from other disciplines, the most glaring omission being climate scientists. This would add a complexity to his calculations about the value and ethics of consumption of nature that he seems to want to avoid (but has been dealt with effectively by people such a The End of Economics?: Ethics and the Disorder of Progress.).
He extensively approaches how countries can benefit more from their resources. However, his focus on oil seems misguided in light of it's role in causing many of the crises that face us now. Oil has financial value, but the benefits oil are disproportionately transferred to rich countries rather than the countries selling it. This is demonstrated well by Toby Shelley in, Oil: Politics, Poverty and the Planet. There is also the looming spectre of global warming that will disproportionately devastate the global south. The countries he spends so much time telling us he dearly cares about will be the first to suffer, as he recognises, which makes his naive confidence in the systems that put them in that place all the more irksome. Not to mention his rejection of any role of the west in the underdevelopment of the Global South.
The chapter, 'natural liabilities', that attempts to deal with topics like pollution neglected elsewhere starts well, but quickly descends into more of the same unchecked ideology. He admits previous estimates of CO2's damage have underestimated before attempting to set a new price with little investigation into why this price might be more scientifically sound than previous prices. His confidence in technology yet invent on the basis that we have always innovated out of problems in the past looks flimsy, but is a commonly used argument by people who share his ideology. It is made flimsier by his faith in nuclear technology, which has fallen out of fashion because it is not as cost efficient as needed. This demonstrates the risk of global infrastructure trends which are found to not be as effective at solving the problem as initially thought, it may already be too late.
In one chapter he complains that national economies in Africa have a low saving rate before patronisingly explaining that they need to increase it for prosperity. He seems blind to issues such as debt and transfer pricing in Africa that have a crippling affect on African economies already susceptible to resource price fluctuations. The chapter, named 'selling the family silver', is naive and poorly informed by history or political economy.
Whilst the narrative of Collier and wider understanding of concepts relating to science, history and politics show a fundamental lack of knowledge that raise serious questions about his opinion and work, some of his policy suggestions seem interesting. They are, however, often no less Utopian or ideological than the policies of others that he doesn't mention but one gets the impression he means when he writes about 'romanticism'. Ideas such as government commissioned geological surveys funded by aid, or better tax auditing done by consultancy firms seem to be the most realistic. Global fishing regulations or consensus led by the wealthiest and largest countries on a path towards a low carbon future seem no less Utopian than what is already being asked for by much of the environmental movement already.
Collier's work is startlingly lazy, he doesn't even have a reference section (only referencing himself) and recycles many ideas from Bottom Billion, the lack of intellectual rigour and failure to engage with other perspectives other than as straw men mean this book is not even useful for someone trying to get a different perspective. I have to admit I gave up with 30 pages to go because the first 210 pages were so bad there is little he can do to redeem it in the last 30.
if you are interested in the economics and political economy of climate change in a relatively readable form Development as Freedom, The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions and Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist are good books to read.
Collier starts with a spectrum of people's response to environmental issues, the romantic (my words, anti-capitalist, primativist with 'ideological baggage') to the Ostrich (my words, the consumer, short-termist Neo-liberal). This spectrum is designed to place him in the middle as a rationalist, however he does little to justify his position against these two straw men in the spectrum. These unchecked ideological assumptions begin to look laughable as he argues that peoples arguments are 'encumbered by ethical baggage'[p.195]. He ends up being much closer to the ostrich than the position e creates for himself in the centre of the artificial spectrum.
This really is a book that argues for economics over nature. He admits that economists have done little to gain the trust of economists, before condemning them for their romanticism. A bad start. He argues that the two professions need each other while ignoring the long history of economists engaging with environmental issues such as Schumacher. He does little to engage with ideas that sit outside the orthodox economic dogma and even less to understand contributions from other disciplines, the most glaring omission being climate scientists. This would add a complexity to his calculations about the value and ethics of consumption of nature that he seems to want to avoid (but has been dealt with effectively by people such a The End of Economics?: Ethics and the Disorder of Progress.).
He extensively approaches how countries can benefit more from their resources. However, his focus on oil seems misguided in light of it's role in causing many of the crises that face us now. Oil has financial value, but the benefits oil are disproportionately transferred to rich countries rather than the countries selling it. This is demonstrated well by Toby Shelley in, Oil: Politics, Poverty and the Planet. There is also the looming spectre of global warming that will disproportionately devastate the global south. The countries he spends so much time telling us he dearly cares about will be the first to suffer, as he recognises, which makes his naive confidence in the systems that put them in that place all the more irksome. Not to mention his rejection of any role of the west in the underdevelopment of the Global South.
The chapter, 'natural liabilities', that attempts to deal with topics like pollution neglected elsewhere starts well, but quickly descends into more of the same unchecked ideology. He admits previous estimates of CO2's damage have underestimated before attempting to set a new price with little investigation into why this price might be more scientifically sound than previous prices. His confidence in technology yet invent on the basis that we have always innovated out of problems in the past looks flimsy, but is a commonly used argument by people who share his ideology. It is made flimsier by his faith in nuclear technology, which has fallen out of fashion because it is not as cost efficient as needed. This demonstrates the risk of global infrastructure trends which are found to not be as effective at solving the problem as initially thought, it may already be too late.
In one chapter he complains that national economies in Africa have a low saving rate before patronisingly explaining that they need to increase it for prosperity. He seems blind to issues such as debt and transfer pricing in Africa that have a crippling affect on African economies already susceptible to resource price fluctuations. The chapter, named 'selling the family silver', is naive and poorly informed by history or political economy.
Whilst the narrative of Collier and wider understanding of concepts relating to science, history and politics show a fundamental lack of knowledge that raise serious questions about his opinion and work, some of his policy suggestions seem interesting. They are, however, often no less Utopian or ideological than the policies of others that he doesn't mention but one gets the impression he means when he writes about 'romanticism'. Ideas such as government commissioned geological surveys funded by aid, or better tax auditing done by consultancy firms seem to be the most realistic. Global fishing regulations or consensus led by the wealthiest and largest countries on a path towards a low carbon future seem no less Utopian than what is already being asked for by much of the environmental movement already.
Collier's work is startlingly lazy, he doesn't even have a reference section (only referencing himself) and recycles many ideas from Bottom Billion, the lack of intellectual rigour and failure to engage with other perspectives other than as straw men mean this book is not even useful for someone trying to get a different perspective. I have to admit I gave up with 30 pages to go because the first 210 pages were so bad there is little he can do to redeem it in the last 30.
if you are interested in the economics and political economy of climate change in a relatively readable form Development as Freedom, The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions and Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist are good books to read.
February 26, 2012
Paul Collier writes well about economics and development of poorer nations. The Bottom Billion, his award-winning manual on what holds nations back and how they can overcome their challenges, earned him invitations from leaders around the world.
The Plundered Planet delves further into one of the difficulties identified in The Bottom Billion: the difficulty emerging nations face in reaping the benefits of natural resources. How to capture the value of natural resources and preserve their wealth while staying within ecological bounds and avoiding the slide into plunder?
This sounds like a book right up my alley: one that looks to strike a balance between social, environmental and democratic imperatives. And when Collier sticks to areas of his expertise I get a lot out of The Plundered Planet. When he strays into other fields I suffer. Early on in the book he sets up one of his lines of argument by identifying what he calls the Romantics. These are those blind to all issues but environmental and are typified by Prince Charles who, Collier reports, has set up some kind of old world village where peasants are preserved. Collier repeatedly lampoons the Prince of Wales as an example of a pious, muddleheaded environmentalist. And he may be. But he’s not a spokesperson of the environmental movement and his place in society has not been created on the back of his enviro credentials.
To balance his Romantic Collier describes the Ostrich who advocates for winning the scramble for natural resources and sees ecological issues as problems for the future if problems at all. Unfortunately the Ostrich does not feature after the preface of The Plundered Planet. Seems to me Collier wanted to tread a middle path so set the Romantic and Ostrich extremities to match, but by leaving out arguments against Ostriches for the remaining 250 pages he starts to veer in their direction.
Throughout the book Collier reveals himself in offhand statements that are far from self-evident truths. Nature is here to serve us, he says on page 32. It’s there for us to make something of, he continues, and this is justified with a parable from the bible. On page 208 I made note of the language he uses to describe the 2008 global financial crisis: a catastrophe, a crisis. Then on the same page he talks of the 2008 food shortage in northern Africa as a “major political event.”
And now to what I liked about The Plundered Planet: parts two and three. Here Collier sticks to the economics of natural assets and puts some ideas down as to how their value can be captured and built upon. I like the way he puts weight into his arguments not with formulae but by looking at case histories en masse. It’s powerful and thought provoking stuff. One particularly memorable moment is when Collier compares carbon dioxide to lobsters. Under the ethics of custody, humans of the present are entitled to eat the sustainable harvest of lobsters. To eat more would be ruinously expensive as we’d have to compensate future humans for something they’d (being richer than us) value much higher than we do. The same model holds for a safe climate. Under utilitarianism, he continues, the same conclusion is reached by a different method. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions now is our ethical obligation.
The Plundered Planet delves further into one of the difficulties identified in The Bottom Billion: the difficulty emerging nations face in reaping the benefits of natural resources. How to capture the value of natural resources and preserve their wealth while staying within ecological bounds and avoiding the slide into plunder?
This sounds like a book right up my alley: one that looks to strike a balance between social, environmental and democratic imperatives. And when Collier sticks to areas of his expertise I get a lot out of The Plundered Planet. When he strays into other fields I suffer. Early on in the book he sets up one of his lines of argument by identifying what he calls the Romantics. These are those blind to all issues but environmental and are typified by Prince Charles who, Collier reports, has set up some kind of old world village where peasants are preserved. Collier repeatedly lampoons the Prince of Wales as an example of a pious, muddleheaded environmentalist. And he may be. But he’s not a spokesperson of the environmental movement and his place in society has not been created on the back of his enviro credentials.
To balance his Romantic Collier describes the Ostrich who advocates for winning the scramble for natural resources and sees ecological issues as problems for the future if problems at all. Unfortunately the Ostrich does not feature after the preface of The Plundered Planet. Seems to me Collier wanted to tread a middle path so set the Romantic and Ostrich extremities to match, but by leaving out arguments against Ostriches for the remaining 250 pages he starts to veer in their direction.
Throughout the book Collier reveals himself in offhand statements that are far from self-evident truths. Nature is here to serve us, he says on page 32. It’s there for us to make something of, he continues, and this is justified with a parable from the bible. On page 208 I made note of the language he uses to describe the 2008 global financial crisis: a catastrophe, a crisis. Then on the same page he talks of the 2008 food shortage in northern Africa as a “major political event.”
And now to what I liked about The Plundered Planet: parts two and three. Here Collier sticks to the economics of natural assets and puts some ideas down as to how their value can be captured and built upon. I like the way he puts weight into his arguments not with formulae but by looking at case histories en masse. It’s powerful and thought provoking stuff. One particularly memorable moment is when Collier compares carbon dioxide to lobsters. Under the ethics of custody, humans of the present are entitled to eat the sustainable harvest of lobsters. To eat more would be ruinously expensive as we’d have to compensate future humans for something they’d (being richer than us) value much higher than we do. The same model holds for a safe climate. Under utilitarianism, he continues, the same conclusion is reached by a different method. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions now is our ethical obligation.
March 2, 2014
Oversimplifies solutions he suggests for use of world's resources.
Doesn't seem to take enough account of greed and corruption.
Not enough about what will happen when all non-renewables are used up and controlling world population growth.
Doesn't seem to take enough account of greed and corruption.
Not enough about what will happen when all non-renewables are used up and controlling world population growth.
May 1, 2024
In The Plundered Planet, Paul Collier describes natural resource management strategies for largely poor countries in a centrist lens. While some of what he presents is salient, there are some outstanding problems that need addressed.
The biggest problem is what undermines the arguments of most economists. They ignore reality to make their arguments work. While Collier does talk about externalities to some extent (the thing most economists leave out), he leaves out other crucial factors to make his arguments work. He believes all natural resources exist to be used for the benefit of humans. This stance ignores that resource extraction and exploitation has profound effects on the planet, which in turn affects us, whether on species we depend on or on environments. This is to ignore ecosystem services, habitability, pollution, etc. He is woefully ignorant when it comes to ecology and in fact does not mention the word in the entire book. He criticizes environmental "romanticism" throughout the entire book which is a priming technique used to ignore environmental realities such as interconnections between environment and development.
Additionally, his viewpoint that these resources exist to serve us align with the irrational view economists have that growth is endless. Under this illogic, he believes that future generations will be richer than us, which is to assume that things will continue to improve. This denies facts like how natural resources are finite, renewable ones are subject to collapse, that tipping points will almost certainly occur that will fundamentally change the world forever. His assumption we will continue to get richer means he discounts future generations. This is a grave error, because it rides on the fact that he's right. And he almost certainly isn't when it comes to our calculations of the future. Think about any sci-fi movie or book that takes places in the future. Once the future passes, we realize how far off the future really is from our predictions.
On top of those criticisms, we have the cringe that comes along with an older, white-male centrist. While colonialism is mentioned a few times, it's largely in passing. At the country level, he largely blames Africa's poverty on bad governments while ignore most of history. He also fails to fully describe the current wave of colonialism taking place in these countries by multinational corruptions. These corporations, especially those in energy or metals, have enormous impacts on the instability and corruption of these governments. It's certainly not surprising a techno-optimist left that out there. Corporations are his World Bank's bedfellows. And speaking of personal responsibility, he puts nearly no weight into the fact that wealthy countries must change their lifestyles in order to accommodate modest growth by the Global South. That's how you know he's not really a centrist, because "personal responsibility", especially when describing poor people of color, is nothing more than a racist dogwhistle. If only they could be more responsible then the World Bank would be succeeding!
The biggest problem is what undermines the arguments of most economists. They ignore reality to make their arguments work. While Collier does talk about externalities to some extent (the thing most economists leave out), he leaves out other crucial factors to make his arguments work. He believes all natural resources exist to be used for the benefit of humans. This stance ignores that resource extraction and exploitation has profound effects on the planet, which in turn affects us, whether on species we depend on or on environments. This is to ignore ecosystem services, habitability, pollution, etc. He is woefully ignorant when it comes to ecology and in fact does not mention the word in the entire book. He criticizes environmental "romanticism" throughout the entire book which is a priming technique used to ignore environmental realities such as interconnections between environment and development.
Additionally, his viewpoint that these resources exist to serve us align with the irrational view economists have that growth is endless. Under this illogic, he believes that future generations will be richer than us, which is to assume that things will continue to improve. This denies facts like how natural resources are finite, renewable ones are subject to collapse, that tipping points will almost certainly occur that will fundamentally change the world forever. His assumption we will continue to get richer means he discounts future generations. This is a grave error, because it rides on the fact that he's right. And he almost certainly isn't when it comes to our calculations of the future. Think about any sci-fi movie or book that takes places in the future. Once the future passes, we realize how far off the future really is from our predictions.
On top of those criticisms, we have the cringe that comes along with an older, white-male centrist. While colonialism is mentioned a few times, it's largely in passing. At the country level, he largely blames Africa's poverty on bad governments while ignore most of history. He also fails to fully describe the current wave of colonialism taking place in these countries by multinational corruptions. These corporations, especially those in energy or metals, have enormous impacts on the instability and corruption of these governments. It's certainly not surprising a techno-optimist left that out there. Corporations are his World Bank's bedfellows. And speaking of personal responsibility, he puts nearly no weight into the fact that wealthy countries must change their lifestyles in order to accommodate modest growth by the Global South. That's how you know he's not really a centrist, because "personal responsibility", especially when describing poor people of color, is nothing more than a racist dogwhistle. If only they could be more responsible then the World Bank would be succeeding!
December 26, 2014
Underlying some interesting arguments is what seems to me a fundamentally flawed premise--that our planet consists of resources and a single species that has the right to use them ("The oceans are not national territory; they are the true global dominion of mankind" is not the only statement of this kind in the book). Collier pays attention to future humans but ignores all other species. Humans aren't the only consumers of the fish that he discusses at length, yet he makes no mention of those other consumers or their impact on the planet. Without considering all the species that would be affected by humans' growing and using genetically modified food, for example, he cannot make a convincing argument that the ban on such food should be lifted.
December 9, 2021
You can't possibly seriously write about a "plundered planet", and not even mentioned the issue of debt-finance, which is at the root cause of global poverty, exploitation and plunder, in any case. But then, if you look at Collier's history, he has worked profoundly for the World Bank and rubbed shoulders with the IMF many times. Also note that this book was publicly praised by George Soros. That should tell you something.
Collier's fervent belief in climate catastrophism has also shaped a lot of his views, and his advocacy of various hare-brained global schemes to curb emissions of the dreaded CO2, which in reality, just means more world government and more monopolising of global resources by the well-connected elites. His advocacy for Big Ag to take over more and more family farms because of an alleged global food shortage, also fits the bill perfectly for what the rationalist global technocrats want. Collier's rantings against protectionism and populism merely highlight his own limited thinking - it's not all about the economy, stupid. Communities, nations, and cultures matter too. Of course, when consumers rely on so much cheap (often processed) food shipped around the world, rather than bought from local sources, you've also got resultant environmental and economic costs.
In any case, in the not-too-distant future, technological advances is science and genetics will see a lot of food produced in laboritories, and this will be a game-changer. This was not factored in.
I will, however, praise Collier for having some very good insights and possible solutions on the one environmental crisis we do effectively face - declining global fish stocks.
Ultimately, though, I hope that readers of this book don't get too seduced. "The Plundered Planet" is not part of the solution; it's ultimately part of the problem, especially as it doesn't address the need for monetary reform.
Collier's fervent belief in climate catastrophism has also shaped a lot of his views, and his advocacy of various hare-brained global schemes to curb emissions of the dreaded CO2, which in reality, just means more world government and more monopolising of global resources by the well-connected elites. His advocacy for Big Ag to take over more and more family farms because of an alleged global food shortage, also fits the bill perfectly for what the rationalist global technocrats want. Collier's rantings against protectionism and populism merely highlight his own limited thinking - it's not all about the economy, stupid. Communities, nations, and cultures matter too. Of course, when consumers rely on so much cheap (often processed) food shipped around the world, rather than bought from local sources, you've also got resultant environmental and economic costs.
In any case, in the not-too-distant future, technological advances is science and genetics will see a lot of food produced in laboritories, and this will be a game-changer. This was not factored in.
I will, however, praise Collier for having some very good insights and possible solutions on the one environmental crisis we do effectively face - declining global fish stocks.
Ultimately, though, I hope that readers of this book don't get too seduced. "The Plundered Planet" is not part of the solution; it's ultimately part of the problem, especially as it doesn't address the need for monetary reform.
April 5, 2020
As a reader who is somewhat naive about economics, global politics and many aspects of environmentalism, I have found this book to be a useful starting place for thinking about these issues. In particular, it is interesting to see the process of using an ethical framework to tackle such questions as: Who should prospect for natural resources? Who should mine them? Should the lion's share of the 'profit' be saved or invested in the economy?
The ethical framework used by the author is one he names "the ethics of custody": nature has no inherent value on its own, only that conferred to it by society; our responsibility to nature is not to preserve it as it is, but to leave future generations something of equivalent value when we take something from it; failing to compensate the future for our activities--mining, over-fishing, greenhouse gas emissions--constitutes a justice issue, "plunder". While I do not find it necessary to agree with this framework or, indeed, some of the conclusions the author goes on to make, I have found The Plundered Planet to be an insightful read that helps the reader begin asking the right questions.
The ethical framework used by the author is one he names "the ethics of custody": nature has no inherent value on its own, only that conferred to it by society; our responsibility to nature is not to preserve it as it is, but to leave future generations something of equivalent value when we take something from it; failing to compensate the future for our activities--mining, over-fishing, greenhouse gas emissions--constitutes a justice issue, "plunder". While I do not find it necessary to agree with this framework or, indeed, some of the conclusions the author goes on to make, I have found The Plundered Planet to be an insightful read that helps the reader begin asking the right questions.
August 10, 2020
Some interesting ideas but the romantic view on capitalism and big finance and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a minority is just being ignored. He fits perfectly in the economic aftermath of Friedman with a bit more regulation. Being wealthy and being able to consume all day long is not enhancing happiness after a certain salary which is backed by scientific research on that matter. So the focus of economics if it really wants to go down the utilitarian line should be to improve overall living quality! Nevertheless his ideas on some topics are valid and set incentives to think about.
May 12, 2021
Interesting topic, but this is one of the most boring books that i have read. Collier is so technocratic that his writing style is extremely tedious and that is an achievement, when he frames his book as a centrist approach to environmentalism, extractivism and poverty.
But the worst thing about this book is the lack of exact citations. Collier challenges many assumptions that i hold and the lack of citations in the text itself, makes me question ideas credibility.
In a objective view this book is good, because the author have concrete solutions to many problems, but the lack of engaging and passionate writing made this book a struggle to read and i am a University student!
But the worst thing about this book is the lack of exact citations. Collier challenges many assumptions that i hold and the lack of citations in the text itself, makes me question ideas credibility.
In a objective view this book is good, because the author have concrete solutions to many problems, but the lack of engaging and passionate writing made this book a struggle to read and i am a University student!
February 6, 2021
A book for our times
With rapid growth of population with dodgy sustainable government policies across continents but most especially in Africa, this book highlights why nature and natural resources must be well taken care of. Good governance, corporate ethics, and collective responsibility are some of what is needed to mitigate the issues at stake.
This is an important book especially for university students in Africa!
With rapid growth of population with dodgy sustainable government policies across continents but most especially in Africa, this book highlights why nature and natural resources must be well taken care of. Good governance, corporate ethics, and collective responsibility are some of what is needed to mitigate the issues at stake.
This is an important book especially for university students in Africa!
April 14, 2018
4.5/5 stars. I had to deduct half of star for something I didn't like in the book. But that is a personal view and I imagine the majority of the people will not the bothered. This is the second book I read by him and I think it's great.
I really like Paul Collier's style. He explains his views so clearly and sometimes in a funny way. Of course, he is an economist and the book is filled with economic terms and ideas.
Full review on Coffee and Books.
I really like Paul Collier's style. He explains his views so clearly and sometimes in a funny way. Of course, he is an economist and the book is filled with economic terms and ideas.
Full review on Coffee and Books.
September 17, 2017
Thought provoking book on tough subject that asks us to think outside jumping on the popular and or romantic bandwagon of environmentalism.
September 23, 2025
Mind-numbingly dull. Inert prose combined with unpersuasive argumentation.
July 16, 2010
Interesting book about our natural resources and how they are used and abused. Lots of stories from countries around the world.
What exactly should we do with natural resources? We have already over-fished the oceans, with everyone looking out for their own interests, plunder is what happens....
A country like Norway has benefited tremendously. They saved all the money they got for their oil and invested it. They distribute the income from the investments to their citizens. That way, the money is not all consumed and will be there for future generations.....
In Kuwait, the citizens live off the investments, also. However, this is not practical in many other countries. If they are underdeveloped, they will need to invest in infrastructure in order to even be able to take advantage of what they do have.
In other cases, foreign companies will come in and take the profits, or corrupt governments will benefit.
What exactly should we do with natural resources? We have already over-fished the oceans, with everyone looking out for their own interests, plunder is what happens....
A country like Norway has benefited tremendously. They saved all the money they got for their oil and invested it. They distribute the income from the investments to their citizens. That way, the money is not all consumed and will be there for future generations.....
In Kuwait, the citizens live off the investments, also. However, this is not practical in many other countries. If they are underdeveloped, they will need to invest in infrastructure in order to even be able to take advantage of what they do have.
In other cases, foreign companies will come in and take the profits, or corrupt governments will benefit.
July 24, 2015
Collier presents an interesting account of the challenges developing states face when attempting to balance environmental concerns and economic development. Collier lays out the challenges to explore the ways in which development countries have recently dealt with the political/economic expectations of their populations and the world's growing concern about the environment. Collier spends a lot of time focused on the way that developing countries have been exploited by outside corporations as they try to harness their natural resources. Collier goes on to propose several ways to solve the problems of the so-called resource curse while still being environmentally responsible and insuring that future generations can still benefit economically.
Overall, really good book. I wish some of the proposed solutions were a little more realistic, but I think this book is definitely more helpful than a lot of environmental economic books.
Overall, really good book. I wish some of the proposed solutions were a little more realistic, but I think this book is definitely more helpful than a lot of environmental economic books.
June 29, 2015
In this follow up to The Bottom Billion, Collier considers the importance of environmental stewardship as it relates to fighting poverty, and discusses the realities of resource extraction in Africa. These are emotionally powerful issues for many people but Collier treats them with a measured, philosophical distance. This leads him to some positions that don't seem to sit well with environmentalism (he is FOR conventional agriculture and oil exploration) but his ideas and research methods are annoyingly careful and precise, boring but sensible. That said, they often don't seem to fit in political reality. For example, after carefully discussing the problems of overfishing and global warming, both classic collective action problems, Collier's solution is to auction off fishing/carbon rights at the behest of some international body like the UN. Easier said than done!
August 20, 2013
Paul Collier is a well known name amongst economists and indeed I was given this book by a friend who studies economics. It provides a completely different insight into sustainability, the environment and importantly offers real credible solutions.
As an engineer, at times I found Collier's style of writing monotonous and economic terms hard to grasp, nonetheless there are some gems littered throughout the book and it is worth persevering. In particular these three poignant equations:
"nature + technology + regulation = prosperity"
"nature + technology - regulation = plunder"
"nature - technology + regulation = hunger"
Because of how solid Collier's research is I found myself in constant agreement with his theories, made even more compelling by his unassuming, humble manner of analysing issues across the globe.
As an engineer, at times I found Collier's style of writing monotonous and economic terms hard to grasp, nonetheless there are some gems littered throughout the book and it is worth persevering. In particular these three poignant equations:
"nature + technology + regulation = prosperity"
"nature + technology - regulation = plunder"
"nature - technology + regulation = hunger"
Because of how solid Collier's research is I found myself in constant agreement with his theories, made even more compelling by his unassuming, humble manner of analysing issues across the globe.
December 6, 2010
I like Collier because he takes problems we've all heard about, breaks them down rationally, and then creates solutions. I wonder how plausible the solutions are given political reality, but seeing world leaders calling on Collier gives me some hope. I also think the solutions are more practical than radical changes (or radical denial) advocated from each of the political extremes.
As the title implies, Collier deals with the topics of resource extraction and management of global environmental/natural assets and liabilities. The analytical methods he uses are sound, and as when reading the Bottom Billion, I found his proposals "clicked" with me.
As the title implies, Collier deals with the topics of resource extraction and management of global environmental/natural assets and liabilities. The analytical methods he uses are sound, and as when reading the Bottom Billion, I found his proposals "clicked" with me.
December 31, 2012
More technical than I was expecting, but still an interesting and wide-ranging analysis on many aspects of sustainable development. Collier is a brilliant mind and he is able to jump between many different social and environmental issues seemingly effortlessly. My mind had to work a little harder to make sure I fully grasped the concepts. Overall, a good, though dense, read.
August 21, 2011
Scary. What more can be said, but we need to do something to prepare for the calamitous weather we have created for ourselves. Unfortunately those to be most affected, live on far away islands and parts of Africa, where we Americans will feel little remorse.
June 16, 2010
I really enjoyed Collier's "The Bottom Billion", and think that he did a good job of following up on that with "The Plundered Planet". Unfortunately, I think he went astray at the end when discussing ag policy for africa, and left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
January 24, 2011
Otro libro lleno de "bon sens", respaldado a su vez por una sólida economía. Una lectura útil, casi obligatoria para no repetir, como en nuestro caso, los viejos errores en el manejo de los recursos naturales, para que estos sirvan bien a los que viven hoy y a los que vivirán mañana.
June 8, 2012
Great book with really wide reaching implications towards providing actual solutions for world hunger. Great argument against the banning of GM crops and the general "fear of science" that seems to be prevalent today.
Read
October 2, 2010If you're running a poor country and want to turn it into a middle-income country, this how-to book is for you.
January 9, 2012
Really strong and original take on natural resources in developing countries.
July 31, 2013
This was my least favorite of Collier's books; however, it did have some good take-aways.
April 6, 2016
A road map for nations trying to avoid the 'resource curse'.
January 31, 2012
Some very clear thinking about complex problems.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews