Mark Thoma links to this article by Bill Easterly about the history of economic development in the mid-twentieth century. Easterly writes:

Why does this history matter today . . . I [Easterly] do NOT mean to imply guilt by association for development as imperialist and racist; there are many theories of development and many who work on development (including many from developing countries themselves) that have nothing to do with imperialism and racism.

But I [Easterly] think the origin of development as cover for imperialism and racism did have toxic legacies for some. First, it meant that the concept of development was determined to fit a propaganda imperative; it was NOT a breakthrough in thought by economists. Second, it followed that development from the beginning would stress the central role of Western aid to help the helpless natives. . . And this history also seems strangely relevant with today’s “humanitarian” nouveau-imperialism to invade and fix “failed states” like Iraq and Afghanistan.

I defer to Easterly both on the history and the economics of international development, but I do have one criticism of his argument. It is my impression that a lot of ideas in economic development are not just about the interaction between “first world” and “third world” countries (Easterly’s focus) but also relate to struggles within individual third world countries. In some countries, the international development people were opposing white elites. This doesn’t mean that either side was necessarily correct in its economic assumptions, but it seems a bit extreme to think of economic development experts as supporting white superiority.

Of all the first-world institutions that were influencing poorer countries during those times fifty years ago, I’d think that the international development community was one of the less racist.