J. Barkley sez that "it's hard to get things going and succeeding in very poor countries." Over the years I've been told by top engineers, hydrologists, administrators, et al., in the South that if the WB wanted to, the right effort could abolish poverty in six months, at the latest. The labor is there, the technology is there, the ecological resources are there...but the money isn't because of the existence of capitalist relations of production, capitalist property, and a state peopled by thieves and murderers, and U.S. et al., imperialism. There is no poverty in Cuba, despite the fact that Cuba faces all kinds of external barriers to development, despite the fact that Cuba has socialism in one industry (sugar). Similarly, our City Council and County Board of Supervisors in Santa Cruz could abolish local poverty in a month, if they want to, and were willing to risk the disapproval of the Chamber of Commerce, et al. It's functional for the system. Check out my forthcoming House Organ in the June issue of CNS. That's why the WB/IMF/ADB, et al., speak of "poverty reduction" not "poverty abolition."
J. Barkley also sez that "the locals" often want "big dam projects." Here again the problem is a lack of specificity. Typically, big dams flood the lands of farmers who are doing ok, despite the poor soil they have to work with. Those in favor of big dams farm at lower levels subject to flood-drought cycles, due to deforestation. These farmers typically have much more land than their highlands brethren, and better land. The solution: not one big dam but a series of smaller dams plus a runoff system to prevent flooding at lower lying levels and also to store water. But this system yields less prestige to government agencies and politicians.
Jim O'Connor