Development by Consent – Econlib

March 2026 marked the 250th anniversary of the publication of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). However, Adam Smith was also the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and it was through his continuous revisions of this earlier work that his more famous book emerged. One of the most notable passages in TMS critiques the “the man of system”. In contrast, Smith describes the man of “public spirit,” highlighting the humility inherent in this character. Unlike the man of system, who insists on the righteousness of their ideal schemes and seeks to impose them on others, there is the humility of the man of public spirit. They claim no right to impose their notion of the good on others; instead they rely solely on persuasion and consent, never resorting to violence.

Unfortunately, throughout the long history of colonialism, slavery, and the treatment of indigenous peoples, many experts were men of system, rather than men of public spirit. Enter William Easterly’s critique of “development saviors” in Violent Saviors (2025). This book represents one of the most important contributions ever to the moral and methodological foundations of development economics. His argument challenges the technocratic view that development is primarily a technical problem of expert design and policy implementation. Instead, Easterly places development within a broader liberal tradition emphasizing freedom, dignity, and the consent of those whose lives are influence by economic policy. In this respect, Easterly’s work can be seen as reviving a core insight articulated most clearly by Adam Smith: development must arise from voluntary cooperation among individuals rather than from the imposed designs of external authorities. Easterly explicitly resists the “West and the Rest” framing that is prevalent in much of development economics.

He frames the debate over development as a conflict between two intellectual traditions. On one side are the “saviors,” who believe that enlightened experts can engineer progress for poorer societies through carefully designed policies and institutional reforms. On the other side are the “skeptics,” who emphasize the limits of expert knowledge and the importance of allowing individuals and communities to shape their own paths of social and economic development. The roots of this division can be traced back to the eighteenth century, when Adam Smith provided a powerful critique of the paternalistic logic that justified imperial conquest in the name of progress.

Easterly consistently argues that those affected by development planning must be given a voice in the process. Increases in a nation’s material wealth do not justify prioritizing institutional goals over individual needs. “Nothing about us, without us,” is the slogan that encapsulates Easterly’s message.

European powers frequently justified conquest by claiming that they were bringing civilization, Christianity, and economic improvement to the peoples they conquered. Smith rejected this narrative. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith described the “savage injustice” of European colonial expansion, conquest and exploitation rather than benevolent improvement. Instead of imposing progress through force, Smith envisioned an alternative based on voluntary exchange and mutual gains from trade. The meeting of different societies, he argued, could have produced enormous benefits if it had occurred through peaceful commerce rather than coercion.

The crucial issue for Smith and Easterly was not simply whether development increased material output but whether it respected the autonomy of individuals and communities. Exchange is morally legitimate because it requires mutual consent: each party must judge for themselves that the transaction improves their well-being. Coercive arrangements—whether colonial rule or paternalistic policy—violate this principle because they substitute the judgment of external authorities for the agency of the individuals directly affected. The central question was not merely whether development policies “work,” but whether they respect the freedom and dignity of those subjected to them. Dignity, respect, agency, and autonomy are the guiding principles, not efficiency, capital accumulation, and economic growth.

As we celebrate the publication of one of humanity’s greatest achievements, we pair Adam Smith and William Easterly. The liberal plan for Smith encompassed the pursuit of liberty, equality, and justice—cornerstones of his principles of political economy. Bill Easterly stands as worthy successor to this project, exploring not only the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, but also the dignity, respect, and liberty of the individuals who inhabit them.