توسعه ساخت ساده است. این فرضیه ژنتیکی قطعی برای توسعه اقتصادی است

This paper discusses the dangers inherent in attempting to simplify something as complex as development. It does this by exploring the Lynn and Vanhanen theory of deterministic development which asserts that varying levels of economic development seen between countries can be explained by differences in ‘national intelligence’ (national IQ). Assuming that intelligence is genetically determined, and as different races have been shown to have different IQ, then they argue that economic development (measured as GDP/capita) is largely a function of race and interventions to address imbalances can only have a limited impact. The paper presents the Lynne and Vanhanen case and critically discusses the data and analyses (linear regression) upon which it is based. It also extends the cause–effect basis of Lynne and Vanhanen's theory for economic development into human development by using the Human Development Index (HDI). It is argued that while there is nothing mathematically incorrect with their calculations, there are concerns over the data they employ. Even more fundamentally it is argued that statistically significant correlations between the various components of the HDI and national IQ can occur via a host of cause–effect pathways, and hence the genetic determinism theory is far from proven. The paper ends by discussing the dangers involved in the use of over-simplistic measures of development as a means of exploring cause–effect relationships. While the creators of development indices such as the HDI have good intentions, simplistic indices can encourage simplistic explanations of under-development.

A recent paper (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2001) and book (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002) have put forward what is perhaps potentially the most radical hypothesis in the post-colonial history of what is now called ‘development’. As a reviewer (Rushton, 2003) of the book has pointed out “This is a book that social scientists, policy experts. And global investment analysts cannot afford to ignore. It is one of the most brilliantly clarifying books this reviewer has ever read.” The authors attempt to explain why it is that some countries in the world are less economically developed than others and what can be done to help redress this? These really are big questions, and the debate over answers has raged since the 2nd World War when ‘development’ is often said to have been born ( Crenshaw and Ameen, 1994). The meaning of development and what can be done to address under-development are highly contentious. Indeed some are highly critical of commonly applied meanings of development used by the development industry and suggest that it is an invention and reflection of highly unequal power-differentials with little real difference being made in practice ( Estreva, 1992 and Escobar, 1995). Others counter such ‘postist’ (post-modern, post-structural) arguments as being deconstruction for the sake of it while the poor remain poor and instead point to the real differences that aid and structuralist interventions can make ( Blaikie, 2000).

While the national IQ data are open to question, the Lynn and Vanhanen evidence for their ‘deterministic economic development’ hypothesis is deeply flawed not so much by their statistical analysis but by way of their reification of correlation into cause–effect. Based on such an assumption they create a ‘natural’ order based on genotype; people are poor because they have bad ‘g’ genes. While race is a valid consideration within development (White, 2002), Lynn and Vanhanen present a worldview which narrows the options for intervention to those that can compensate for what they see as ‘deficiencies’ in genotype, notably by their recommendation for nutrition programs to boost the national IQ of less economically developed nations. Indeed if level of development is ‘determined’ then little can be done anyway. All of this has been built from a few nationally-aggregated data points, a simple regression and an assumed (not proven) cause–effect!