Poverty Alleviation : Debt: The First thousand Years

Debt: The First thousand Years

  “ On the experience of Moral Confusion”

 Abstract

David Graeber is an American anthropologist and activist who is currently Professor of Anthropology at the London School of Economics. Debt: The First 5000 Years is a book published by him in 2011. In this chapter he analyzes the function of debt in human history and moral confusion related to debt in present age. He presented his argument by discussing his meeting with an anti-poverty activist who was unaware to IMF. He told her that he is against IMF because IMF and institution functioning like IMF are apparently working for poverty alleviation and economic growth of a country but imposes certain type of terms and condition which became harmful and more destructing for third world countries. These 3^rd world countries kept of paying debt and it never get on from them because they increase their interest rate. But the activist ‘s point view was that those third world countries should pay their debts because of this statement that “ One has to pay their debts”. The author argued that that it is a moral statement not an economic one but its implications are not applicable to all.

Analysis 

The author discusses the historical examples of different countries which explains the relationship between debt, morality, powerful and powerless actors. Morality related to debt is defined by the powerful in history, as the one who lends money is always powerful in some way than debtors and some kind of violence is also associated it with the money lending practices. He mentioned example of Madagascar where France after invasion introduces taxes for building bridges and plantations etc and they told Malagasy people that they owed money to France and those people are facing those debts till now.  So debt is always justified as ‘victor’s justice’ but this is not the case in Haiti’s situation because they were unwanted winners when they resisted against France and they won but France put sanctions on them and make them debtors by accusing them for destruction of plantations etc. and international community also sided with France on this. So throughout history, certain sorts of debt, and certain sorts of debtor, have always been treated differently than others.

According to the author, if we look into history debt is always paid by powerless and weak people who are ruled by powerful people. Those powerless and weak people didn’t have say because debt was considered under dimensions of morality that everyone should pay. After reading the chapter  and the closely analyzing the authors standpoint I consider myself very confused concerning debt and the ways it has been defined and linked with the morality. Debt has always been beneficial for lender and not for borrower because more sanctions and interests are imposed on them with debt which makes their condition more miserable than anything which exceeds actual cost amounts sometimes.

Conclusion 

I would conclude this by arguing that one has to pay his debts is not amoral statement but a statement which has different definitions in different context. So paying one’s debt is not issue of morality but it is surrounded by the power structures.