I like how you bring US development into this discussion. It’s a good point. I also agree that while individual self-interest may be sufficient for private accumulation, anger (or more specifically collective action) is necessary for public goods. I suspect that is why the former is so much more prevalent in developing countries than the latter.

Andrew,

I agree with you fully, I am talking about supplying order. The market is doing an excellent job in providing consumer goods, but a lousy one at providing order. My point was that both have a role in the development process as they complement one another (e.g., we are more likely to trade with each other if there is a good road connecting our businesses than if no road exists). Fair point on being an out-of-towner, by the way, but the locals I asked concurred.

You point out Beirut’s crowded and dangerous streets, and say they demonstrate a lack of public goods (traffic lights, law enforcement, etc.). That’s fine as far as it goes. But the very existence of “upscale” malls, hotels, anything, in the absence of government, only goes to show that government was not necessary to that development process. It certainly doesn’t show the opposite.

Then you finish up by talking about the “indispensable role the government plays in economic development.” But what your example really says is that government plays a role in establishing and maintaining public *order.* The “chaos” in between the “islands of development” might just as easily indicate that the development is in an early stage. The “chaos” does not necessarily indicate a need for state-led development. A nice little slight of hand.

Additionally, the perception of “chaos” might indicate that you’re an out-of-towner. And the expectation that development should be “everywhere-all-at-once” seems to come from a strongly American viewpoint.