In the early 1970s, David Halberstam wrote a book about the origins of the Vietnam war entitled The Best and the Brightest. The book reflected on the "whiz kids" recruited by President Kennedy to help run his administration. We know that it all turned out badly, but the fact remains that many members of the Kennedy cabinet were literally the best and the brightest of their generation.

Robert McNamara was a card carrying member of both the whiz kid club (the phrase originates from US veterans who became Ford executives in 1946) and the Kennedy administration (Secretary of Defence). He later on became President of the World Bank and led it through its formative and most glorious period (1970s to early 1980s). It is therefore appropriate that the new best and the brightest have come together to write a book financed and led by the World Bank. No, it is not a cookbook, and in fact emphatically rejects that description. The book is entitled The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development. Led by Michael Spence, Nobel prize winning economist, the report's authors include the best and the brightest. The list includes Robert Solow (the dean of all growth economists, and a Noble laureate) and several academics turned technocrats turned politicians turned Presidents, PMs, and Finance Ministers. Much more than a Who's Who, it is the best of the B&B's.

It would not be an exaggeration to state that never before has a finer set of minds, and people, come together on a non-scientific project (I presume the development of the atom bomb had some very bright minds). But it would be a gross exaggeration to state that their report is worthy of such lofty inputs. An important reason for this might be the silent desire to accommodate all views, to be politically correct, to not be critical of any policy that the 21-odd members of the commission had ever advocated during their days of influence, and to not be critical of any government now in power in the commissioners of respective countries (Brazil, China, India, Korea, Mexico, Peru, Turkey, the US, etc. etc.)

Well, what does the report say that it is soooo balanced, and therefore uninformative? There are several reasons, only some that can be mentioned here. The report tries to be a bit too subtle by attempting to distance itself from the (now) much-maligned Washington Consensus. The WC was a set of sensible policies that John Williamson had articulated two decades ago as near necessary conditions for successful growth. Two decades later, the Growth Commission rediscovers those 10 principles and in order to be different, balanced, and appear to be learning from doing, and economic, it outlines only five principles of successful growth. These principles are based on experiences of 13 countries, all of whom have achieved a growth rate of above 7 per cent for at least 25 years (India and Vietnam should join this elite club in a few years). The 13 countries include five with a population less than 7 million, including tiny Malta with a population of 400,000.

The Report is quite definite about the important reasons for such exceptional success: "Growth at such a quick pace, over such a long period, requires strong political leadership … Such leadership requires patience, a long planning horizon, and an unwavering focus on the goal of inclusive growth" (pg. 3).

As the Roman crowd would say, tell us about the five principles, the five principles (the will, the will, they hysterically shouted at Julius Caesar's funeral). They are: openness to the world (exploitation of the world economy); macroeconomic stability (at least more than half openness); high rates of savings and investment; markets allocate resources (again, openness); and committed, credible and capable governments. Is there a policy prescription there besides be good, be balanced, be open, but make sure you save and invest a lot? And how different are these reduced five principles than the ten in the much-criticised (but so politically correct to do so) Washington Consensus?

The report has deeper problems than an intelligent restatement of tautologies. In its attempt to be balanced, it sometimes shifts over deeply into an apologetic mode for government intervention. Two examples should suffice. First, it washes its hands of all those anarchists by stating that they are not with those who would write "government out of the script". By unnecessarily setting up straw women easily toppled by the BB&B might, the report undersells its distinguished participation. No one argues for no role for the government, so who is the Report so condescendingly distancing itself from? The debate is about whether the government does a good job in its spending and taxation, notwithstanding its noble attributes of being "committed, credible, and capable". Given that the most pressing problem in all economies, especially developing economies like India, is the questionable quality of government services, one would have expected the BB&B's report to at least discuss state of the art possibilities. There is no mention in the Report of alternative forms of service delivery, e.g. food stamps, cash transfers, conditional cash transfers, voucher systems etc. Not one mention, and this in a report about the need for credible governments delivering growth? The Report does not even attempt to discuss the difference between the need for government to finance public services (after all if the government is not going to finance public goods then why have taxation?) and the non-necessity of government production of public goods (why should teachers and nurses and doctors be government employees?).

Finally, and somewhat surprisingly, the report is a bit glib in accepting the fashionable notion that good institutions are the key difference between rich and poor countries today. Maybe good institutions are a luxury good like a BMW — the reason there are better institutions (more BMWs) in the Western world is because as one becomes richer, one buys more expensive goods. Buying expensive goods does not make you richer, or grow faster.

The author is Chairman, Oxus Investments, a New Delhi based asset management company. The views expressed are personal.

surjit.bhalla@oxusinvestments.com