March 2026 marked the 250th anniversary of the publication of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). However, it’s essential to remember that Adam Smith also penned The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), and it was through his ongoing revisions of this earlier work that his more renowned volume took shape. A standout moment in TMS critiques the archetype of the “man of system.” In stark contrast, Smith characterizes the man of “public spirit,” emphasizing the inherent humility of this figure. Unlike the man of system, who arrogantly insists on the infallibility of their grand designs and seeks to impose them on others, the man of public spirit eschews such hubris. Instead, they rely solely on the power of persuasion and consent, never resorting to coercion.
Regrettably, the annals of history—especially regarding colonialism, slavery, and the treatment of indigenous populations—are littered with examples of men of system, rather than those embodying public spirit. Enter William Easterly’s critique of the so-called “development saviors” in his recent work, Violent Saviors (2025). This book stands as a significant contribution to the moral and methodological underpinnings of development economics. Easterly challenges the technocratic perspective that views development merely as a technical puzzle to be solved by experts through policy design and implementation. Instead, he situates development within a broader liberal framework that prioritizes freedom, dignity, and the consent of those whose lives are impacted by economic policies. In essence, Easterly’s arguments echo a fundamental principle articulated by Adam Smith: genuine development must stem from the voluntary cooperation of individuals, not from the imposition of external authorities.
Easterly frames the discourse on development as a clash between two intellectual traditions. On one side are the “saviors,” who naively believe that enlightened experts can orchestrate progress for less affluent societies through meticulously crafted policies and institutional reforms. On the opposing side are the “skeptics,” who highlight the limitations of expert knowledge and advocate for the empowerment of individuals and communities to determine their own social and economic trajectories. This ideological rift can be traced back to the eighteenth century, when Adam Smith powerfully critiqued the paternalistic rationale that justified imperial conquests under the guise of progress.
Easterly consistently asserts that those impacted by development initiatives must have a voice in the decision-making process. The mere increase in a nation’s wealth does not legitimize the elevation of institutional goals above individual needs. His slogan, “Nothing about us, without us,” succinctly encapsulates this imperative.
Historically, European powers often justified conquest by claiming they were bestowing civilization, Christianity, and economic advancement upon the peoples they subjugated. Smith vehemently rejected this narrative. In The Wealth of Nations, he condemned the “savage injustice” inherent in European colonial expansion, conquest, and exploitation, rather than portraying it as a benevolent act of improvement. Smith envisioned an alternative approach based on voluntary exchange and mutual benefits from trade, arguing that encounters between different societies could yield enormous advantages if they unfolded through peaceful commerce instead of coercive means.
The crux of the matter for both Smith and Easterly is not simply whether development increases material wealth, but whether it respects the autonomy of individuals and communities. Exchanges are morally justifiable because they necessitate mutual consent; each party must believe that the transaction enhances their well-being. Coercive arrangements—be they colonial dominion or paternalistic policies—violate this principle by substituting the judgment of external authorities for the autonomy of the individuals directly affected. Thus, the central concern transcends whether development policies are effective; it probes whether they honor the freedom and dignity of those subjected to them. Dignity, respect, agency, and autonomy should be the guiding principles, not mere efficiency, capital accumulation, or economic growth.
As we commemorate the publication of one of humanity’s most significant achievements, we draw parallels between Adam Smith and William Easterly. Smith’s liberal vision encompassed the pursuit of liberty, equality, and justice—fundamental tenets of his political economy. Bill Easterly emerges as a worthy heir to this legacy, delving not only into the nature and causes of national wealth but also into the dignity, respect, and liberty of the individuals who inhabit those nations.
