Another problem with the framework is the long accepted, artificial distinction between “developing” and “developed” countries. In reality all countries are developing. The US economy is developing, for it too is constantly adjusting to meet the changing needs and conditions of global markets. A paradigm for understanding economic growth must bear this in mind.

Indeed, developing such a paradigm is precisely the focus of The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, which examines 10 major factors across 161 countries. What the twelve years of observations have pointed out so clearly is that what separates rich and poor countries is the degree to which they let their people use their natural talents to produce wealth. Economically free countries allow people most easily to put their natural talents to best use, through free trade and other economic liberalization. Perennially poor countries in contrast have closed markets and significant barriers such as corruption, a bureaucratic maze, regulations or high trade barriers hindering what people can do. No wonder they are forever “developing.”

Ultimately the answer lies not in transfers to these poor countries, for the transfers do not directly reduce what is hindering wealth creation. Like Stiglitz and Charlton, we would all like to see poor countries prosper. Maimonides would say that a partnership to help them help themselves is the way to go. Where Fair Trade For All falls short is giving these countries excuses not to be the best they can.