There are a wide variety of economic approaches, which can basically be classified as (1) slow development approaches, and (2) rapid economics interventions. There is no bright dividing line, and the rapid interventions should probably be viewed as the sensible first step (given the situation) of a slow development approach.
But many who favor development seem to refuse to consider the possibilty using a quick, market-based approach. Here I list those who seem open to a quick approach.
Gretchen Peters, author of
Seeds of Terror, 2009. An excellent book. She supports "subsidize legal crops," ... "a farm support plan based on a market ..." But she feels it needs to be "in consultation with Afghan tribal councils" so it would "benefit locals rather than arbitrary targets set by policy makers in Washington." This is unnecessary as a first step. No farmer objects to higher prices for his crops.
James Emery
has written a series of articles on Afghanistan for the
ME Times. In the one linked, he calls for "Price supports should be initiated for several years to encourage farmers to grow legal crops."
Peter Bergen, a journalist with the New America foundation, has
suggested that we should, "help Kabul set up an agency, modeled on the Canadian Wheat Board, that would purchase crops from farmers at consistent prices, and market and distribute them internationally."
Jeffrey Sachs has vaguely similar ideas. "The problem is that a US military response is essentially useless under these conditions [devastated economy], and can easily exacerbate the situation."
