For example, you might expect someone writing about how Asia should reform its farming practices to be from Asia.

I'd expect them to have studied farming practices and their effects broadly, and to have studied the status quo of farming in Asia.

Whether they are from Asia or not seems to be mostly irrelevant.

To add to sp332's comment:

A common, very large problem in development and other types of foreign aid (military, etc.) is 'expert' outsiders with little local knowledge telling the locals what they should be doing. It results in a lot of wasted money and harm to the recipients.

Also, I'm sure most reading this wouldn't appreciate 'experts' from another country (e.g., Japan) coming to your community and imposing their ideas on your government, business practices, and way of life.

It's far worse with military 'aid', which can result in your family dead, you homeless, and your country in ruins for generations. American assistance to Iraq resulted in >100,000 dead (by conservative estimates), an ongoing civil war, and untold crime and destruction. We thought democracy would blossom as soon as we removed Hussein; one absurd example: We actually had personnel there trying to setup a stock market soon after the invasion.

> Also, I'm sure most reading this wouldn't appreciate 'experts' from another country (e.g., Japan) coming to your community and imposing their ideas on your government, business practices, and way of life.

I don't appreciate anyone (outsiders or not) imposing their ideas on my government, business practices, or way of life; but that doesn't mean that foreigner's arguments as to policy are less valid because of their status as foreigners. In fact, I think that one of the big problems in US policy is an often willful blindness to outside experience and a very big dose of NIH syndrome.

> We thought democracy would blossom as soon as we removed Hussein

Well, you might have. Plenty of Americans -- including many experts, and pretty much everyone whose argument supporting their belief referenced actual facts of history of other conflicts -- did not. Certainly, plenty of members of the senior leadership of the US administration -- people like Doug Feith, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz -- made statements that indicated that they did, but then there's probably a reason that, e.g., General Tommy Franks described Feith as the "dumbest f-ing guy on the planet".

Seems to me that situation is further evidence for evaluating people's policy positions based on the content of the support for their argument, rather than simply their nationality or other positional traits.

It's relevant because it's not just about farming. There is a huge cultural shift involved in Joe Studwell's recommendations. A native would know which cultural patterns are more desirable to reform. It's also possible that Studwell does not entirely have the region's best interests at heart, and is writing to influence things in his favor. After all, that's why the USA doesn't allow people born in other countries to become President.

> It's relevant because it's not just about farming. There is a huge cultural shift involved in Joe Studwell's recommendations. A native would know which cultural patterns are more desirable to reform.

"Most desirable" is subjective, and a simply being native to (or residing in) a region, as opposed to conducting structure study of the relevant domains, is not particularly likely to provide any deep insights into what cultural patterns are more desirable to reform (or even on the objective questions that precede the subjective "most desirable" question of which cultural patterns are more amenable to reform and what the effects of attempts to reform those patterns would be likely to be.

> It's also possible that Studwell does not entirely have the region's best interests at heart, and is writing to influence things in his favor.

The same would be true of natives, who are quite likely to make recommendation in their own perceived personal interest whether or not they are in the general interest of the population of the region. On the objective questions of effects, that's what you use reason and analysis of presented evidence, rather than evaluation of origin of the author, to evaluate the arguments. What you propose is adopting the ad hominem fallacy as a preferred system of judging arguments.

> After all, that's why the USA doesn't allow people born in other countries to become President.

The USA allows people born in other countries to become President, it doesn't allow people not US citizens at or by birth to become President.

And the history of the relevant clause does not provide much evidence of any particular basis for that restriction; any such explanation is purely speculative.