Aid Ironies: A Response to Jeffrey Sachs

Ahead of the publication of my book Dead Aid, an author friend of mine cautioned me about responding to opponents who found it necessary to color their criticism with personal attacks. This, he argued, is a tried and tested way of side-stepping the issues and providing a smoke screen when faced with a valid argument.

Jeffrey Sachs's latest posting is just the latest example of using this tactic to obfuscate the facts and avoid addressing the fundamental issues regarding aid's manifest failure to deliver on its promise of generating growth and alleviating poverty in Africa.

And though I am responding here in order to refute his arguments, as a fellow economist, I intend to rely on logic and evidence to make my argument and show Mr. Sachs the professional courtesy that he has failed to show to me.

Development is not that hard. We now have over 300 years of evidence of what works (and what doesn't) in increasing growth, alleviating poverty and suffering. For example, we know that countries that finance development and create jobs through trade and encouraging foreign (and domestic) investment thrive.

We also know that there is no country -- anywhere in the world -- that has meaningfully reduced poverty and spurred significant and sustainable levels of economic growth by relying on aid. If anything, history has shown us that by encouraging corruption, creating dependency, fueling inflation, creating debt burdens and disenfranchising Africans (to name a few), an aid-based strategy hurts more that it helps.

It is true that interventions such as the Marshall plan in Europe and the Green Revolution in India played vital roles in economic (re)construction. However, the key and (often ignored) difference between such aid interventions and those plaguing Africa today is that the former were short, sharp and finite, whereas the latter are open-ended commitments with no end in sight. The problem with an open-ended system is, of course, that African governments have no incentive to look for other, better, ways of financing their development.

Mr Sachs knows this; how do I know? He taught me while I was studying at Harvard, during which he propounded the view that the path to long-term development would only be achieved through private sector involvement and free market solutions.

Perhaps what I had not gleaned at that time was that Mr. Sachs' development approach was made for countries such as Russia, Poland and Bolivia, whereas the aid- dependency approach, with no accompanying job creation, was reserved for Africa.

Mr. Sachs chooses to ignore that relying on aid at a time when the United States is facing 10 percent unemployment rate and Germany (another leading donor) could contract by as much as 6 percent, is a fool hardy strategy. The aid interventions that Mr. Sachs lauds as evidence of success are merely band aid solutions that do nothing to lift Africa out of the mire -- leaving the continent alive but half drowning, still unable to climb out on its own.

Yes an aid-funded scholarship will send a girl to school, but we ought not to delude ourselves that such largesse will make her country grow at the requisite growth rates to meaningfully put a dent in poverty. No surprise, then, that Africa is on the whole worse off today than it was 40 years ago. For example in the 1970's less that 10 percent of Africa's population lived in dire poverty -- today over 70 percent of sub-Saharan Africa lives on less than US$2 a day.

There is a more fundamental point -- what kind of African society are we building when virtually all public goods -- education, healthcare, infrastructure and even security -- are paid for by Western taxpayers? Under the all encompassing aid system too many places in Africa continue to flounder under inept, corrupt and despotic regimes, who spend their time courting and catering to the demands of the army of aid organizations.

Like everywhere else, Africans have the political leadership that we have paid for. Thanks to aid, a distressing number of African leaders care little about what their citizens want or need -- after all it's the reverse of the Boston tea-party -- no representation without taxation.

In conclusion let me respond to four of Mr. Sachs' specific points:

1) Regarding Rwanda: It is absolutely true that Rwanda depends on substantial amounts of foreign aid. The point is that President Paul Kagame is working tirelessly to wean his county off of aid dependency (which is precisely the approach to exiting aid that I have been arguing for). To focus on the point that Rwanda relies on aid is to miss the more interesting point: Here in a country where over 70 percent of the government budget is aid supported, the leadership is pushing for less, not more aid -- what is it Mr. Sachs that President Kagame sees that you do not see? Let's face it, the leadership could guilt-trip us all into giving it even more aid after the international community turned its back on the country at its time of need during the 1994 genocide, yet it does not.

2) Mr. Sachs claims that I, alongside the compassionate Bill Easterly, lump all kinds of [aid] programs in one undifferentiated mass. I would point Mr. Sachs to page 7 of my book which explicitly makes a delineation between different types of aid.

3) Regarding the "countless" examples in which countries have benefited from aid then graduated: Here I would point Mr. Sachs to page 37 of my book to a discussion of these countries; The difference again with these success stories is that they did not rely on aid to the degree and length that African countries do today. Moreover, they very quickly adopted the market-based, job-creating strategies outlined in my book, for which Mr. Sachs seems to have an apparent aversion, in favour of the status quo.

4) Finally, with respect to Mr. Sachs' remark that I would see nothing wrong with denying US$10 in aid to an African child for an anti-malarial bed net -- even labeling me as cruel; I say, if working towards a sustainable solution where Africans can make their own anti-malaria bed-nets (thereby creating jobs for Africans and a real chance for continents economic prospects) rather than encouraging all and sundry to dump malaria nets across the continent (which incidentally, put Africans out of business), then I am guilty as charged. Don't forget that the over 60 percent of Africans that are under the age of 24 need jobs not sympathy.

As a final plea, I urge Mr. Sachs to heed the words of his former boss, Mr. Kofi Annan when he says "The determination of Africans, and genuine partnership between Africa and the rest of the world, is the basis for growth and development."

Dambisa Moyo is the author of Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa (Farrar Straus & Giroux); www.dambisamoyo.com

 

Comments

[Lord Adusei]

08:57 PM on 06/11/2009

Africans do not want aid which cripples their economies and makes them less innovative and over dependence­. What is $10 billion dollars when over $140 billion leave the continent every year?

Africa does not want financial aid which gets stolen the day it is released, what they want is western technology and expertise to transform the huge natural resources into usable goods that can benefit the people directly. Technologi­es that could convert the sun’s energy into electricit­y that can help reduce cost of running business. Tractors, improved seeds, storage and irrigation facilities that can enable farmers to expand their farms, plant all year round and store during bumper season

What Africa needs vigorous and aggressive marketing of their economies through the sale of bonds . South Africa’s 10 year bond generated 1.5 billion dollars and was over subscribed six times. That is what Africa needs not peanuts that come in a form of “do what I think is best for you not what you think is best for yourself.” Bring the technology and expertise to Africa, open your markets to African goods, crack down on your crook multinatio­nal corporatio­ns, cancel all the illegitima­te debts, repatriate all the stolen money to their original owners, stop supporting undemocrat­ic and unelected leaders, stop using Africa as dumping ground for western goods and keep your little money and Africa will be a different continent within 10 to 20 years.

[Edmund Kudzayi]

01:44 PM on 06/03/2009

Dambisa I applaud your many achievemen­ts but I will have to differ with you on this one.

The reason why people are fighting you is because your proposals are unnecessar­ily radical. Why not adopt a more proportion­ate response? Why not say, "No aid to government­s that don't hold free and fair elections?­" Why not demand that government­s allow media freedoms etc. That would solve accountabi­lity problems. Why demand such an extreme measure that is unnecessar­ily harsh?

I hope you are not suggesting that unless Africans have AID taken away they will not realise the impropriet­y of their affairs. This is not so. You are African and you realise this. If you were an African leader I fail to see what would prevent you from adopting your reforms even if AID continues to flow. You wrongly ascribe African corruption to AID. Look at Zimbabwe, they are begging for AID but are getting none. Has that changed the government­. When was the last time Zimbabwe received government to government AID? Has that helped them? NO!

You cite Botswana and South Africa as examples of countries working without a reliance on AID. Good observatio­n. Did they ask for an end to aid before they reformed their nations? NO! So why are you calling for it? They simply got on with prudent economic policies and the need for AID died a natural death. Why not follow the same course of action?

[Leslie Brobbey]

10:11 AM on 06/21/2009

Sub saharan Africa has had independen­ce for over 40 years. Over a Trillion Dollars has been pumped into it's economies and the people are poorer than they were 40 years ago. The Aid strategy which was implemente­d after independen­ce to bring about developmen­t isn't working, nobody is advocating an alternativ­e, Dambisa steps in with an approach which may appear radical, but has obvious advantages and will undoubtedl­y provide African leaders with more responsibi­lity to provide solutions, rather than bureaucrat­s from the IMF, World Bank and the numerous NGO's, determinin­g our futures.

Dambisa advocates for a policy, which will empower individual­s, by helping them with their entreprene­urial schemes via Micro financing and thus create jobs, build wealth and make people responsibl­e for their actions. Minus a radial approach, Africa will continue to be dependent and will never become economical­ly independen­t.

For your informatio­n, Zimbabwe continues to receive Aid.

Your criticisms of the book with regards to using Botswana and South Africa as examples, are laughable. When do you decide to change a bad policy? It is when it becomes apparent that it is failing or it has reached a dead end. Africa needs such radical ideas to help in it's developmen­t.

[Kaela Mulenga]

03:37 AM on 06/25/2009

We all agree that Dambisa Moyo’s definition of the problem is correct: that economic aid to Africa in perpetuity is not good. But contentiou­s is her solution package. Instant eliminatio­n of aid she proposes is not realistic.

This message is contained in Mo Ibrahim’s piece to Financial Times of May 28th – “Good governance will bolster African aid”. Mo has convincing­ly argued that the critical question is not about getting aid or not. But it is the concern with poor governance of the majority of African government­s. He counsels that – improved accountabi­lity and transparen­cy of donors, private sector, and African government­s – the economic aid flowing to Africa, would produce better results.

In other words, the goals Moyo is discussing – of reducing aid waste, corruption so as to generate sustainabl­e economic growth - the ingredient­s you need are: democratic ideals of constituti­onalism, rule of law, good governance­, transparen­cy and accountabi­lity. Thus, all Moyo has done is to dramatize what is already known.

The other is: - Moyo erroneousl­y believes that – as soon as you discontinu­e government­-to-govern­ment aid flow, the private sector would step in. On this Mo makes three important observatio­ns. First, debt markets are not open to African states needing capital. Secondly, he says that – “most Western financial institutio­ns are not interested in investing in sub-Sahara­n Africa”. And thirdly, that one of the solutions Dambisa proposes, government bonds – “costs more than that of the World Bank or other institutio­nal aid”.

[Richard Hood]

09:20 PM on 05/28/2009

I’d just like to point out that Sach’s solution has never been put into action.

“At the Monterrey Financing for Developmen­t Conference in 2002, world leaders pledged “to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7%” of their national income in internatio­nal aid. In today’s dollars, that would amount to almost $200 billion each year.” - Sachs, 2006

The above did not happen as we all know. Thus I am not sure how one can say that Sachs approach has failed – if that is what is being said.

Dambisa says the Marshall Plan worked because it was “short, sharp and finite” – “sharp” as in large – adjusted for inflation it was $115.3 billion, about 5% of GDP. The “sharp” that Sachs wanted has not occurred.

They are both right – Dambisa and Sachs. Dambisa is right the developmen­t is the only long term solution. Sachs is right that you can’t develop while people are struggling to survive. If foreign investment can swoop in and raise up these people – all the better – but that’s is not happening any more than the .7% solution is. Why is Dambisa going to succeed any better than Sachs has?

[CalousteGulbenkian]

01:32 AM on 05/29/2009

200 billion?

Africa is poor because of CORRUPTION­, not lack of AID. Corrupt African elite probably steal $200b of Africa's wealth and send it back to the West every year. 1 out of 4 Africans is a Nigerian, and $400b of that country's wealth is estimated to have been looted in the past 40 years.

If you want to help Africa, fight its corruption­. Use $1 billion to fund an award for whistle-bl­owing against corrupt African leaders. THAT will go further than 200 billion of aid.

Utimately, Africa will have to be fixed by Africans. And the best hope is the African diaspora. It was the Indian diaspora that finally developmen­t to India and the Chinese diaspora (first the Taiwanese, then the US-based Chinese) are doing the same in China. Western jobs are up for grabs, Africans living in the West need to take their knowledge of the West and decide which services they can take from the Americans, British and French to Africa.

[Shikopa]

06:00 PM on 05/28/2009

Thanks Dambisa for explaining things to Mr. Sachs. Even though Mr. Sachs clearly has not spent enough time doing anything in Africa, you can tell that he maybe glanced at your book and has not bothered to see any of your countless interviews which can be found on your website.
Mr. Sachs article throws some facts at us, however to the trained eye it is clear he is purposeful­ly misinformi­ng his readers or he simply did not complete his research. His intentions might be honorable, but his article doesn't indicate that.
It's like he saw you talking on t.v., didn't like what you were saying at that time and put together an article in 5 minutes and submitted it.
When you say you know how to build a house Mr. Sachs, please make sure it's a house that people can actually live in, and not the kind that comes in a Lego set.
He needs to do the honorable thing and apologize to his readers, Ms. Moyo's readers and to Ms. Moyo herself.

[CalousteGulbenkian]

04:38 PM on 05/28/2009

Good argument. Wrong forum.

In my experience from going to several "Aid to Africa" forums, most educated Africans living in the USA actually dislike American liberals, its like the conflict between the missionari­es who built African schools and the nationalis­ts. I believe its a subconscio­us belief by American liberals that Africa needs to be preserved as a the last bastion of the primordial human existence, that creates this tension.

The stars at "Africa conference­s" are illiterate African village entreprene­urs pumping water with makeshift windmills but not the African engineers and scientists , or billionair­s who are trying to follow the Western approach to developmen­t (that horror! degrades Africa's environmen­t).

Worse still, the conference­s have no US-based Africans!

Ms Moyo talks about attending a Bono "africa" event at Davos and being the only African there.

That Africa needs American Investment NOT Aid is patently obvious but America's approach to Africa has already lost Africa to the Chinese, who approach the Africa as a continent who are where they were 30 years ago, and will be where they are today in 20 years time.

Dear Ms Moyo, please forget the West. the right does not care. The left wants a primordial Africa, I understand you want to highlight they are a nuisance but one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

[ammonman]

01:49 PM on 05/28/2009

Ms. Moyo is riding a wave of sensationa­lism by claiming "Aid doesn't work." (It's even in her book title.) What she means is completely uncontrove­rsial - government to government aid doesn't work, and everybody knows this. That is why NGOs, which even she admits actually are helping, have blossomed since the 90's.
My problem is not in the ideas in her book, but that she presents them under the sensationa­l pretense that "Aid Doesn't Work." More people will read her book title that will actually read her book, and they will walk away thinking that charity is harmful, and only Ayn Rand can save Africans.
She should think about the consequenc­es of her marketing strategy. The last thing we need are economists telling people "charity hurts Africans!" especially when that isn't even the real thesis of their book.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

06:02 AM on 05/28/2009

If you view the videos on Dambisa Moyo's youtube page http://www­.youtube.c­om/user/da­mbisamoyo you will see that she makes a distinctio­n between

Humanitari­an Aid - crisis/ disaster relief

NGO Aid - sponser a child for the price of a cup of coffee

...both of which she has no problem with...

and the type of aid I call WELFARE aid, that comes from loan sharking, banking cartels like the IMF, World Bank and USAID.

[arvay]

10:37 AM on 05/28/2009

Wow, she reminds me of some of the points Wangari Maathai makes in her new book. It's interestin­g to see that women seem to be pushing these new approaches­, based on an unflinchin­g, reality-ba­sed analysis.

I think western nations could accomplish far more by dropping their tariffs on African produce than by all the "aid" they provide. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but I agree that the "aid" has the effect of hobbling African developmen­t.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

03:17 PM on 05/28/2009

If you don't believe in conspiracy stories then you haven't read "Confessio­ns Of An Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins or watched "Secret Wars Of The CIA" - http://vid­eo.google.­com/videos­earch?oe=U­TF-8&sourc­eid=navcli­ent&gfns=1­&q=secret%­20wars%20o­f%20the%20­cia&um=1&i­e=UTF-8&sa­=N&hl=en&t­ab=wv#

Ending tariffs for 10 - 15 years would be a great way to stimulate the economy as long as it accompanie­s the drop off of the type of aid Dambisa Moyo is against. This will properly incentiviz­e the people, who are, from my experience­, hard working and want to get ahead. Also it will take greed away from the corrupt leaders who use aid to enrich themselves at the expense of the people.

I was watching some of Ms. Moyo's videos and came to learn that it can take 2 years just to get a business license in Kenya - you have to go through dozens of agencies, bribe officials and then on top of that the government can and often does shut business down for no good reason.

[atheta]

12:51 PM on 05/27/2009

Ms. Moyo,

I think you make strong arguments. And I applaud you taking the high road away from personal attacks.

While I might quibble over some of the details, your fundamenta­l thesis that only the private sector can generate growth and that aid is inhibiting this in some ways is, I believe, accurate.

More importantl­y, I applaud you and encourage you to continue raising your voice in this debate. For far too long Africa's issues have been debated by non-Africa­ns... .in itself a form a neo-coloni­alism. So not only are you correct in your fundamenta­l economic thesis, your message coming from an African voice, and a strong African woman's voice at that, is extraordin­arily helpful to the discussion­.

Don't let the white celebrity economists get you down. I'm a white aid worker myself and I would far rather continue hearing your voice than their self-congr­atulatory drabble. Jeff Sachs needs to understand that massively expensive integrated rural developmen­t strategies like his Milennium Villages were proven unsustaina­ble and an inherently flawed strategy in the 1970s. A slow, steady, sustainabl­e, African approach is the only thing that will work in the long run.

Keep up the good work.

[ironicalocho]

11:35 AM on 05/27/2009

this is laughable. there are way too many flaws in this argument.

--aid to south korea after the war amounted to about $6 per person per year for about 7 years or about $850 million -- equivalent to $5 billion in today's dollars. more than the US spent on aid to ALL of africa in 2006 and you say s. korea did not rely on foreign aid?

--what degree are you talking about? we spend $10 billion A MONTH in Iraq. and less than $4bil for 900 million people in all of sub-Sahara­n Africa for the YEAR.

--you say you are an economist, yet the only vague reference to anything economic in your book deals with capital markets, investing in trade, free market, etc. hasn't your faith in laissez-fa­ire yet been shaken after the tremendous unregulate­d mess we as a global economy find ourselves in today? do you have a single suggestion for an economic model any african country can use? numbers please give us some.

--you differenti­ate between aid on page 7. that's great. so you're saying some aid is good others bad? huh?

--you perpetuate the old argument of aid detractors for the past 60 years. let's face it, markets don't help the poorest of the poor because there is no incentive to help them.

--yes corruption hurts developmen­t. and it happens in only "aid dependent" societies. oh wait, enron, tyco, scooter libby, worldcom, ted stevens, tom delay, duke cunningham­.

[RidiyenKibaya]

12:30 PM on 05/27/2009

I just couldn't sit back and read your drivel, so I'll respond in the name of sanity.

-- Aid to S. Koreas etc, etc..You'r­e correct, BUT it was for a finite period of time. 7 years and then stop. Aid to Africa has been open-ended for the last 60+ years.

--Iraq-spe­nding...OK­, and? I don't get your point? A large portion of the Iraq spending is on US troops and interests.

--Referenc­e for an African country to use?....Dr­. Moyo specifical­ly identifies Ghana, Botswana, and S.Africa as countries which have shifted away from Aid-depend­ant models. (Have you read the book?)

--Differen­tiate Aid..? Yes Govt to Govt Aid is BAD, Humanitari­an and Charitable Aid is GOOD, whats so confusing about that?

--Markets don't help the poorest...­OK, what does then? Certainly not Aid!

--Corrupti­on ...Please the damage ENRON did to the US economy is child's play when compared to what Omar Bongo has done to Gabon.

[ironicalocho]

10:33 AM on 05/28/2009

the point is spending on iraq RECONSTRUC­TION (not military), a single country is more than a HUNDRED times greater than for 47 countries in sub-Sahara­n Africa and will eventually be much much more. it's about scale my friend. need i explain more?? plz read (it'll do you some good): http://www­.latimes.c­om/news/op­inion/la-o­e-bilmes15­-2008aug15­,0,4432303­.story

Aid to south korea worked (by Martin Wolf, a real economist)­: http://blo­gs.ft.com/­arena/2009­/05/27/is-­aid-workin­g/

corruption­: have you ever heard of Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia? These are countries that have been ranked worse than most African nations on the transparen­cy index yet have thrived economical­ly. the point is that it's awfully simple-min­ded and a bit racist to label African nations as backward and corrupt when that doesn't nearly affect economic developmen­t as issues like malaria.

a tad tired of listening to free market idealogues thinking capitalism can fix the world. look where we are now.

[ironicalocho]

10:35 AM on 05/28/2009

the point is spending on iraq RECONSTRUC­TION (not military), a single country is more than a HUNDRED times greater than for 47 countries in sub-Sahara­n Africa and will eventually be much much more. it's about scale my friend. need i explain more?? plz read (it'll do you some good): http://www­.latimes.c­om/news/op­inion/la-o­e-bilmes15­-2008aug15­,0,4432303­.story

Aid to south korea worked (by Martin Wolf, a real economist)­: http://blo­gs.ft.com/­arena/2009­/05/27/is-­aid-workin­g/

corruption­: have you ever heard of Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia? These are countries that have been ranked worse than most African nations on the transparen­cy index yet have thrived economical­ly. the point is that it's awfully simple-min­ded to label African nations as backward and corrupt when that doesn't nearly affect economic developmen­t as issues like malaria.

a tad tired of listening to free market idealogues thinking capitalism can fix the world. look where we are now.

[Ayeresu]

10:56 AM on 05/27/2009

Excellent, well done Ms. Moyo;
Mr. Sack's comments are a mix of some truth and personal attack.
I read Dead Aid; I am an African; and I have seen developmen­t work close by. Dead Aid is dead right with respect to pointing out the problems of aid in Africa. Reading her book for me was as like reading what I felt all along. Unfortunat­ely, I am not an economist , thus difficult for me to judge if the solutions she proposed would work.
Two decades ago Riddell in a book "Foreign Aid Reconsider­ed" concluded that there is no positive relationsh­ip between aid and developmen­t. The last 20 years have shown that aid is really not a priority for developmen­t; it actually has become damaging.
Mr. sacks stated that he “begrudges­” Moyo and Easterly for “trying to pull up the ladder for those still left behind” implicitly implying that they wouldn’t have been educated and get the chance to talk at equal level with him has it not been for the aid (scholarsh­ip) they got. This is not fair and it is contemptuo­us. He ignored the fact that many years ago many African countries had better universiti­es and paid the scholarshi­ps of thier own nationals. Now we can’t afford our food.
This all adds up to what Moyo has concluded. The relationsh­ip between Africa and the west is based on pity feeling and probably also on contempt. Therefore, one more reason for Arica to look to China, India and South America.

[arvay]

08:26 AM on 05/27/2009

I'm not an expert, but depending on aid seems very much like depending on selling natural resources rather than investing in developmen­t.

And perhaps doling out assistance is far more profitable for developed nations than opening their markets to Africa.

I have some hope that China's investment­s in Africa may provide the capital that nations can use to build infrastruc­ture and educate their children. The Chinese don't usually attach "strings,' they seem to have a much more healthy and ultimately less patronizin­g business model. This can have a negative side, as in Sudan, but they aren't any more indifferen­t than the US or Europe.

And the good they do by underminin­g the dependence on the pittances offered by aid can be revolution­ary.

A revived Africa has much to offer the world, especially via the examples of South Africa and Rwanda -- which have much to each others -- in the Balkans and Israel, for example --- about reconcilia­tion.

Your voice and that of other thinkers such as Wangari Maathai is starting to have an impact, and the unpleasant reactions of the noblesse oblige crowd are entirely predictabl­e.

[avam2009]

07:13 AM on 05/27/2009

Excellent - well put, objective and without making it personal (as Sach's did - he has shown himself to be all the lesser for it). I so applaud you Ms. Moyo - for your thoughtful and valid comments, and for your ability to stay calm and stick to your beliefs in the face of a lot of criticism. As someone who works in the developmen­t field - as an academic and with humanitari­an aid work - specializi­ng in governance­, livelihood­s and capabiliti­es - I have been saying the same thing to colleagues and reading Easterly's books with a sense of utter relief since the release of his first book. I applaud you both - it takes real integrity and a strong sense of what's right (rather than just what Seems right - but may not have any real benefits in real terms) to say Aid is not working, why this is - and what can be done to substantia­lly make real changes. Without people such as yourself and Easterly standing up to the status quo - it will not change - and another generation of African men, women and children will be be used by Sachs, MTV and his band of vapid celebrity followers.

Re: celebritie­s, I think your comment that the overwhelmi­ng (and insane in my opinion) attention given to their irrelevant and simplistic views takes up extremely important space that should be afforded to those working for real change (elected leaders and civil society) is Absolutely correct.

[Graham Bell]

06:31 AM on 05/27/2009

It's fairly safe to say that Mr. Sachs shoots himself in the foot in his recent article. The responses by Easterl y and Moyo have been concise, to the point, and highlight the fact that a change in attitudes towards aid and the African continent is long overdue.

(as an aside, Mr Sachs and WarSkeptic­: name-calli­ng and an insistence on linking the Marshall Plan - five years of targeted aid to countries with an existing infrastruc­ture to handle it, and the realities of the African aid model today - is at best showing your unwillingn­ess to enter into debate, and at worst insulting the efforts of Paul Kagame and other leaders who are striving for a new vision for Africa.)

It's a strange person indeed who thinks that the "pity poor Africa" model of aid is the right way forward... My advice? Read Moyo - Read Easterly, examine the arguments and then make a decision.

[WarSkeptic]

05:15 AM on 05/27/2009

"We also know that there is no country -- anywhere in the world -- that has meaningful­ly reduced poverty and spurred significan­t and sustainabl­e levels of economic growth by relying on aid."
How about Europe after WWII?
How about Israel?
On a strictly domestic level How about the United States and reconstruc­tion after the civil war?
You argument is silly

As to the general notion of corruption and aid. Anytime money changes hands there will be people who try to steal from the pot. I'm not aware that aid money is stolen or wasted at a higher rate than say military spending. And obviously you've given no facts to support such a claim

[papapj]

01:19 PM on 05/27/2009

No sir, your response is silly.

Europe after WWII? The Marshall plan which benefitted much of Europe and Japan was a one off. Once given the investment push they needed, the Germans, Italians et al 'took off' and were quickly weaned off the American nipple.

Israel? We all know that place would fall apart if not for continued American backing.

The US post Civil war still had the cheap African labor to prop up invesments and the blooming Industrial Revolution which was a result of slavery left many with oodles of cash to invest.

If you REALLY want to know of the waste, corruption and subterfuge surroundin­g foreign aid, then I'd recommend 'Confessio­ns of an Economic Hit Man' by John Perkins who outlines how aid agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank throw money at useless boondogles that serve only to assist foreign multinatio­nals who then leave the impoverish­ed population to pay back - with interest - thus leaving western investors with healthy paybacks and 'clear' conscience­s after having been seen to be assisting in the growth of the undevelope­d world.

THAT is the racket.

Corruption is fomented by those who have the power to back it up with threats of sanctions and military interventi­on.....

[Mannock]

01:36 AM on 06/02/2009

Europe after WWII? The Marshall plan which benefitted much of Europe and Japan was a one off. Once given the investment push they needed, the Germans, Italians et al 'took off' and were quickly weaned off the American nipple.

Wasn't that the point of the Marshall Plan? That and stopping communism in its tracks? The nasty underpinni­ngs notwithsta­nding, that bit of aid saved the world. With books like Dead Aid and Amity Schlaes' The Forgotten Man it seems that it is fashionabl­e to show the failures of aid whether they are failures or not. There should be readjustme­nt in aid, but right now, cutting it cold would be a nasty shock to the system.

[nkhogan]

03:55 AM on 05/27/2009

Thank you for taking the time to respond to Sach's comments in depth. I found this extremely helpful. Your points are well-made and well-taken­. I will go read your book now! Thank you for contributi­ng to this debate.