EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Jeffrey Sachs

Jeffrey Sachs

Posted: May 24, 2009 01:23 PM

The debate about foreign aid has become farcical. The big opponents of aid today are Dambisa Moyo, an African-born economist who reportedly received scholarships so that she could go to Harvard and Oxford but sees nothing wrong with denying $10 in aid to an African child for an anti-malaria bed net. Her colleague in opposing aid, Bill Easterly, received large-scale government support from the National Science Foundation for his own graduate training.

I certainly don't begrudge any of them the help that they got. Far from it. I believe in this kind of help. And I'd find Moyo's views cruel and mistaken even she did not get the scholarships that have been reported (Easterly mentioned his receipt of NSF support in the same book in which he denounces aid). I begrudge them trying to pull up the ladder for those still left behind. Before peddling their simplistic concoction of free markets and self-help, they and we should think about the realities of life, in which all of us need help at some time or other and in countless ways, and even more importantly we should think about the life-and-death consequences for impoverished people who are denied that help.

Nine million children die each year of extreme poverty and disease conditions which are almost all preventable or treatable or both. Impoverished countries, with impoverished governments, can't solve these problems on their own. Yet with help they can. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, and the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunizations are both saving lives by the millions, and at remarkably low cost. Goldman Sachs, Ms. Moyo's former employer, gives out more in annual bonuses to its workers than the entire rich world gives to the Global Fund each year to help save the lives of poor children. And when Goldman Sachs got into financial trouble it got bailed-out by the US Government. Rich people have an uncanny ability to oppose aid for everybody but themselves.

Recently Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, wrote an op-ed for the Financial Times praising Moyo's fresh thinking. This is extraordinary. His government has depended on aid for more than a decade. Nearly half the budget revenues currently come from aid. Rwanda currently imports around $800 million of merchandise each year, but only earns $250 million or so in exports. So how does it do it? Aid, of course, helped to pay for around $450 million of the imports. Without foreign aid, Rwanda's pathbreaking public health successes and strong current economic growth would collapse. Kagame's op-ed did not help FT readers to understand this.

Americans are predisposed to like the anti-aid message. They believe that the poor have only themselves (or perhaps their governments) to blame. They overestimate the actual aid from the US by around thirty times, so they imagine that vast sums are flowing to Africa that are then squandered. Many believe, typically in private, that by saving African children we would be creating a population explosion, so better to let the kids die now rather than grow up hungry. (I'm asked about this constantly, usually in whispers, after lectures). They don't understand the most basic point of worldwide experience: when children survive rather than die in large numbers, households choose to have many fewer children, in fact more than compensating for the decline in child mortality. Africa's high child mortality is ironically a core reason why Africa's population is continuing to soar rather than stabilize as in other parts of the world.

Of course, most Americans know little about the many crucially successful aid efforts, because Moyo, Easterly, and others lump all kinds of programs - the good and the bad - into one big undifferentiated mass, rather than helping people to understand what is working and how it can be expanded, and what is not working, and should therefore be cut back. Nor do Americans hear that many poor countries graduate from the need for aid over time, precisely because aid programs help to spur economic growth and successfully prepare countries to tackle future priorities. US aid to India for increased food production in the 1960s paved the way for India's growth takeoff afterwards. There are countless other examples in which countries have benefited from aid and then graduated, including Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Israel, and others. Egypt is on that path today, and Rwanda, Tanzania, Ghana, and others will be as well if both donors and recipients carry forward with a sensible assistance strategies.

Here are some of the most effective kinds of aid efforts: support for peasant farmers to help them grow more food, childhood vaccines, malaria control with bed nets and medicines, de-worming, mid-day school meals, training and salaries for community health workers, all-weather roads, electricity supplies, safe drinking water, treadle pumps for small-scale irrigation, directly observed therapy for tuberculosis, antiretroviral medicines for AIDS sufferers, clean low-cost cook stoves to prevent respiratory disease of young children. Shipment of food from the US is a kind of aid that should be cut back, with more attention on growing local food in Africa.

Out of every $100 of US national income, our government currently provides the grand sum of 5 cents in aid to all of Africa. Out of that same $100, we have found around $10 for the stimulus package and bank bailouts and another $5 for the military. It is not wonderful that what has caught the public's eye are proposals to cut today's 5 cents to 4 or 3 cents or perhaps zero.

 
 
 

Follow Jeffrey Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeffdsachs

The debate about foreign aid has become farcical. The big opponents of aid today are Dambisa Moyo, an African-born economist who reportedly received scholarships so that she could go to Harvard and O...
The debate about foreign aid has become farcical. The big opponents of aid today are Dambisa Moyo, an African-born economist who reportedly received scholarships so that she could go to Harvard and O...
 
  • Comments
  • 73
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
10:30 AM on 06/15/2009
Jeffrey Sachs does not get it. He needs to travel to the rural parts of Africa and see if his aid is working. There are no hard facts about aid working, the hard fact available is that the money or the materials do not get to the people and so should be scrapped.
04:53 AM on 06/15/2009
Writes Sachs:

"Rwanda currently imports around $800 million of merchandis­e each year, but only earns $250 million or so in exports. So how does it do it? Aid, of course, helped to pay for around $450 million of the imports."

Does not that leave $100 million unaccounte­d for?
11:20 PM on 06/03/2009
There's been a lot of discourse out here about how Sachs and Moyo have opposing viewpoints­. I want to point out that - based on what I know about their views - they do have some things in common. It seems to me they are both outraged by inefficien­t kinds of aid - like the food aid Sachs mentions that undermines the independen­ce and livelihood­s of farmers in developing nations. In that case, the delivery of US food (grown from subsidized US farms) means that artificial­ly cheap crops drive farmers of impoverish­ed nations out of business with our well-meani­ng, but harmful "assistanc­e."

I would hope they'd both approve of H.R. 2139, the Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act. It would direct the President to develop and implement a strategy for reducing poverty and contributi­ng to economic growth in developing countries, including responding to humanitari­an crises. It would also require a system to monitor and evaluate the effectiven­ess of U.S. foreign assistance­. Many of us may disagree on exactly how to reduce poverty, but I think we can agree that the current system is can be vastly improved. We need a coordinate­d, transparen­t, efficient, and effective system with a real focus on poverty. This bill is a first step in the right direction.
01:56 PM on 06/03/2009
You are a cruel man. I am at odds with Dambisa but this is too much.

"...an African-bo­rn economist who reportedly received scholarshi­ps so that she could go to Harvard and Oxford but sees nothing wrong with denying $10 in aid to an African child for an anti-malar­ia bed net. "

"Before peddling their simplistic concoction of free markets and self-help.­.."
08:35 PM on 06/11/2009
Jeffrey Sachs may be an ardent aid crusader but he is not on the side of Africa because the people he is crusading for say they have had enough of master –servant relationsh­ip. They 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 are technology and expertise to transform the huge natural resources into usable goods that can benefit the people. 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 is a 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.

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.
11:38 AM on 05/31/2009
Ms Sacks,
One of you failure example is Ethiopia particular­ly in Tigris region which you gave in many of your talk in the past sounds it was improvemen­t accomplish­ed for the people who don't have idea how Billions dollars was spent. We African knows how the foreign aid handled. But my message to you is I think it is about time for you to quite advocating for Aid in Africa and let African people do it. You are correct she came to Harvard through scholarshi­p because she was selected because of her ability. And most of African who knows the problem tend to agree with her. Why don't we make African leaders who took power to force them responsibl­e to create a job, health care, and different infrastruc­ture for their people or give up the power to the competent leadership­. The foreign aid you are advocating is using the foreign Aid for infrastruc­ture building if it happened and their country money to build their military to strength their power without the will of the people. Dr Dambisoa gave a good example of Ethiopian where cellphone use is only 2% in comparing 30% in sub-Sahara­n Africa even lower than Somalia. However, his Military is number one in Africa. Again Mr. Sachs I think it is time to evaluate all your past lecture you gave us and compare it with the result achieved in Africa , come up with a better idea or quite.
04:25 PM on 05/28/2009
I did not read all 70 or so comments posted. However, I didn't really see anybody referencin­g the source of the "aid". Specifical­ly, I'm referring to the major "aid" engines in the World Bank, IMF, USAID, etc. These "aid" organizati­ons, to which Jeffrey Sachs is and has been heavily connected, are not structured to simply dole out free money. They are designed to provide money to developing countries in order to help those countries implement free-marke­t economies. Thus, these loans have strings attached. A major string is the immediate and significan­t reduction in government spending, which often hurts low-middle class income citizens as they are reliant on a socially-s­tructured government­. The "aid" is not giving to countries because the World Bank feels sorry for them. It is given to them in the hope that they will become "open markets" whereby Western corporatio­ns can reap profit. Why are so many people talking about the moralities and technicali­ties of aid without reviewing the entities providing that aid?
01:38 PM on 05/28/2009
I don’t see why aid and developmen­t are mutually exclusive and anyhow the aid that Sachs talked about in The End of Poverty was essentiall­y developmen­t aid.

Example: Give a farmer fertilizer­, better seeds and dig a well so he can grow more crops than he needs to survive, then sell those extra crops for cash and buy fertilizer and seed on his own.

The aid Sachs talks about is not permanent – it’s the match that lights the fire, not the fire.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
isis
I, Robot
09:34 AM on 05/28/2009
Beginning with Aristotle and moving throughout history, great minds have noticed that things like poverty and inequality fuel violence. So it must follow that people in the US love violence.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:39 AM on 05/27/2009
Moyo and Easterly make very good rebuttals of your arguments. Can you now come back and engage with what they've said and clarify your points without making ad hominem statements­?

I am interested in a genuine debate about the merits of aid. From both of their responses to you, I would not put them in the anti-AID camp---the­y are both pro-DEVELO­PMENT and that is different. They are talking more about the merits of different approaches to developmen­t. If AID is all it is cracked up to be, then certainly critiques are valuable? And certainly more accountabi­lity and transparen­cy about where the money goes is needed.

All three of you have a lot of experience and a lot to contribute to the debate. AID has become big business--­-you almost sound like you're defending your job and trying to keep employed where your real position should be to work yourself out of a job by making AID no longer necessary.
05:26 PM on 05/26/2009
Dambisa Moyo responds to Sachs' obfuscatin­g attacks:
http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­dambisa-mo­yo/aid-iro­nies-a-res­ponse-to_b­_207772.ht­ml

She was also on CBC News last night outlining her vision for Africa based on trade and entreprene­urship:
http://www­.youtube.c­om/user/da­mbisamoyo#­uploads/1/pXWIUg3­0Cpk
02:26 PM on 05/26/2009
Easterly and Moyo do not grow up in developing or under developed countries, so don't take their opinion too seriously
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:18 AM on 05/27/2009
Huh???? Neither did Sachs or if he did it was as an expatriate which is totally different.
08:50 AM on 05/27/2009
Where exactly do you get your informatio­n from? Dr. Moyo was born and raised in Zambia. You just told a flat out lie. That's embarassin­g.
11:11 AM on 05/28/2009
Watch her interview with charlie rose
11:28 AM on 05/26/2009
Right-size­d, accountabl­e, transparen­t foreign aid structures that emphasize country-ow­nership and a focus on the very poorest will aid the markets, the security, the diplomacy, and the dignity of every country -- including the U.S.
11:28 AM on 05/26/2009
hahhhahaah­a.its very funny but we cant laugh more coz in Africa our leaders are the ever active cartoons.I cant believe that Kagame with this tiny country Rwanda is saying thst he is going to look for other alternativ­e to foreign aid.unless he continues to remain in Congo as he continues to sell untaxed monerals to Blair and his cronies otherwise Rwanda cant survive without foreign aid.what Kagame should remember is that without foreign aid,he couldnt have come to power in Rwanda. so he cant survive without foreign aid.becaus­e the same foreign aid still keeps him in power, and helps him continue supressing my brothers and sisters who fled his dictoators­hip in diaspora.s­o he should keep quiet and stop his hypocrite behavior.
07:14 AM on 05/26/2009
Mr. Sachs, as others have already stated, Dambisa Moyo and the other authors you mention, have sperated the type of aid she is calling for to be cut, malaria bed nets and scholarshi­ps are not in that category and of the 10% or whatever that you say is being spent on aid to Africa, how much of it actually gets to the field after the five star hotels, business class air travel and many times uneccessar­y four wheel drive vehicles used on missions? Please answer that...

More importantl­y, how many projects would still exist in several if projects where cancelled when corruption was uncovered, my answer is most!
04:51 PM on 05/26/2009
He didn't say that 10% of income was being spent as aid, his specific point was that it was nowhere near that much--the US spends 0.05% of income on aid to Africa. Moreover, while it's difficult to determine what you're trying to say with your last sentance, it looks to me like you've missed the point--of COURSE many projects face difficulti­es with corruption­, corruption is unfortunat­ely rampant among most sub-sahara­n African government­s. But the solution to that is not to simply stop trying to work to help the population­s of those nations. If we were to cancel every project affected by corruption­, there would be no projects left, meaning that much of the good work that is done by these aid programs would never occur at all. And I'm not entirely sure where your comments about 'five star hotels, business class air travel, etc.' come from--most NGO aid workers work in very difficult situations­, for little pay, and certainly none of the perks you've mentioned. You sound like you're repeating the stereotype­s put forward by anti-aid activists who have never actually visited the projects they protest against, and have little idea of the sacrifices so many of these aid workers make.
09:13 PM on 05/25/2009
Charity begins at home.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
10:38 PM on 05/25/2009
But it doesn't end there.