3rd World Aid Article - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-17-2006, 10:03 AM   #1
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 11:55 PM
3rd World Aid Article

Exposing the myth of Third World aid
Email Print Normal font Large font June 17, 2006
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
PERHAPS the most important question of our time is why the West's efforts to help the world's poorest people have been so disappointing and even counterproductive, writes Michael Duffy.

PERHAPS the most important question of our time is why the West's efforts to help the world's poorest people have been so disappointing and even counterproductive. In the past 50 years, we have spent $US2.3 trillion on foreign aid, to disturbingly little effect. An important new book suggests this has had a lot to do with the arrogance of the "big push" approach favoured by many development economists and organisations such as the World Bank and the United Nations.

William Easterly is a professor of economics at New York University. He used to be a believer: for 16 years he was a research economist at the World Bank and worked extensively in Africa, Latin America and Russia. What changed his attitude was the growing amount of research showing the failures of aid, described in his book The White Man's Burden (Penguin in the US, not published in Australia).

Easterly says the $US2.3 trillion hasn't achieved what it should have. This is because much of it has been given as part of a never-ending series of internationally planned and co-ordinated "big plans". He believes the alternative would be to encourage more market-oriented activities among the poor themselves.

Those, such as Bono, Bob Geldof and the economist Jeffrey Sachs, who still advocate the traditional approach he calls Planners, while those looking for a bottom-up alternative are Searchers. According to Easterly: "In foreign aid, Planners announce good intentions but don't motivate anyone to carry them out; Searchers find things that work and get some reward. Planners raise expectations but take no responsibility for meeting them; Searchers accept responsibility for their actions … Planners at the top lack knowledge of the bottom; Searchers find out what the reality is at the bottom."

In effect he's saying that much foreign aid is delivered using a Soviet approach that Westerners would never dream of applying to their own economies. This might sound like a right-wing rant, but Easterly's book is full of data in support of his claims.

We often hear that the poorest nations are stuck in a "poverty trap" which prevents them from improving their standards of living. In fact, in the 50 years to 2001, the poorest 20 per cent of countries (excluding communist and Persian Gulf oil nations as special cases) on average increased their income by about the same amount as all other nations. Perhaps the most surprising finding in the book is that foreign aid appears to have had nothing to do with this: those nations that received below average aid improved as much as those that got above average.

The United Nations' Millennium Project to fight poverty argues strenuously that corrupt government in the Third World is not a major cause of poverty. Whether this is true is a growing debate in the aid industry. Drawing on the Polity IV research project on democracy, Easterly says there is actually a significant correlation between democracy and long-term growth, and that "poor countries grow faster than rich countries if they have good government". Why then do Planners deny this? Because their big plans rely on the co-operation of Third World governments, and would not be feasible if those governments are dysfunctional.

Easterly goes further, arguing that aid can actually prop up undemocratic governments. He draws a comparison between aid and the so-called "oil curse", where countries in which natural resources contribute a large proportion of wealth are more likely to be corrupt. The reason is that access to such resources is controlled by the government. Insiders grab most of the resulting revenue and resist any move towards democracy or a free market because this would endanger their income. The political structure of the country and its economy become frozen.

Easterly says aid can have the same effect: "High aid revenues going to the national government [for example, the dictatorship of Cameroon gets 41 per cent of its revenue from aid] benefit political insiders, often corrupt insiders, who will vigorously oppose democracy that would lead to more equal distribution of aid. Systematic evidence in a couple of recent studies suggests that aid actually decreases democracy and makes government worse." One study found that aid was even more harmful to democracy than oil.

It's interesting to see how many of the things Easterly says are reflected in the experience of supporting Aboriginal communities with welfare. There, too, aid has often failed to achieve its major goals, and has propped up leaders who have siphoned off a lot of it to their own families and governed poorly, resisting any change that threatens their control.

They, like the dictators of the Third World, have been supported by the policies of white Planners, who are not responsible for the dismal failures of their plans and, on the rare occasions they're confronted with them, call for more of the same.

Easterly believes the time has come to abandon big plans and adopt a more humble range of approaches that involve much more feedback from aid recipients. We need to look at small things that work locally and see if they can be replicated elsewhere. One idea is for "development vouchers" as a way for the poor to tell us what they want most. But Easterly has no big plan of his own: he just thinks it's time for the post-colonial West to stop believing it still knows what's best for the Rest.

Exposing the myth of Third World aid
Email Print Normal font Large font June 17, 2006
Page 2 of 2
PERHAPS the most important question of our time is why the West's efforts to help the world's poorest people have been so disappointing and even counterproductive, writes Michael Duffy.

PERHAPS the most important question of our time is why the West's efforts to help the world's poorest people have been so disappointing and even counterproductive. In the past 50 years, we have spent $US2.3 trillion on foreign aid, to disturbingly little effect. An important new book suggests this has had a lot to do with the arrogance of the "big push" approach favoured by many development economists and organisations such as the World Bank and the United Nations.

William Easterly is a professor of economics at New York University. He used to be a believer: for 16 years he was a research economist at the World Bank and worked extensively in Africa, Latin America and Russia. What changed his attitude was the growing amount of research showing the failures of aid, described in his book The White Man's Burden (Penguin in the US, not published in Australia).

Easterly says the $US2.3 trillion hasn't achieved what it should have. This is because much of it has been given as part of a never-ending series of internationally planned and co-ordinated "big plans". He believes the alternative would be to encourage more market-oriented activities among the poor themselves.

Those, such as Bono, Bob Geldof and the economist Jeffrey Sachs, who still advocate the traditional approach he calls Planners, while those looking for a bottom-up alternative are Searchers. According to Easterly: "In foreign aid, Planners announce good intentions but don't motivate anyone to carry them out; Searchers find things that work and get some reward. Planners raise expectations but take no responsibility for meeting them; Searchers accept responsibility for their actions … Planners at the top lack knowledge of the bottom; Searchers find out what the reality is at the bottom."

In effect he's saying that much foreign aid is delivered using a Soviet approach that Westerners would never dream of applying to their own economies. This might sound like a right-wing rant, but Easterly's book is full of data in support of his claims.

We often hear that the poorest nations are stuck in a "poverty trap" which prevents them from improving their standards of living. In fact, in the 50 years to 2001, the poorest 20 per cent of countries (excluding communist and Persian Gulf oil nations as special cases) on average increased their income by about the same amount as all other nations. Perhaps the most surprising finding in the book is that foreign aid appears to have had nothing to do with this: those nations that received below average aid improved as much as those that got above average.

The United Nations' Millennium Project to fight poverty argues strenuously that corrupt government in the Third World is not a major cause of poverty. Whether this is true is a growing debate in the aid industry. Drawing on the Polity IV research project on democracy, Easterly says there is actually a significant correlation between democracy and long-term growth, and that "poor countries grow faster than rich countries if they have good government". Why then do Planners deny this? Because their big plans rely on the co-operation of Third World governments, and would not be feasible if those governments are dysfunctional.

Easterly goes further, arguing that aid can actually prop up undemocratic governments. He draws a comparison between aid and the so-called "oil curse", where countries in which natural resources contribute a large proportion of wealth are more likely to be corrupt. The reason is that access to such resources is controlled by the government. Insiders grab most of the resulting revenue and resist any move towards democracy or a free market because this would endanger their income. The political structure of the country and its economy become frozen.

Easterly says aid can have the same effect: "High aid revenues going to the national government [for example, the dictatorship of Cameroon gets 41 per cent of its revenue from aid] benefit political insiders, often corrupt insiders, who will vigorously oppose democracy that would lead to more equal distribution of aid. Systematic evidence in a couple of recent studies suggests that aid actually decreases democracy and makes government worse." One study found that aid was even more harmful to democracy than oil.

It's interesting to see how many of the things Easterly says are reflected in the experience of supporting Aboriginal communities with welfare. There, too, aid has often failed to achieve its major goals, and has propped up leaders who have siphoned off a lot of it to their own families and governed poorly, resisting any change that threatens their control.

They, like the dictators of the Third World, have been supported by the policies of white Planners, who are not responsible for the dismal failures of their plans and, on the rare occasions they're confronted with them, call for more of the same.

Easterly believes the time has come to abandon big plans and adopt a more humble range of approaches that involve much more feedback from aid recipients. We need to look at small things that work locally and see if they can be replicated elsewhere. One idea is for "development vouchers" as a way for the poor to tell us what they want most. But Easterly has no big plan of his own: he just thinks it's time for the post-colonial West to stop believing it still knows what's best for the Rest.
__________________

__________________
MBH is offline  
Old 06-17-2006, 03:47 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Re: 3rd World Aid Article

Quote:
Originally posted by MBH


Easterly says the $US2.3 trillion hasn't achieved what it should have. This is because much of it has been given as part of a never-ending series of internationally planned and co-ordinated "big plans". He believes the alternative would be to encourage more market-oriented activities among the poor themselves.

........................................

But Easterly has no big plan of his own: he just thinks it's time for the post-colonial West to stop believing it still knows what's best for the Rest.
I agree with the first quoted bit, but isn't encouraging market-oriented activities kind of a Western idea?
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 06-17-2006, 10:54 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 06:55 PM
There's a lot of information left out of that article.

I don't see anything about trade barriers mentioned. Western countries maintain very high tariffs for things like African textiles. That's sort of what Bono is implying when he mentions "trade justice". He has said that those countries want to trade their way out of poverty, but are up against powerful lobbies.

Also a lot of that aid is not in the form of cash, but in the form of lucrative contracts for US and European companies. These contracts are for massive infrastructure projects that The World Bank, etc. know that those countries cannot afford. And they aren't necessarily the top priority items to lift the countries out of poverty.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 06-19-2006, 04:33 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:55 PM
I think it is fair to say "Let's re-examine the process" after decades of aid that has not solved the problem.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-19-2006, 09:13 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Jamila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,454
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I think it is fair to say "Let's re-examine the process" after decades of aid that has not solved the problem.

Re-examining the process of assisting developing countries with funds is exactly what programs like PEPFAR and the MCA, created by the Bush administration with the help of Bono and DATA, do.

"Aid" money has been channeled increasingly only into programs that are accountable for their funds and that are producing "measurable results".

The Global Fund is another of these newly created programs which has a STELLAR record of using the money donated to them wisely to eliminate AIDS, TB and Malaria in the developing world.

So, maybe the author of this article and others who agree with him might want to catch up on what's really happening today in the area of "international aid".
__________________
Jamila is offline  
Old 06-19-2006, 09:20 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jamila


So, maybe the author of this article and others who agree with him might want to catch up on what's really happening today in the area of "international aid".
That's not the point. His point is precisely that we've always tried to measure success based on what we're doing, how much has been given, etc, and not by the results, the actual physical proof. We sing the praises of all these organizations you mention, during the time I spent studying development, talking with leaders of over 20 different NGOs, none of those "aid" organizations were ever mentioned. You mean to tell them, the demographics this aid is supposed to target, that they need to catch up on what's happening?

There's a big gap between the aid and the development, and the author of the article wants that gap accounted for.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 06-19-2006, 10:34 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic

There's a big gap between the aid and the development, and the author of the article wants that gap accounted for.
Yeah- I think the book author is stating that there has not been accountability for that money spent. But he is also advocating a bottom up trading approach to the solution, instead of a top down planned solution. He uses intra-Asian trade as an analogy (which I think is a poor analogy) to Africa. A lot of Asia IMO, got a kick-start of sorts from Japan, which has been wealthy for a while. Without a rich trading partner for Africa, I don't see his approach working much more effectively than the old approach.
__________________

__________________
ntalwar is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com