I wanted to respond today to your very helpful comments on yesterday’s launch, but of course I have to be very selective. To summarize a few areas of agreement and disagreement:
I agree with:
(1) Those who said they liked the new blog. You get a free cup of coffee made with my hand-powered $20 espresso maker next time you are in Greenwich Village.
(2) Lucas who said I do need positive examples of aid working. Yes! Please send me more documentation on the Filipino example you gave, and I am happy to feature it. Positive examples are welcome from everyone reading this (but some kind of evidence and documentation is required.)
(3) Michael Clemens of the Center for Global Development on the counterproductive fixation with “0.7 percent of GDP” as an aid target. He is too modest – what he says is based on a killer article he did with Todd Moss also of CGD. The journal summary practically burns up the page:
First, the target was calculated using a model which, applied to today’s data, yields ludicrous results. Second, no government ever agreed in a UN forum to actually reach 0.7 per cent – though many pledged to move toward it….The 0.7 per cent goal has no modern academic basis, has failed as a lobbying tool, and should be abandoned.
Clemens and Moss might have been a good reference to check before two opeds by Mr. Zoellick that mentioned “0.7” five separate times.
I disagree with:
(1) Jim, who said I was being too mean to Mr. Zoellick. First, I won’t be mean to YOU, Jim, I’m happy you gave me some tough criticism, debate is a GOOD thing.
Which is also my response to your criticism, which is that debate is a GOOD thing. Debate is good in academia, and it’s good in politics, and both kinds are usually fierce. It wasn’t a personal attack on Mr. Zoellick, it was a big disagreement about big issues.
We fiercely debate domestic spending bills that waste affluent taxpayers’ money with a few millions on a bridge to nowhere, so why should we be NICE when the head of the world’s premier aid agency outlines virtually zero accountability for helping the world’s poorest people?
24 Comments
Great to see that you have begun blogging! Looking forward to many spirited posts. (Am I eligible for an Easterly espresso?)
I’m glad to hear you’re taking a positive attitude to debate, and that you’ll be featuring evidence of where aid works, as well as where it doesn’t. What this debate is really crying out for is sound evidence.
Without wanting to harp on the Zoellick point, I’m not asking you to be super-nice to everybody for the sake of it. I just think it’s inaccurate to claim that the World Bank (which I have no connection with) isn’t interested in results when Zoellick specified individual programs which the World Bank has done a lot of research on, such as the impact of cash payments on child nutrition. Inaccurate claims about what people say don’t really advance the debate – much better to focus on what they actually do.
I take issue with Michael Clemens’ and your contention that the 0.7 target should be abandoned. It has proved a useful lobbying tool – the EU has agreed to and set target dates for giving 0.7 of their GNI in ODA and most Scandinavian countries have already reached that target. Australia has clear commitments to move toward it, as are other wealthy nations. Now, of course, there is much to discuss about how that money should be spent and what the most effective mechanisms for delivering aid are, but the target itself remains useful.
I’m excited to see you blogging, and I thank Prof. Mankiw for telling me about this. As I am a student in NYU and of Greenwich village when can I get an espresso. Secondly, I understand that the lack of accountability has led to wasteful spending that should clearly be reeled in, but at the same time I am under the impression there have been definite global health improvements since the developed nations started giving aid. Am I misinformed, or did we just get lucky with some of our money going to something pretty good?
A Sudanese driver was aggressively hauling a brand new Toyota pickup truck over rough terrain in South Sudan. When a visitor asked him why he was abusing the vehicle, the driver replied that this was a “throw away” vehicle and the [agency that provided it with our tax dollars] would be providing a new one next year anyway, so he was at liberty to run this one into the ground.
Providing resources without accountability is a lesson in dependence. This driver had no sense of responsibility for the vehicle. He only knew that his group was “due” a new vehicle the following year. How was he to know this was the last year this program was providing vehicles? He wasn’t involved in the planning.
In contrast, I can give numerous examples of people from the same area who have been inspired to initiate programs and care for their own people with very little external guidance and funding.
One community in South Sudan started a school with no agency backing and no resources, inspired by Servant’s Heart, a small NGO that had started two other schools in the region (and of which I am co-founder).
Servant’s Heart encouraged the initiative by providing teacher training and student materials for the new school. By partnering with the community, the NGO expanded its effectiveness and the number of school children in the county doubled.
Several years later, this is the most effective of the three schools.
Aid can be effective, but there are predictable and unpredictable consequences. Treating people as helpless encourages them to be dependent and irresponsible. I applaud Bill for encouraging us to treat the poor with dignity, which means they get a say in how resources are spent as well as are held accountable for results.
Btw, he makes a mean cup of coffee!
First off, count me amongst those who are happy to see this blog. I have my own wish list, which you of course may or may not accommodate.
1) Please expand upon the notion of actual aid output vs “aid intention” input, either via government or via private philanthropy. It is simply staggering how many people think it is better to give $100 to do 1 unit’s worth of good than it is to give $1 to do 100 unit’s worth of good. People would never dream of thinking this way about their for-profit investments, but somehow return on donation dollars seems not to concern them much.
2) Any features you could do on creative (and results worthy) private philanthropic organizations would be huge in my opinion. Include the good, bad and ugly in any “review”. For starters, what do you think of an organization called kiva?
3) Any thoughts on the notion of government being a substitute for private philanthropy, thus crowding it out?
4) Don’t be afraid to include links to books you’ve written or talk about them on your blog. Same goes for articles or papers you’ve written.
The “Responsibility Age” that the WSJ spoke of was understood by me to include blogs much like this one.
It is our duty to everyone (including taxpayers and aid recipients) to ensure that aid that is provided is put towards the best use possible!
We fiercely debate domestic spending bills that waste affluent taxpayers’ money with a few millions on a bridge to nowhere, so why should we be NICE when the head of the world’s premier aid agency outlines virtually zero accountability for helping the world’s poorest people?
I’m glad you say this, as it’s too infrequently mentioned. The Wall Street Journal recently had a not dissimilar piece called Giving Till It Works on the subject of rich donors attempting to impose greater accountability on their charitable contributions.
I don’t think those efforts will work particularly well, as I discuss extensively elsewhere, but I do think the debate worth having—and I would love to be proved wrong.
I am excited for this blog as it appears to fill a unique niche out here in the blogosphere…..and who can not desire that aid actually benefit the poor? Give my espresso to Gabe–I live too far away.
That said, your first post seemed to be of the position that virtually no aid is truly beneficial, which by definition can’t be. It just seemed to reflect on only the problems.
Above you ask for examples of where aid is actually beneficial. Given that you are much more of an expert here than us, shouldn’t you be uncovering these and presenting us a balance of what does work (and why) and what doesn’t work (and why)?
But again, thank you for starting this blog.
Dear Sir, I am also glad you started blogging, as you bring up some nice points in your book. I am curious, however, if you have any comments with respect to Jeffrey Sachs’s new book, Common Wealth? As you no doubt are aware, Sachs makes it a point to mention your name over and over again, for example that your aid philosophies are actually similar (e.g. that you both want the money to be spent on the bed nets and vaccines, etc.). Also, Sachs mentions that even India and China would not have been the same today without billions in aid that they received. I am interested to hear your perspective on the above issues, as well as the others in Common Wealth that I have left out in interest of Space. Thank you.
Jim,
I don’t think anybody is saying the WB is not interested in results. I think you’re talking at cross purposes. The claim being made is about an institutional, structural, lack of accountability, and the idea (which, by the by, I’m not sure how far I go along with) that way organisations like the WB work is dysfunctional and as good as guarantees ineffectiveness. I’d have thought you might agree that the WB does not bear much effective responsibility for outcomes, and (this is more debatable) is guilty of over-reaching.
You could argue that Prof Easterly does not give enough weight to the WB’s own efforts to hold itself responsible and to learn and change.
And I wonder whether the kind of accountability Prof Easterly wants to see is even possible in the context of the kind of problems aid is designed to alleviate, and whether insistence upon accountability might risk distorting and narrowing the scope of aid. But I’ve yet to read all his books on the subject.
> why should we be NICE when …
Just my 2c’s:
- I think that one should always be polite
Thank you for making the distinction between disagreeing with an opinion and being disagreeable (ie. insulting someone). You communicated your willingness to consider Jim’s perspective while reserving the right to decide whether or not his argument changed your opinion.
Discussions can often become highly charged and break down into personal attacks which completely negates any attempts at discussing important subjects. Nice to see that the goal of civility is being achieved.
Luis,
The types of projects favored by the World Bank and UN aid agencies in the past may be the part of the problem. Large infrastructure projects such as the Akosombo Dam in Ghana tend to support governmental delivered solutions. Aid delivery through government often creates opportunity for corruption and diversion of funds.
The budgetary constraints of the IMF have often met with resistance demonstrating the difficulty of gaining acceptance for performance standards.
Engineers without borders offers an interesting approach. Teams of engineers come up with a low tech solution to a problem that the local community has identified. Locals are trained to operate and maintain the equipment. All equipment must be easily repaired with materials available locally. The solution is therefore a permanent one and the problem is the one chosen by the village rather than a well-intentioned charity.
Are there good examples of NGO’s that have learned to function as “searchers” rather than “planners”? That have a clear focus and produce results? Or that do an admirable job of supporting searchers?
We all know about the super large NGO’s, but where can I find information about smaller, focused NGO’s that are really working?
Economist bloggers can see their role in one of two ways, I think.
One way is to select and comment upon events in such a way as to make them clearer to the non-specialist audience. Right now, for example, this might include discussions of the various types of stimulus approaches being considered.
The other way is to get into the never-ending debates between the various schools of economic thought. Generally this seems to end up as the “liberal” camp go at it against the libertarian/Chicago-style camp.
The problem is that the two groups have different measures as to what constitutes valid evidence for their positions. The liberals tend to be pragmatic and use theoretical constructs and models as reinforcement for observational data. The other camp starts from a more axiomatic position and finds data which confirm their models.
Added to these different approaches is the fact that many people in the libertarian camp are not economists, but are part of dominant business/government alliance that promotes the goals of big business. Many are, in fact, paid shills masquerading as objective advisers.
So a blog proprietor must make a choice whether to aim to inform or rebut as their principle focus.
Since the shills owe their livelihoods to promoting the aims of those who pay their salaries one can never win an argument with them on the basis of information or logic. They also manage to recruit a goodly number of useful idiots who believe the Ayn Rand view of the world and are prepared to jump in and defend their idols whenever their views are questioned.
These people, being true believers, are even less susceptible to facts than are the paid liars who at least know why they say what they do.
Robert,
“are part of dominant business/government alliance that promotes the goals of big business. Many are, in fact, paid shills masquerading as objective advisers”
Without providing any data to support this assertion, you tend to create the impression that you are airing your own personal prejudices rather presenting an argument premised on “the basis of information or logic”.
Ironically, one does not have to be a Libertarian to detect that you have little respect or interest in the ideas of your opponent but seem to be frustrated and angry when he/she fails to perceive the rightness of your ideas. Just an observation.
QT:
I smell a troll. The signs are that the person doing the attacking goes after the individual personally.
I didn’t cite any examples because I didn’t think it was relevant to the basic theme of this posting which had to do with the level of discourse, but if you want chapter and verse I’ll give you some evidence.
The two best places to get objective data are sourcewatch.org and MediaTransparency.org.
So, for example, here is the listing on billionaire Charles Koch who is a principle funder behind such institutions as the George Mason University Economics Department, Cato Institute, Hudson Institute and Heritage Foundation. The staffs of these places (and other similar ones) consistently push their free market ideology without even a passing attempt at any scholarly justification for their remarks.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=9
The true believers that work at these places deny that they are shills, but if the philanthropic funding didn’t exist they wouldn’t have their public platforms. Notice that in Europe there isn’t a similar cohort of billionaire plutocrats who back such institutions and the ideas of, say, the Chicago School, are hardly considered.
If ideas are only kept alive by massive infusions of mostly secret money, then one has to question how much objective science is being produced.
Both sites I mentioned have search functions, put in your favorite person or institution and see who is paying their way.
Robert,
Doesn’t the same reasoning apply to institutions funded by George Soros and his ilk on the left. The idea that a learning institution or charity aligns its staff with the opinions of every contributor is highly improbable if not absurd.
I can agree with you that discussions which involve clashes of ideologies (or morality for that matter) tend to be somewhat pointless exercises in retrenchment. Generalizing tarding all Libertarians as shills for big business, however, is neither balanced nor logical. It’s like saying all Italians are members of the Mafia. It is an error in logic. While some Italians may be members of the Mafia, all Italians are clearly not members of the Mafia.
Frankly, there are Libertarians who arrive at their position not by working for big business, or the Cato Institute but by working for small businesses and continually being shafted by the never-ending red tape of government.
Asking for a substantiation of your claims is not a personal attack but a genuine desire to understand why you have formed this opinion. Normally, in argumentaion, when one makes a claim it is usually supported by evidence. To ask for this evidence is not a personal attack but a desire for information and knowledge.
Perhaps, a review of ad hominem might be in order. Your original post was quite reasonable until it devolved into a rant against Libertarians. Frankly, I simply do not accept either conspiracy theories nor ad hominem no matter how eloquently it is dressed up.
Robert,
BTW, philantropists tend to support charities which share their ideals and objectives.
Therefore, is it surprising that philantropists on the left and right support organizations which hold views that are consistent with their personal philosophy? Is this a conspiracy or just someone choosing to support like minded individuals/charities? Isn’t the latter more likely?
Thank you for a very interesting experience reviewing these websites.
A few simple searches of SourceWatch.org & MediaTransparency.org are extremely revealing. My impression was that both sites lack balance and are very partisan in nature.
The most valuable thing that I studying history was to look for bias in a source. All sources have some degree of bias and one must take such biases into account when accessing their conclusions just as one looks at methodology and sample size when evaluating the results of a scientific study.
When a website or any source purports to sort the world into people one can trust from those one cannot, doesn’t the spider sense tingle just a bit. Isn’t it up to an informed adult to gather information from a variety of sources and draw their own conclusions?
Thank you for answering my questions. It helps me to understand why you have reached the conclusions you have even though our opinions on this matter are divergent.
“We fiercely debate domestic spending bills that waste affluent taxpayers’ money with a few millions on a bridge to nowhere, so why should we be NICE when the head of the world’s premier aid agency outlines virtually zero accountability for helping the world’s poorest people? ”
BINGO!
just put your blog in my favs
William,
You mentioned earlier you wanted to hear more about Gawad Kalinga in the Philippines. The link for the website is posted. I’ve personally gone to the Philippines three times to work with them on their volunteer projects, and in my active searching I have yet to find another organization that contributes such valuable work to the aid world. It is truly the prototype for what aid work should look like. They are also beginning projects in Papa New Guinea, Indonesia, and hopefully very soon, communities in Africa. Please look into it if you have the time.
@Shannon: Here is an ungated version of our paper on the 0.7% aid target:
http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/3822
In it we take up the questions you raise about how meaningful and useful the target has been.
Well i liked the new look, so i might go to Greenwich for my cup of coffee!