Dear Readers,
Let me respond to those concerned about the tone and divisiveness of this debate (and a little bit about my levity).
In the Huffington Post, my column says (please read both Sachs’ and my column):
Jeffrey Sachs, the world’s leading apologist and fund-raiser for the aid establishment, has responded here with a ferocious personal attack on Moyo and myself, “Aid Ironies.”
Allow me to defend myself (I’ll let the formidable Moyo handle herself). It’s not so much my pathetic need to correct slanders, as if anybody cared. Sachs’ desperation shows when he peddles what I will show he knew were falsehoods. Besides, the sight of two middle-aged white men mud-wrestling on African aid may entertain the audience.
First, in the intellectual world as in the legal one, the accused has a right to face his accusers and mount a proper defense.
Second, the purpose of debate is to facilitate the emergence of the best ideas and to shoot down the worst ideas. I’m not always so cocksure I am right, but it is clear to me intellectually that Sachs’ ideas are wrong, and I will combat them accordingly. An artificial consensus that stops the process of shooting down bad ideas is not a healthy intellectual practice. Sachs himself seems to keep trying to shut down the debate. From my column at Huffington:
Instead of Sachs’ attempt to shout down critics with slanders and falsehoods, let’s have a climate of open debate in which we learn from past mistakes, the guilty suffer, the good are rewarded, and we can hope that aid does start to reach the poor.
Finally, about my occasional levity. I believe in the maxim I heard long ago: “Take your work seriously and yourself lightly.” The levity is because I don’t take myself too seriously (if I ever do, please let me know). I take the work very seriously indeed.
Let me know if I have addressed your concerns.
All the best, Bill
23 Comments
The problem is tone more than content. Of course it is necessary to discuss the issues, but both sides of this ‘discussion’ (I hesitate to use that word in this context) have indulged too much in going for the opponent’s jugular instead of his ideas.
So by all means go on ’shooting down’ ideas, but please hold the fire when it comes to judgements about the persons bringing forward those ideas — however much they themselves indulge in less-than-productive behaviour. That has nothing to do with turning the other cheek, but everything with preventing debate about the people overshadowing debate about the issues.
You are not at all wrong. Sachs is a fake who has sold himself to the aid industry. And he uses the same unreasonable rhetoric. As if foreign aid was primarliy abot higher education scholarships.
I suspect you’re probably asking the wrong people if you’re asking the people on this blog – ie preaching to the choir. I thought your response was humorous relative to the rather scathing, personal, and largely unfair (strawman + ad hominem) attack by Sachs who should have known better and I suspect probably did. Given what I suspect are the sympathies of most who read Huffington Post, your response in my humble opinion, was more than worthy and also noble challenging the views of others on their home turf.
Michael Keizer – looking at the attack by Sachs, I think that Mr. Easterly strikes an appropriate somewhat offended, and yet challenging tone allowing Sachs own words (or references as the case may be) to blunt his attack. I didn’t see the discussion so much as about people as in the case of Sachs’ initial missive as I did about specific issues of disagreement on behalf of Mr. Easterly. In this, at least Mr. Easterly pointed out that his biggest criticism is the lack of accountability and that there have been programs that he has agreed with but with the level of funds spent, it is as remarkable as it is sad that not more has been achieved in providing some of those most basic of services. On the other hand, to read Sachs’ initial attack one comes away with the view that there are a great deal of worthy causes so we can’t blame aid, but that because Dambisa Moyo & Easterly have received public funds this is ironic / they are hypocrites – ie a highly personal attack.
For what its worth, I think you play a critical role in exposing the deep problems of the aid industry. At its best, your battle with Dr. Sachs produces badly needed discussion about an enterprise too often obfuscated by paperwork and secrecy.
I do have a theory about why this debate has occasionally flared towards the personal. There was an expose in the New Yorker on Rahm Emanuel describing his jousts with Paul Krugman over the stimulus. It essentially came down to pragmatism vs. idealism.
Dr. Sachs is a smart man, and I suspect he has a strategic objective, namely increase of foreign assistance dollars. Though his rhetoric often ventures towards the aspirational, I wonder if he is not fiercely pragmatic? I do not believe he is deaf to the substance of your arguments, and wonder if he might support them privately. However any concerns about effectiveness may be subordinate to the primary goal. If that is the case than he may see your gadfly role as unproductive.
There is a growing movement of “searchers” in the debate over the effectiveness of financial aid and relief in Africa. As Americans we must remember that we are debating issues that do not impact us but rather impact Africans. We must listen to the voices of Africans in this debate. Voices like Dambida Moyo, Andrew Mwenda, Ali Mazrui, Chukwu-Emeka Chikezie, and George Ayittey deserve to be respected and heard in this debate.
Personal attacks are the lowest common denominator in someone trying to make a point. We must choose to focus on the issues and steer clear of emotional pleas and accusations.
I have learned in my travels throughout east Africa that most Africans just tell aid and relief workers what they want to hear. Quite frankly, they have tired of the interference in their lives. Some Africans even refer to some NGOs and charities as vampires and vultures because they feed off the blood of the people.
I welcome the renewed debate. However the debate must lead to action. We must partner and collaberate with those that are implementing the policies that we are advocating.
Keep up the great work Professor Easterly!
The mud wrestling image is certainly troubling, but your article is to the point.
Why not invite Sachs to hold a free and open debate at either Columbia or NYU? Aid practitioners and recipients alike could benefit from a synthesis between your worlds.
Thank you for blowing a long-quieted whistle.
- Ben
Arudo Yat, Uganda
http://www.arudoyat.org
Leaving aside personalities, the major dividing issue seems to be how to distribute aid. Until now the primary mechanism has been via intermediaries. One can go back to the Christian missionaries for the beginnings of this mindset.
In parallel with this has been the growth of intermediaries in all aspects of life. One no longer pays the doctor, one pays via an insurance company. One no longer invests in stocks, one invests via an intermediary, a mutual fund. Even investment (pension) funds no longer make their own decisions but go to another layer of intermediaries: investment advisers. And so it goes.
This is the “service” sector that everyone is so happy to see growing and replacing manual labor. Why should it be any different in the foreign aid biz?
What Easterly wants to do is to bypass what has become the norm in modern transactions and go back to a more direct model. The problem is that this runs counter to the trends and that without people making money as intermediaries along the way there is little incentive for people to work in this sector.
So if Easterly wants to create a new aid mechanism he is going to have to explain how it will work. I don’t think he just wants to drop dollar bills out of helicopters. Even direct payments to impoverished people has to be coupled with supply chains that will enable them to purchase what they need with their new income.
Criticism is necessary, but without a discussion of implementation (and overcoming the status quo) little will change.
I kind of wanted to see you demolish his ideas in great detail. Instead, we got more of a grab bag of criticisms.
Personally the mud wrestling image brought the ‘lightest’ moment of your article.
I am so happy you have asked the question. It says a lot about you and it’s a question I’ve been wondering myself, ‘what is the personal attitude/tone between these two.’
My answer was found out soon when I read Sache’s article and your response.
Indeed I think the tone of the argument has turned the whole thing sour. You ended your ‘bit’ well, but I think instead of ending it there, you should have started there. No need to defend yourself. Defend your position.
I hope I can see the two of you someday at a University giving a warm-spirited debate on the subject without any of the stuff we are seeing between the two of you today.
No doubt Saches seems to have a screw loose (as I tweeted about) and I am 100% philosophically and otherwise in agreement with you on aid, but I think the methods both of you are resorting to are below you.
On the debate between you and Sachs, I agree with you. So, tally one more vote to your column…
On ‘levity’ and ‘tone’, I generally agree with you, as well. Far too many people in this industry take themselves far too seriously. Someone who can not only be honest about his/her own limitations, but also find the humor therein is, in my opinion, a rare find. The challenge comes in communicating that humor: we often write as if everyone reading our blogs knows us personally and “gets” our jokes, when in reality raw text on the screen is frequently misunderstood.
One man’s opinion. Take it for what it’s worth.
Be well!
Professor Easterly,
In my opinion you aren’t attacking Sachs too much. However in me you are preaching to the choir. In the battle for the hearts and minds of the unconverted, it is much, much trickier. Listening to their responses is a good place to start thinking about future persuasion techniques.
zulusafari said: No need to defend yourself. Defend your position
Actually, he very much had to defend himself sad to say. In the process of defending himself though he pointed out that Sachs actually agreed with him again and again. Thus in the process he defended his position.
In this exchange, Sachs lost a great deal of face; dare one say credibility. The article was a classic ad hominem attack. How can Moyo be held responsible for bonuses at Goldman Sachs?
Sachs would seem to have a great deal at stake personally if he manages to spearhead diverting a % of every nation’s GDP to aid and it is clear that he has little patience with anyone stands in the way of that goal. Asking the difficult questions in a matter that affects millions of people at the risk of your career seems the more principled stand.
Keep up the mud wrestling.
In his article entitled “Notes on Coping” (in M. Szenberg (ed.), Eminent Economists: Their Life Philosophies, Cambridge University Press, 1992), Robert M. Solow offers “a few guidelines for coping”: Don’t take yourself too seriously; If you see something that needs doing, do it; Don’t let the team down.
A few short points:
Taking Sachs’ history into account, it seems to me that he clearly lacks the ability to see nuances. However, his merits merely goes to expose ‘economics”, and politics’ I suppose, fetishism with ‘clear’ answers. So, perhaps it’s worthwhile blaming the game too, and not only the player???
The problem with your blog is that besides the indisputable worthy cause of holding aid accountable to its (usually shameless) goals, you too are usually trapped in the same distorted take on causalities in human development. I was kind of taken with your book’s elaboration on searchers (except for the fact that I hate the term … how about giving it a less new-agy sound … I suggest Artisans) but this sensibility seems lost in here.
In other words, use whatever tone you like … or actually no … quit arguing like the whole world goes in C major or minor. It’s time to rock to some 12 note serialism
Btw, let me just add that I fully agree with Sachs that you can hardly expect an illiterate, starving, malaria infected individual to cultivate a whole lot of comparative advantages. Can’t we all?
Ps. It should all have read: Dear Mr. Easterly and Readers … etc.
Sorry
How long is the back and fro-ing between yourself and Sachs to last? There’s been an awful lot of it – while i may err on your side, in my Master’s Development classes everyone thinks Sachs is the prophet of hope. In fact HIS books are on the syllabus to read but YOURS are not (but don’t fear i’ve read your books and articles – i just had to find them out for myself).
I agree with Ben that you should have a debate.
Plus you are both economists – there must be a way to put your money where your mouth is. So instead of the constant back and forth, why not find a way to do just that?
Moyo responds to Sachs, nicely so.
Dr Easterly:
It’s nice that you acknowledge the comments of readers like myself who fear that the back-and-forth between you and Dr Sachs is taking away from the merits of both of your work — yes, I said both.
My take:
(1) It would be interesting if you addressed the commentary of Scarlett Pumpernickel and Sceptical Secondo (above), about Dr Sachs being pragmatic and realistic.
(2) I also think you and Dr Sachs should have a debate, preferably moderated by someone who appreciates both of your contributions. This would be the best way to end this useless spate of mischaracterizations and attacks.
Attacking Sachs? I think he started it first…and you are at least responding logically.
Dear Professor Easterly,
I completely agree with the others that it is a question of tone that might allienate readers not familiar with your works, and in addition I would like to see a debate as well.
I found your mud wrestling comment hilarious, it’s up there with the Harry Potter analogy. In fact, I’m surprised Sachs hasn’t called you Voldemort yet!
What saddens me most is Sachs’ attack on others who want the same results as his efforts with the MCGs: to have resources actually reach those who need it most.
I’m right in the middle of your book and 100 pages in I can already identify many of the points as key factors to the economic problems of Nicaragua. I live in the north, in the 2nd poorest area, and many times a day I am so frustrated to see the immense poverty. However, your book is guiding me through many of these frustrations and gives me hope that aid can be distributed more effectively.
The NGO I work with is funded largely by USAID and it is so poorly run. Yet, when the U.S. Ambassador came last week along with USAID diplomats, the NGO put on a “show” for him and covered up the truth of the day-to-day proceedings. The USAID guys were so thrilled to see their money “making a difference” and the Ambassador couldn’t believe how many children were being saved from poverty. Sadly, all they saw was a lie.
It makes me ponder how many NGOs in Nicaragua alone have abused and wasted funds, and how much longer we will let them go unaccounted for. Course as you point out, the rich know nothing about the poor.
Thank you for your work and I will be sure to continue following your Aid Watch blog, as well as read your published works.
Bill, note that if you spend too much time in your presentations on humor, it can devalue the audience’s time and come off as taking yourself more serious than you take them.
robertdfeinman: In parallel with this has been the growth of intermediaries in all aspects of life.
But there hasn’t been a growth in intermediaries in all aspects of life. For example, one of the changes of feminism is that married women can now manage their own money without the inteference of their husbands. And women have their own votes, rather than having their interests represented by men’s votes. And all men have their own votes, rather than having their interests represented by “gentlemen”.
Also, it used to be in NZ that if you wanted foreign currency you had to go through the central bank. Now you can trade directly with anyone you can find who wants to sell you foreign currency.
It used to be that nearly everyone in cities went to the supermarket or to the corner shop, for their groceries, now farmers’ markets are taking off.
Easterly and Sachs should debate. Too bad Easterly would never go for it, and if by some fluke it did happen, expect (true to form) a lot of jokes and sidestepping from Bill…