Nice dialogue going on here with the blog that is the scourge of wicked human rights violators everywhere, Wronging Rights (a blog that is also wickedly funny). Among other things, I worried that one of the posts on Mahmood Mamdani by Amanda Taub might be using the classic way to attack critics of infeasible, utopian schemes everywhere, which is to demand that the critic come up with their own utopian scheme to solve all problems. Amanda came back with a complete disavowal of any such intention:
So, anyway: here at Amanda HQ you’ll find a wholehearted embrace of doing nothing, when all of the proposed somethings to do are crummy. If a proposed policy doesn’t pass my “is enacting this policy more likely to reduce suffering and end conflict than staying in to watch Love Actually again?” test, then I for one would vote for movie night.
Sorry, Amanda, I should never have doubted you – you have got it completely right (except could The Godfather be another option?)
It’s amazing how many politicians fail Amanda’s Love Actually Test. Suppose there is a terrible problem and there are only two options:
(A) Do nothing.
(B) Do something to make the problem worse.
All politicians choose (B) of course! Two random current examples are: (1) Run a “War on Drugs” to subsidize violent criminals and destabilize Colombia, Mexico, and Harlem, (2) drop bombs to kill innocent civilians so as to help terrorism recruiters and destabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Queens. I am sure faithful readers can come up with more.
Here’s a brainstorm. Doing something to make things worse, that is equal to negative aid. If you change from doing something bad to doing nothing, that is equal to a decrease in negative aid. A decrease in negative aid is equal to an increase in positive aid. Therefore, doing nothing = positive aid. QED.
Hey politicians, here is a way to increase aid, get results, at reduced costs! Buy now while supplies last! Just go over to Amanda’s and watch Love Actually!
18 Comments
i agree that between doing nothing, or making the current situation worse, you should choose to do nothing
that said i would be very interested to see some sort of framework that can be applied to aid projects to determine whether or not they do actually make the situation worse, or on the whole better
given the lack of data this seems quite difficult and i would opt for a holistic analysis that includes more than just financial ratios, payback periods and rates of returns.
if anyone can point me in the right direction i would be very grateful
I’m not a cynic, on the contrary, I’m what you could call an armchair human rights activist. But I did once try to come up with a short list of self-defeating human rights policies, other than the two you mention here. If you care you can read them here: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/human-rights-facts-110-self-defeating-human-rights-policies/
Oh, forgot to say: thanks for your informative blog (I learned a lot here)
I think Lao Tse would agree.
Wait, who bombed Queens? My sense of humour must be lacking, because I can’t tell if this entire post is meant to be a joke or not. All politicians always choose the worst option? Really? If you genuinely think that, may I suggest that you are succumbing to a particularly virulent form of libertarian hysteria. If you don’t think that, then perhaps you should adopt a less nutty tone in your postings.
Jim,
You might consider explanations for the reference to Queens that would not imply your extreme conclusions.
The reference is because there is a large South Asian neighborhood in Queens where Pakistani and Indian emigrants live peacefully side by side. I wasn’t attempting any exact predictions, just speculating that the increasing radicalization and emigration of Pakistanis could have effects in such neighborhoods here at home as well as in Pakistan.
All the best, Bill
This is the whole Action Bias problem. I think Marginal Revolution or Overcoming Bias had a really interesting thing about how soccer goalkeepers feel compelled to lunch in one direction or another when facing penalty kicks despite the fact that it has been proven that they’d be slightly more efficient if they just stood perfectly still. But their fans would think they were damaged in some way if they stood stock-still during a penalty kick – so they dive (often in the wrong direction).
I do hope we can call this the Amanda Taub Love Actually test, though.
That is, “lunge” – not lunch.
Off topic: William, you gave out rare praise to the charity WaterAid in one of your books a while back. I was very happy to see it because I had already decided to give them about 10% of my annual income and I was hoping it was worth it. I’ve continued doing that for about six years now.
Since then I’ve heard more and more from WaterAid about lobbying the government and fundraising concerts and I was wondering if they’re becoming just another typical NGO. Have you been following them? What have you heard? You can e-mail me if you don’t want a public statement attributed to you.
When you mention that politicians always choose Option B, that makes me think of the tendency for politics, and therefore laws, to become increasingly more complex, and therefore increasingly difficult to understand, manage, fund and measure, as well as to create unforeseen consequences. It seems to me that simplicity is a quality we should cultivate in our lawmakers, but I guess I’m a naive utopian at heart. Of course, doing nothing is the ultimate form of simplicity.
Not to reductio ad absurdem the whole thing [Amanda's and your position on humanitarian intervention], but please explain why parents intervene in the lives of their children (with force!)… you’ll quickly find yourself making arguments perfectly analogous to justifications for intervention in the lives of friends (we care, we know, we live by moral rules, etc.) and then derive a justification for force exercised against some persons, and then from there justify force against persons not known. You may disagree at each step- that’s fine. But don’t act like such justification isn’t possible.
Also, anyone who writes Searchers with capital “s” shouldn’t be making fun of people with utopian schemes.
Ana
I could not agree more. Another good example is the response to piracy on the Horn of Africa. Instead of addressing the root governance problems in any meaningful sense, Western states are choosing to patrol a massive portion of the seas in a game of cat-and-mouse. I’d argue that this response has strong potential to cause at least one of the three major pirate groups to ally with Somalia’s Islamists, thus opening up a whole other bag of problems that the Godfather himself couldn’t solve.
If the entire U.S. Congress shows up at my apartment to watch Love Actually, I hope they bring beer.
Bill–
As usual you treat a serious development issue with too much levity. In fact, I am a big believer in doing nothing in the absence of evidence that doing something will help. But please, no one who proposes doing something actually thinks it will make things worse, they are just paving the road to hell with their good intentions.
Doing nothing adheres to the first do no harm principle. Also when the development community does nothing it reminds everyone that ultimately every society/country is responsible for its own fate. Having Development Inc do nothing may be the opportunity the locals need to figure out their own solutions. In that sense, doing nothing is quite positive!
Dear Jeff,
sorry, levity is the last refuge of the powerless intellectual. If I have to be serious to get change, I will be serious. If I have to cry, I will cry. If I have to make jokes, I will make jokes. Anything to change aid, anything.
Best, Bill Easterly
Amanda, what if it’s only my wife and I and our five kids? Bill
Had to see if you’ve seen Orlov’s “Boondoggles to the Rescue!”.
I didn’t realize New York was so unstable…