We received a request by Bryan Turner to submit a post on Aid Watch critical of this blog’s approach. Since we are in favor of debate, we accepted his proposal and here is the blog post he submitted yesterday–Eds.
by Bryan Turner, founder and coordinator of Students To End Extreme Poverty and Youth Engagement Coordinator of Make Poverty History Canada
I actually agree with much of what Professor Easterly writes and he does some great things. I also believe that he could make more of a constructive difference in the debate on poverty alleviation than he is now.
Several colleagues and I from Students To End Extreme Poverty have launched a blog called Bill Easterly Watch: Just Asking that Bill Stop Blowing Over Straw Men. In our opinion, NGOs and governments should be accountable – and so should Professor Easterly.
Criticizing is at best one third of the equation, and typically the easiest third. Criticizing can be the first step in positive change. The next is figuring out – searching – what to do about it, the third is doing it, seeing what works and what doesn’t and if applicable how it can happen elsewhere.
The aid system is broken. That is the start, not the end. It’s easy to criticize, much harder to propose alternatives. If there were enough people focusing on the “solutions,” then criticizing alone would be sufficient — but there are not. So unless you are proposing alternatives, evidence suggests you may be discouraging more people than you are encouraging.
If this is not the goal of Professor Easterly, then he should amend his approach.
I’ve spoken with countless people that cite Professor Easterly’s arguments as reasons for inaction, not just on aid but on the entire gamut of issues facing the world’s poorest.
We need internal and external emotional harmony to be happy people. If we believe we are good (which most of us do) we need to reconcile our actions with our exterior environment. What does this mean? Good people do not ignore 9.2 million children dying every year from poverty related causes. But if there is no infrastructure in place (which there isn’t) allowing people to make a difference, then people will become cynical about change. And if you criticize an approach without suggesting a feasible alternative, chances are people will give up on being involved.
We are concerned that some of Easterly’s arguments are not fleshed out, based on oversimplifications of complex issues and sometimes even miss the point.
For example: the dichotomy between searchers and planners is a false one and a lot of planning is born out of searching.
A second example: the criticism of celebrities. The transformation of aid that Easterly advocates won’t happen without a critical mass of informed citizens who are willing to take actions. Celebrity involvement can be crucial for getting people involved on an introductory level – usually the starting point for deeper engagement – facilitating a tipping point towards mass action.
A third example: You should not hold aid given for non development purposes accountable for development outcomes, but that’s what the $2.3 trillion ($15 per person per year) in wasted aid argument does. We want to talk about that.
Students To End Extreme Poverty is all about healthy debate, accountability, innovation, searching, and most of all, solutions. We believe, as is demonstrable, that aid can work, and there should be more of it that does work – more and better aid. We think this is something that, with a little bit more prodding, Professor Easterly can support as well.
20 Comments
how about an Aid wiki to fill in the vital components using an NPOV for 2/3rds.
1st part of wiki would be a wikipedia style entry describing and NGO/Project, second part would be objective measures of near and short term measured/measurable impacts ROIs and 3rd part of entry would be suggestions for improving ROI or links to best practice and learnings from other successes. Plenty of Wiki software out there: http://www.wikimatrix.org/wizard.php
I’m with them. Aid Watch and your writing contributes much to the debate, and everyone is much better for it. However, too much criticism, not enough solutions, and overly simple arguments (e.g. that Huffington Post article about geography and development, your post about Amartya Sen and Maoism, etc.) just give people excuses to do nothing and be a content naysayer — although it’s pretty clear that those are not your intentions.
It’s impressive that Aid Watch is so open to debate. Keep up the good work. I’m definitely going to keep reading, as I learned from your books and blogs. In particular, they have helped me avoid “planning” in the projects that I’m involved with.
Congrats, Bill, you’ve hit the next level of fame – public criticism from a dedicated blog!
Anyway, what kind of “mass action” does the author have in mind? A broader donor base? More people wearing bracelets and buying U2 albums? Lobbying congress to end farm subsidies and free up trade restrictions? What’s tipping at the point?
(*yawn*) another “founder” of something, weighing in…
Wow, based on Bryan’s knack for long names, I think we need to start a NGO to reduce alphabet waste. We can call it “Be Short” with the snappy acronym of B.S. which will from now on acronym all too-long names, starting with STEEP and MPHC.
Yep, just criticized, promoted solution, and implemented all in one paragraph. Next up, world poverty…
I think the biggest problem this group would have with Bill is accepting the idea that doing nothing is sometimes the best thing to do– even in the face of heart wrenching situations.
Disagree with the author that fixing foreign aid requires mass action. It sounds uplifting, but it is probably easier to find someone in power to take a few courageous decisions than to educate the American voter about the complexities of foreign aid.
“Good people do not ignore 9.2 million children dying every year from poverty related causes.”
Those are statistics and not real people. And if they are real people, they have been disenfranchised further, had their voices taken away, by yet another blog that purports to speak for them.
The truth of the matter is that the ‘Aid Debate’ as it is structured now is an ego trip happening in western university common rooms, plush Ngo offices and other such ‘elitist’ Huffington Postish spaces by people way disconnected from poverty.
The only non Westerners benefiting are the token African voices (writers particularly) who can publish articles fuelled by self-righteous indignity that they cobble together in between conferences.
I refuse to take myself seriously, and promise to caricature any one else in these debates seriously until the subaltern speaks. If ever they can.
N.M
While I agree with Bill Easterly Watch that Easterly’s public writings sometimes tend to oversimplify to make a point, I think that they could make more a constructive difference in their criticisms of his criticisms of the aid community. To that end, I invite all of you to read MY new blog, Bill Easterly Watch Watch.
By “public” I of course meant “popular”…
Thank god for tertiary education!
When I read, “Youth Engagement Coordinator”, I thought someone was taking the mickey.
“I refuse to take myself seriously” is the best thing I have ever seen written on this blog!
Frankly.
@Jeffrey Barnes
Interesting point about inaction being sometimes the best option, and the Bill Easterly Watch people not being able to accept it. As Barack Obama asserted (correctly, in my view) in his recent speech, “Africa’s fate is up to Africans” (or something to that effect). In short, yes, I agree that it’s sometimes impractical and neocolonialist for outsiders to be the judge on when to intervene. I get it, even though I would tend to side more with the Bill Easterly Watch people. But it would be interesting to see a Bill Easterly Watch representative respond to your claim.
I find your claim about the Bill Easterly Watch people calling for mass action to be not on point, though. Yes, it would be difficult to properly educate all Americans on the intricacies of foreign aid, but that doesn’t mean that the current trend of ignorance, inaction (especially for the people that read this blog for the wrong reasons) and/or getting Emmanuel Chriqui to suck on a popsicle to mobilize action for some planned monstrosity with unreachable goals is really optimal. Also, there is a distinction which you seem to ignore when you mention “foreign aid”: that between ODA and giving to “searching” NGOs with a positive track record. And that’s what, I would gather, the Bill Easterly Watch people want to discuss — that giving to the right things with piecemeal objectives is better than inaction. For instance, in a few weeks, I am participating in a MicroBike race to raise money for ACCION, which most of you know has a positive track record in helping people via microfinance. So my question for everyone is: would it be better for me to do nothing, or to participate in such things? I would argue that telling me to do nothing here would be ridiculous, and I assume that’s one reason why the Bill Easterly Watch people have started a blog, in the hopes of spurring new dialogue.
Nick. That sounds like a great idea. If you take the lead on it, I’ll do what I can to shop it around. Maybe some folks here would like to contribute too.
M. Cheers. Agreed, very impressed with Aid Watch being this open to debate.
Angry Sam. I’ll be writing quite a bit in the future about this, but quickly, haha, yes the solution is to get as many U2 albums sold as possible. Elevator summary: like the campaigns to end slavery and apartheid, a tipping point (having a broad support base from all spheres of society) did not come until there was a critical mass (enough people to send a strong message) of informed citizens (people who know, to varying degrees, about the issues and will take a strong stance on them so that we can get past gesture politics) who were willing to take actions together (fragmented we’re weak as is obviously clear by our current situation) to deal with the issues (aid, trade, debt, corruption, IFI reform, the WTO, geography, slavery, colonialism, governance, wars, etc) facing the world’s most vulnerable and marginalized.
Jeff. I somewhat agree. It probably would be easier to find someone in power to make a few courageous decisions. I don’t see them as mutually exclusive though. Putting all the eggs in one basket, if it failed, could delay change significantly. I see them as complementary, and given my position and sphere of influence, I’m working on the critical mass approach. But, if you were able to find someone in power to make those courageous decisions, that would be great.
N.M. Aside from never claiming to speak on behalf impoverished people, I pretty much agree. There are some good people out there though.
Jon. That would be hilarious. We’re working on making the criticisms more constructive, but thanks for that. Let us know if you have any suggestions hey.
Bryan: if you think professor Easterly is all about not helping and finding solutions you are missing the whole point of what he is trying to say and stand for. I would recommend you read “the elusive quest for growth” and the “white man’s burden” if you haven’t done so yet or read them again from beggining to end to understand what he is really saying.But read every word of those books because if you don’t you will continue to be mislead by your own biases and won’t understand what his whole research program and ideas are all abour. You can create as many organizations as you wish and have the freedom of speech to criticize professor Easterly as much as you want, as I think that was the purpose of him posting your comment in his own blog, but please try to get your facts straight first and understand what his position is.
Hi Gonzalo.
I’m pretty sure I get it. Haven’t read the elusive quest for growth yet though.
I think that’s kind of my point. If someone has to read two whole books (hark) to “get” an issue, maybe the person making the point can be more clear about it.
If you want to correct me on my “facts” on what Professor Easterly is trying to accomplish you’re more than welcome to. But I’m pretty sure I get. Cheers.
Heaven knows that Dr Easterly’s tone gets on my nerve sometimes, but I still find his criticism constructive. I disagree that everyone needs to do everything – criticize, solve and implement. Some are good at criticizing and that’s their useful contribution. With his engaging (and sometimes irritating) critique, Bill Easterly involves more people in the debate.
Bryan: Here are my comments and some of the facts. First, an extract from your post:
“If there were enough people focusing on the “solutions,” then criticizing alone would be sufficient — but there are not. So unless you are proposing alternatives, evidence suggests you may be discouraging more people than you are encouraging.”
On Professor Easterly’s case of proposing solutions he presents a very good case for many proposals on Chapter 11 of the White Man’s burden (The future of western assistance), I would give you the specifics but I’m sure he does a better job at it, so go ahead and read the chapter. The main argument of both books is that getting out of poverty requires homegrown development (as he shows with very good evidence on chapter 10 of the white man’s burden) and not utopian planning so ultimately the solutions need to come from poor people in those countries and he presents many success stories in both books. As he states in Chapter 11 of the white man’s burden he favors a “…..gradual approach of piecemeal reforms” and believes there is still hope that western assistance (aid) can help the poor people with their most desperate problems (page 367, The White man’s burden). Throughout both books solutions are presented to many of the aspects he criticizes but on the ground solutions depend on each specific country and the poor people and agencies working on those specific issues. To expect any more solutions or proposals than the ones he suggests in both of his books is really counter intuitive to what he is trying to say, which is, that on the ground searchers would find the best solutions as they are the ones who really know what is going on, and as good as an economist as he might be, he can’t work on all the countries all the time and know everything of what is going on in the dynamic process of everyday life in all of the underdeveloped countries and in every local community of each of these countries. This is a little problem Nobel Laureate F.A Hayek referred to as the knowledge problem, you should read him too.
The following question I would really like to know the answer for because I’ve never heard of it before, but what and where is the evidence that suggests that Easterly is discouraging poor people from finding their way out of poverty? (The opinion of the world’s poorest is the first one you shold be worrying about)I’m not being sarcastic but I would really like to find the answer somewhere as I believe that in “the white man’s burden” he actually tries to give them hope by proposing them to be the searchers and look for those solutions. This definitely does not refer to inaction from the part of the world’s poor but for the approaches being used so far as he shows extensive evidence on both books of what does not work, as you already mention he does very well. People who want to help can work with the people on the ground as he also suggests or provide aid directly to the poor by initiatives such as globalgiving.com which he also references in one of his books.
Last but not least, how do you know that there are not enough people focusing on solutions? Just because they are not writing 4 or 5 year national development plans, papers, or dissertations about it, things that might reach a bigger audience, it doesn’t mean that they don’t care about helping the poor or for that matter it might be the poor themselves that just want to get by and do small things for their own self interest, trying to get themselves out of poverty and don’t have the time to let people in Canada or any other place in the world know, that they are looking for solutions, just because they are focused on their goals and for them it’s just everyday life. These people, who are not mentioned in the data, people Easterly actually tries to make a case for in his books and presents different stories of success about, are the ones looking and searching for solutions. They might be more than you and I might think. We just don’t get to know that on a day by day basis.
If you are one of the people looking for solutions and working alongside with the world’s poorest developing solutions to the problems they think are important to them, I believe professor Easterly would be among the first to congratulate you on that, the very first would be the people you are trying to help which should be your main goal (I would be the third).
Hi Gonzalo,
Sorry you misunderstood me.
I should have been clearer. My focus here is on how Professor Easterly in some instances is discouraging people in the first world from getting involved in poverty alleviation efforts – advocacy or whatever it may be.
Gonzalo,
Not that I am anything close to perfect, but one idea per paragraph. Anything more than that gets to be very hard to read, and I expect that you’d be surprised at how many people won’t read a paragraph that is longer than the eye can see.
Nice thoughts in those very long paragraphs though, I’ll give you that.
Bryan,
There are a mindblowingly large amount of people “in the first world from getting involved in poverty alleviation efforts”, or so they think. If one man (and a couple of assistants) can derail that, then there is more going on than you seem to imagine.
The problem is that a disturbingly large amount of those would be do-gooders are not in fact alleviating poverty. Many of them are wasting well intentioned money on crappy efforts leading nowhere at best, and making things worse in many cases.
Easterly is trying, and I think and hope succeeding, to get people to stop donating money to efforts and instead get them to to make more of an effort to search and donate to to results, not efforts.
He is also trying, successfully or not I am far from sure, at getting NGO’s to stop doing ineffective things, and redirect their resources towards more productive ends.
I for one can’t argue with the intent of his blog, although in his recent reader survey I criticized him and wondered if perhaps he could also focus more on things that work, instead of *only* pulling down things that fail, as worthy that that goal may be.
One wonders how effective in those goals Easterly is. Which brings up the following query:
Bill Easterly,
How do you measure the success or failure of this blog? Do you think it is working, or is likely to work in the future, or should you be directing your scarce thinking, effort, and time resources elsewhere?
For what it is worth, I very much enjoy your (Easterly et al) blog, and yes, I still wish you could mix things up a bit more with tales of something that is working.
I like Bill’s (mostly) unconstructive criticism.
Why?
It brings attention to the dirty laundry strewn across the development industry’s floor.
Just as pop stars can bring an issue to light – so can harsh and witty criticism of the absurdity of many development practices.
Let’s be honest – if professor Easterly’s tone was soft and academicky few would be reading what he has to say (sadly) – and ironically there would be no ANTI-Aid Watch blog!!!
So while a focus on solutions is important too – the first step – like any former alcoholic will tell you – is to recognize there is a problem in the first place.
So in sum, I would say to Bill – don’t yield to being nice and soft. There’s already plenty of that going around and no one will hear you if you do.
@Angry Sam
“Congrats, Bill, you’ve hit the next level of fame – public criticism from a dedicated blog!”
Now, if he can get made fun of on “Saturday Night Live”, he’ll have REALLY made it.