Skip to content

The New Evangelists: Bill and Melinda Gates Spread the Good News on Global Health Aid

People usually come to the capital to criticize to government, Bill Gates joked at the start of his speech on Tuesday in Washington, but “we’re here to say two words you don’t often hear about government programs: Thank you.”

The Gateses’ mission wasn’t just about gratitude, but to sell the simple—and, some might argue, simplistic—message that US government investment in global health works. They weren’t asking for money for themselves (the Gates foundation already has so much money to spend each year that they discourage individual donations), but rather to lobby US policy makers and citizens to continue the increasing American investment in global health.

Americans only hear the horrible stories about disease and malnutrition in the developing world, the Gateses said. The idea behind their new public advocacy initiative, the Living Proof Project, is to tell the stories of people in the developing world who are alive today because of US interventions in global health.

The reduction in mortality for children under five, from 20 million deaths per year in 1960 to eight million per year in 2008 is, Bill Gates said, one of the biggest accomplishments in the last 100 years. This happened because of higher incomes and smart spending on global health, and Bill says the US is largely to thank for it.

The Gateses talked about success in decreasing prices and increasing access to anti-retroviral treatments for AIDS patients, and praised the “American tax dollars” that have enabled “slow but real progress” towards finding an AIDS vaccine.

Bill Gates also talked about making “substantial progress” against malaria for the first time since the 1970s, arguing that scaled up indoor spraying and bednet distribution since 2004 has led to large reductions in malaria cases. [We’ve written posts on the Gateses’ erroneous use of African malaria data three separate times, with spectacularly non-existent effect on the Gateses.]

Gates went on to address some arguments that “skeptics” (who could they possibly be?) might level against the optimistic approach to global health.

There have been problems with corruption, he acknowledged, “if you look back at the history of aid” and “some of it ended up in the pocket of the local dictator.” But today’s global health spending, he argued, is different because it is more measurable. With health interventions, “we can measure the impacts, we can make sure the vaccines are getting to the children,” he said, though he left unclear how you identify the corrupt link in the chain from funding to inputs to outputs involving many separate actors.

To those concerned that aid creates a culture of dependency, Gates again pointed at history, saying that nearly twice as many countries in the 1960s received aid compared to today. Countries like Egypt, Brazil and Thailand, he said, are “not net recipients of aid.”  He predicted that the world will see increasing numbers of countries currently on aid becoming self-sufficient. We hope that includes the many countries that have become steadily more aid-dependent for five decades.

There’s been little substantive commentary on the speech in the news or blogosphere so far. Judging from the tenor of the enthusiastic real-time comments from viewers during the speech (“What can we do? Who to call or write?” and “I love hearing about the positive progress we have made…it is so rare that this fact is broadcasted,” for example), the Gateses were preaching to the choir.

This NPR interview,  though just seven minutes long, is actually meatier than the Gateses’ speech. In it, the interviewer gets Bill and Melinda Gates to talk honestly about why the Gates Foundation behaves differently than governments (“we can take risks where a government won’t or can’t”), and how their entrepreneurial approach to development problems allows them to acknowledge failures and change their approach midstream. Great!

Melinda Gates retells the story of delivering the rotavirus vaccine (but without the relentlessly optimistic spin from the speech). They worked with a scientist to develop a lifesaving vaccine, but failed with something much more mundane: producing the right packaging. They didn’t realize that they needed to put the doses in small containers so that it could be refrigerated all the way from the lab to remote locations in Nicaragua. She said: “You just learn from it and say okay, that’s a small mistake we made, and we’re not going to make that mistake again.” Kudos again! Would you mind if we called you “searchers”?

But all of this left us with one big unanswered question.  If the Gateses indeed have a much-improved aid model, then why this big campaign to defend US government aid agencies (including USAID), whom we and many others have documented do not change in response to – or even acknowledge – failures?

Be Sociable, Share!
This entry was posted in Aid policies and approaches, Global health and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

12 Comments

  1. TGGP wrote:

    Bill says the US is largely to thank for it.
    As Bryan Caplan loves to point out, foreign aid is about 1 percent of the U.S federal budget. It seems quite bold to attribute a huge worldwide shift to one percent of a single government’s spending, even if we’re talking about the U.S. Perhaps by “the US” he doesn’t just mean our foreign aid, but also people like himself.

    Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:38 am | Permalink
  2. Laura wrote:

    @TGGP

    Yes, the same thing struck me. But the speech was very explicitly about US *government* spending. Here are the figures that Gates gave in the speech: The US government contributes one quarter of all global health spending. It will spend $8 billion, about .25 percent of the total federal budget, in 2010. Compare this with the Gates Foundation, which spends $1.8 billion, which is over half of its yearly budget, on global health.

    Bill Gates called his pot of money “tiny” in comparison with the US budget, but he seems to be cultivating an overdeveloped sense of modesty here; it’s pretty amazing that a private foundation now provides almost one-fifth as much funding towards global health as the government of the richest country in the world.

    Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:59 am | Permalink
  3. geckonomist wrote:

    If the US government has to have an aid budget, I think it is sensible to use this money for investments in health & education.
    The family Gates seems to agree. So what?

    That special interests lobby the government for handouts to their favourite projects, is a fact of life.
    Get over it, Prof. Easterly.

    Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:14 pm | Permalink
  4. Intern Chris wrote:
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:34 pm | Permalink
  5. Bryan wrote:

    Great post!!

    Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:43 pm | Permalink
  6. mike wrote:

    Having an attitude of gratitude is truly a great attitude to have. I do agree with the first comment here about when he said “the US” he doesn’t just mean our foreign aid, but also people like himself. This is what i think he meant .

    Posted October 29, 2009 at 8:25 pm | Permalink
  7. RJG wrote:

    Bill this is off this topic but I would love to hear your thoughts on the pre-Copenhagen EU machinations around ‘climate fairness’. Also are these vast sums being factored into the whole aid/ development debate. For example:

    “The European Commission has recommended EU nations pay up to 15bn euros ($22bn; £13bn) a year from 2013 to developing nations.

    A draft text of the summit conclusions, seen by the BBC, says EU leaders agree with the European Commission’s estimate that the total cost of climate adaptation in developing countries could reach about 100bn euros ($148bn; £90bn) annually by 2020.”

    From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8332484.stm

    Posted October 30, 2009 at 9:01 am | Permalink
  8. George McWilliams wrote:

    What Gates pushes is not the Global Health program at all. It is at best a sub-section of an infectious diseases program.
    Because the Gates Foundation has such a narrow agenda, I support Prof. Easterly’s caution. No one should be regarded as sacrosanct. Because the spending by the Gates Foundation is tax-exempt money, their private foundation too should be subject to some sort of public oversight.

    Posted October 30, 2009 at 8:02 pm | Permalink
  9. I was struck by how anti-poor-people many of the comments on the NPR site were.

    Posted October 31, 2009 at 6:10 am | Permalink
  10. sokpaard wrote:

    In May of this year, contributors to =The Lancet= took the Gates Foundation to task, but for other, and very compelling reasons. The Lancet’s editorial, “What has the Gates Foundation done for global health?” Volume 373, Issue 9675, is available online.

    Posted November 1, 2009 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
  11. Dan @ Israel wrote:

    Not surprisingly, this agenda merited for Gates two meetings with Obama in the last few months.
    Reducing infant mortality means someone has to support exploding populations in sub-Saharan region.

    Posted November 2, 2009 at 8:03 am | Permalink
  12. I.P.A. Manning wrote:

    Out in the Zambian bush bednets are sown together and used to catch all age classes of fish; and villagers in the areas I work won’t sleep under bednets as they believe they will be suffocated by them. And no EIA and the necessary consultation with rural people has been carried out on this programme.

    Posted November 8, 2009 at 3:09 am | Permalink

3 Trackbacks

  1. By uberVU - social comments on October 29, 2009 at 10:24 am

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by bill_easterly: Aid Watch: Gateses impressive on their improved aid model, but why are they defending the US govt who is so much worse? http://bit.ly/YmmYJ

  2. [...] we made, and we’re not going to make that mistake … See the original post:  The New Evangelists: Bill and Melinda Gates Spread the Good News … Share and [...]

  3. By Coltan and Beyoncé « Questions I Ask Myself on October 30, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    [...] think Easterly asks this one better than I can. But really: if displacement isn’t going to occur (and it isn’t), [...]

  • About Aid Watch

    The Aid Watch blog is a project of New York University's Development Research Institute (DRI). This blog is principally written by William Easterly, author of "The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics" and "The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good," and Professor of Economics at NYU. It is co-written by Laura Freschi and by occasional guest bloggers. Our work is based on the idea that more aid will reach the poor the more people are watching aid.

    "Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking." - H.L. Mencken

  • Recent Comments

  • Archives