William Easterly en Aid Watch se refiere a dos noticias publicadas en el NYT en las que varios investigadores cuestionan la efectividad de determinados tratamientos médicos, y contrasta la naturalidad con la que se aceptan estas críticas con la hostili…

This hits the nub of who is the real constituency for aid. It is not the poor, but the rich taxpayers whose conscience is salved by giving charity. Unlike in medicine, the aid constituency does not benefit from aid, except emotionally. Emotional benefit for aid donors is maximised by direct engagement with the poor, even though indirect approaches (eg private sector development) are more effective in delivering growth and poverty reduction. The real objective of aid is not to reduce poverty, but to respond to the assumptions and prejudices of its funders. Achievement of results is an incidental byproduct.

If you want, look up my comments on this site – I’ve done plenty of engaging with the arguments. Prof Easterly was asking why so many of the debates he gets into get so emotional, so I suggested an answer. I would much rather focus on the facts, as by the sounds of it would you. I look forward to more calm, rational debates!

Jim

I very much doubt he would agree with that. And again your on focus on Easterly’s perceived tone, and on his imputed motivations (“make…people look as bad as possible”) instead of engaging with his argument means that you are actually the one who has chosen to elevate the discussion to the level of a “fight.”

Enough with the perceived insults and hurt feelings. Engage with the arguments.

It is perfectly possible to have a calm, rational debate about aid. In fact, I spent my lunchtime today watching one at the Overseas Development Institute. But Prof Easterly doesn’t seem to want that kind of debate. Instead he uses a derisive (sorry, ‘satirical’) tone and cherry-picks facts and arguments to make his target look as bad as possible. In other words, he goes around picking fights with people, then acts shocked when they get annoyed in response.

“If you start a fight, you can hardly be surprised that you’re in a fight. It’s the definition of passive-aggression and really quite unseemly, to set out to provoke people, and then when they react passionately and defensively, to criticise them for not holding to your standards of a calm and rational debate.”

http://crookedtimber.org/2009/10/22/rules-for-contrarians-1-dont-whine-that-is-all/