The Lancet has issued a severe editorial blast against the aid agencies (both official and NGO) for Haiti aid efforts. (Link requires free registration.)
Alanna Shaikh points out where the Lancet is off base.
The Lancet knowledge universe has the perception “the aid sector” has “largely escaped public scrutiny.” Who ever heard of any those obscure *&^%$#@ criticisms of foreign aid? That “coming age of accountability” crap? Sigh.
But, forget all that, here’s a belated welcome to the concept of aid criticism, Dr. Lancet! Here’s what you have already accomplished.
First, you analyze the political economy incentives of aid agencies:
large aid agencies can be obsessed with raising money through their own appeal efforts. Media coverage as an end in itself is too often an aim of their activities. Marketing and branding have too high a profile.
Second, you note these political incentives could cause some needs to be neglected and others not, with the unhappy result:
when viewed through the distorted lens of politics, economics, religion, and history, some lives are judged more important than others
Third, no matter what aid can do and/or cannot do, you note coordination between agencies is (actually will always be) a disaster:
relief efforts in the field are sometimes competitive with little collaboration between agencies, including smaller, grass-roots charities that may have have better networks in affected counties and so are well placed to immediately implement emergency relief.
You’re off to a promising start in so far having shown an impressive grasp of the obvious, Dr. Lancet! Welcome to the aid accountability movement!
11 Comments
What is so painful about this editorial is that it makes a very valid point (‘there should be more scrutiny of the aid sector’) that is totally overshadowed by serious conceptual and evidential issues, plus a total emphasis on rhetoric over content. Too bad.
A have written a more detailed critique at http://michaelkeizer.com/humourless/2010/lancing-a-boil-the-lancet-on-the-aid-industry/
thanks, Michael!
so itv news was biased to the aid agencies (both official and NGO)
Can I give you a word of advice Mr. Easterly?
The number one way to NOT get people to follow your criticisms (most, though not all, of which I think are valid) is to be so arrogant about it. Comments like: “impressive grasp of the obvious” and “Who ever heard of any those obscure *&^%$#@ criticisms of foreign aid? That “coming age of accountability” crap? Sigh” a sure fire way to turn people off and to not take a damn thing you say seriously.
Rather than coming off like an arrogant 13 year old kid, you should be rather be welcoming them and a comment like “I’ve often talked about some of these issues …” is much more likely to get other people to consider your points.
Every post you make about things similar to this comes off essentially as “thank god you idiots figured out what genius me was talking about this whole time” which isn’t exactly going to get a lot of people to take you seriously.
Ted H, thanks for your feedback, I take your comments and suggestions seriously. Best, Bill
Humility’s vastly overrated, and frequently a luxury.
Sometimes, arrogance is the best tool at one’s disposal, though not sure you fit in that mold …. a hundred people will read a book a hundred different ways.
As Umberto Eco points out in “Interpretation and Overinterpretation,” once the book [essay, blog entry] leaves the writer’s hands, it belongs to the reader’s interpretation.”
Unsolicited advice may equally be read as lacking humility, though I’m not pointing any fingers.
All best.
Dear Mr. Easterly,
I studied development economics and some thoughts of your White Mans Burden Book actually contributed to me quitting in third semester. I changed the subject to business administration and I am working at a governmental development agency 6 months a year. Long story
. So I took ur “arrogance” slightly serious. When I just read about the “arrogance problem” I felt in the first moment that he was not completely wrong. At least people who are new to the subject and your writing could consider you as slightly arrogant.
I can say that I totally go for your humor and approach of all topics in this blog. I think basically because I read a lot of you.
“Just asking that aid benefit the poor.”
Not “convincing everybody of mine and Lauras and others ideas”.
If you were too serious people also might complain of how this arrogant guy could be so arrogantly sure.
That Ted H is stressing this is still something good. A mirror is not too bad and your kind of writing is always on the edge of balance.
All the best, Benjamin
Word Bandit and Benjamin,
thanks so much, this is all very useful feedback for me.
As both producer and consumer, I think satire, snarkiness, etc. is OK; arrogance is NOT. So keep the feedback coming.
best, Bill
I’m increasingly seeing aid critics as types of vultures – nay, PARASITES in the aid system.
I have to second Ted H comments. Sarcasm and expletives, albeit censored expletives, undermine your argument. It’s fine to indulge in them, I suppose, if you’re only trying to reach people who already agree with you.
But for people who want to learn your point-of-view and weigh your arguments, sarcasm and expletives only turn them off.
Not to get too heavy, but Aristotle said there were three ways to appeal to an audience: logos, pathos and ethos — ethos, being the personality, quality, the character of the speaker. If you blow that by indulging in sarcasm you’re in danger of losing an audience you want to reach.
It strikes me that there are two sides of (potentially correct) aid criticism that aren’t necessarily compatible:
- the cry-out for “coordination” and the shock-and-horror reaction to charities competing and not being managed by some central agency
- the despair at the inefficiencies of aid and relief work with slowness and waste.
Surely, if the examples from the private sector are something to go by, it would be very hard to achieve both of these?
2 Trackbacks
[...] Bill Easterly tem sido um excelente crítico das “ajudas internacionais” e, pelo visto, ele não está mais sozinho. [...]
[...] Michael and Alannah have both written good responses to an article in the Lancet criticising the aid industry, which you can read here and here, while AidWatch, a site dedicated to holding humanitarians accountable to best aid practice, has their own response here. [...]