Maybe this is why accountability for Millennium Development Goals did not work out that well

Would love if you could respond to this article from Sachs..

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/opinion/18iht-edsachs.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=global

We need to have a series of meetings to discuss initial proposals for the first draft of an in-principle agreement on how to solve this. You first.

Is this the so-called System Wide Coherence?

I think most readers here could write Dr. Easterly’s response to Sachs’ column: development aid cannot explain the improvements in Africa. We know things have gotten better in Africa, but development aid is not the reason. Anything else could be the reason – the tilt of the planet, the evaporation of seawater, etc. etc. But definitely NOT development aid. The sound of the wind in the trees, the click-clack of an old typewriter, the increase in the number of raisins in raisin bran, etc. – these might explain the improvements. But aid? No. It is irrelevant. There’s no doubt things are better in Africa today than they were 10 years ago. But please do not tell us it is aid. Because aid does not fit our ideology, you see. It cannot possibly be something that we do not believe could work. If it fits our beliefs, we will consider it. If it does not, please do not suggest it!
Hahaha. Happy MDG Day.

@sam

I’ve never commented here before but I’m compelled to commend you for your response to @Chantelle

The world clusterf**k comes to mind

The diagram reflects what goes in my head to figure out what aid supposed to accomplish? Unless the objective is for permanent welfare state for the recipients or in reverse a permanent job for the administrators and fund for Governments there is no incentive to solve the problem.

If a business manager runs MDG than professors the focuses will be to solve problems permantley.

There are legitimate humanitarian assistance every where, but when the brightest of countries work for Aid agencies and the majority are poor expect a whole lot more worst things to come.

The question remains; who is going to stop it?

Sorry – I don’t quite know what happened. Here goes again:

I can’t hold back from repeating my point – this time with words rather than just the otherwise excellent xkcd cartoon that I linked previously.
Just substitute Economist for Physicist and perhaps ever encountering for first encountering.
Global Development – something which isn’t really agreed upon what exactly is or contains – was turned into a number of numeric outcomes. Actually not such an unsmart move considering the lack of consensus on how and toward what end. As such, it has been highly successful as a reference point in the contested international and national political arena(s).
Your deadpan post seems to perceive those political arenas as if they could be modelled in a context like a simple business problem e.g. where a supply chain manager would be made responsible for purchasing adequate bolts and scrap suppliers that delivered substandard bolts.
Wouldn’t that be in stark contrast to your whole ‘searchers’-allegory?

It beats me, why it is that you, Prof Easterly, would want to portray yourself as if you didn’t know this?
I just don’t get it.

Just drawing squiglly lines does not explain anything. If this was a simple problem capable of 2nd grade box diagrams with nice little arrows, it would have been solved long time ago.