 |
| William Easterly |
William Easterly does not think Jeffrey
Sachs’ big plans and demand for more aid is the answer to end extreme poverty [see previous post, Response
to Poverty: Part 1]. In his
book, The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have
Done So Much Ill and So Little Good, Easterly declares both the big plan
and the demand for more aid as the absolute wrong ways to solve the poverty
problem.
Easterly refers to rich nations as
the “West” and poor nations as the “Rest.”
“This is the tragedy in which the West spent $2.3 trillion on foreign
aid over the last five decades and still had not managed to get twelve-cent
medicines to children to prevent half of all malaria deaths,” bemoans
Easterly. He continues, “The West spent
$2.3 trillion and still had not managed to get four-dollar bed nets to poor
families. The West spent $2.3 trillion
and still had not managed to get three dollars to each new mother to prevent five
million child deaths…. It’s a tragedy that so much well-meaning compassion did
not bring these results for needy people” [White Man’s Burden, 4-5].
Easterly cites two specific groups
in the war on poverty—the
Planners and the Searchers. The Planners
are those who dream up great and grandiose strategies to help the poor but have
no accountability in the process or for any results. Many of these planners are elitist,
educators, or wealthy who are insulated from the gritty realities of
poverty. Easterly believes that Planners
are far removed from poverty’s problems and therefore from its solutions. While acknowledging Sachs’ good works in
poverty fighting and development, Easterly calls him a Planner.
Easterly accuses Planners of having
utopian ideas and goals. Billions of
dollars are either wasted or diverted from actually helping the poor. Easterly explains, “A big problem with
foreign aid has been its aspiration to a utopian blueprint to fix the world’s
complex problems. The utopian agenda has
also led to an unproductive focus on trying to change whole political
systems. The status quo—large international bureaucracies
giving aid to large national government bureaucracies—is not getting money to the poor.” [White Man’s Burden, 367-368].
Searchers on the other hand,
according to Easterly, are those in the field working with the poor who
actually get the job done. Searchers are
individuals, companies, or organizations that learn what is needed, supply the
need and earn a return for their work.
Their plans are not huge or grandiose but piece-meal—hit or miss. If a plan or idea misses they can quickly
discard it for another product or service until it hits. This way the public is served with what it
wants and the Searcher is rewarded with a profit.
Easterly
cites an interesting case of Searchers getting the job done more effectively
than the aid agencies. “There is
significant evidence to suggest that lifesaving products are more effectively
distributed among the poor when they are sold than when they are given
away. The best example is the
distribution of bed nets for malaria prevention in Africa. One survey found that when free nets were
distributed in Zambia, 70 percent of the recipients didn’t use them. In Malawi, where nets were sold at affordable
prices, there was nearly universal use” [White Man’s Burden, 14].
Easterly contrasts Planners and
Searchers this way, “In foreign aid, Planners announce good intentions but
don’t motivate anyone to carry them out; Searchers find things that work and
get some reward. Planners raise expectations
but take no responsibility for meeting them; Searchers accept responsibility
for their actions. Planners determine
what to supply; Searchers find out what is in demand. Planners apply global blueprints; Searchers
adapt to local conditions. Planners at
the top lack knowledge of the bottom; Searchers find out what the reality is at
the bottom. Planners never hear whether
the plan got what it needed; Searchers find out if the customer is satisfied” [White Man’s Burden, 5-6].
Easterly claims that Planners like
Sachs demand more aid for impoverished people and nations. But, with all due respect to Sachs and other
Planners, the past fifty years of big ideas and $2.3 trillion in aid has not
solved global poverty and may have contributed to it. The next blog post will look at the effects of
foreign aid on poverty.
