Easterly vs. Sachs

Bill Easterly, former World Bank official and currently professor of economics at NYU, has just published "The White Man’s Burden:  why the West’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good”.  The only point of the book is that aid (2.5 trillion US dollars in the last four decades) has been, and will be, useless to reduce poverty and bring development to poor nations.  It runs squarely against Jeffrey Sachs and his book “The End of Poverty”, which argues otherwise.

To reduce poverty for the millions of human beings that live with less than 1 dollar a day is a Herculean task.  Clearly, one would not expect a single person –or organization—to have all the answers, nor a single approach to be valid.  Debate is necessary, as it would enrich the prescriptions and understanding of the greatest challenge for this century.  However, Easterly misses an extraordinary opportunity to bring fresh ideas and serious debate, by making his attacks against Sachs seem childish and personal.

Easterly in his presentation of the book is juvenile and tries to be funny by pushing the Bono-Sachs relationship too much.  Is the call for doubling aid to poor nations invalid just because Bono and Angelina Jolie endorse it?  Or is there more scientific evidence?  When confronted with this question, Easterly responds that those countries that have received more aid are the ones that have grown less.  Well, maybe that’s why they received so much aid in the first place!  He also argues that all those nations that became failed states (Somalia, Haiti, Liberia, Zimbabwe, etc.) were under IMF surveillance before failing.  Is this concluding evidence that IMF causes a collapse of the government and society?  Well, no again, as if the autopsy performed to dead patients in a hospital shows that they were receiving medicine before they died!

Finally Easterly seems to conclude that imposing free markets and democracy is enough to stop the plight of the poor.  At a different level of development that might be the case, but Sach’s focus is on those cases where the people are dying at an incredible rate (30,000 children every day from diarrhea), not even eating or being strong enough to bring anything to market.

This could have been a good book and a good debate.  Unfortunately the pages radiate two feelings: that Easterly greatly resents the World Bank for sacking him (after all, he spent 16 years doing what he criticizes now), and that he resents Sachs for his popularity.  Opposite to what the Economist said about “The End of Poverty”, in this case man and book are unimpressive.