Why isn't foreign aid more effective?

In his book, "The White Man's Burden", William Easterly expounds on why he believes all of the efforts to fight poverty have failed and in some cases done more harm than good. How does it hurt? He says by empowering the systems that funnel the aid and find it in their best interest to maintain the status quo.
He believes there are "planners", which is the Jeffrey Sach's approach and "searchers" which is the approach that he advocates. He believes that in our effort to help and over plan, we try to force others to become what we want them to be. He even goes so far as to say that this is really just another form of western imperialism. He believes that instead of focusing on eradicating poverty, we should focus on what foreign aid can do for poor people. He does not believe in doing nothing but has a radically different approach. 

Searchers look for any opportunity to relieve suffering and don't get stuck on what he calls "infeasible objectives".  He believes in operating without goals and more accountability for those that are trying to help.

There is yet another perspective in the book "A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty". You can read more on the website  Poor Economics which includes a link of ways you can help by funding microfinance projects which do seem to make a lot of sense.

 

Current Affairs

In the midst of the Supreme Court hearings around two marriage equality cases, I wanted to reflect on how we got here and where we might be going. Many of us who came out in the 70’s or 80’s would agree that realizing we were gay freed us from a path toward conventional marriage. Many of us found our happiness in that difference. We were coming out at a time of sexual liberation and marriage was the last thing on anyone’s mind. 

But we grew up and marriage grew up along side us. We watched a very role based institution evolve and truly for the first time in the history of humankind, marriage became an equal partnership of two people who loved each. We grew up to realize that the happiness of love, stability, family and home are just as possible for us as for anyone and so a fight for marriage equality began. 

It was slow and small for many years and 2004 saw the passage of so many state constitutional amendments banning marriage equality. There was a presidential campaign that focused on pushing us back from our quest. But then as more and more of us felt safe enough to come out and we became just another sister, a cousin, a friend, a co-worker, a neighbor, we stopped being so scary. So the support numbers began to grow at a rapid rate. High profile celebrities didn’t hurt but the real difference was made in our home towns.

I would suggest that during these two days of Supreme Court hearings, with social media and visibility, it is possible the support numbers went up another 1-2% points. Maybe even more?  We do not know how the Court will rule. Will there be a sweeping decision or a partial decision? or at worst, a negative decision? We will know for sure in June. 

What I do know now is that our quest to be part of the marriage culture is certainly not destroying the ever evolving institution. In many ways, we may be saving it. I think interest in marriage was on the downturn. But when something you have is coveted by others, you often appreciate the value for the first time.

A World Without Want

One of the world situations that likely keeps us all from feeling as happy and content with our own lives as we wish is the knowledge of such massive poverty that exists for so many in a world of such abundance. Many economist see great progress towards a better life for 6 billion of the world's inhabitants. But most experts agree that there is really no end in sight for a group called, “the bottom billion.” There are differing perspectives on this issue because when we do donate or do what we can to help, we want to think that we are really making a difference.

Some of the countries that you might find in the bottom billion include Malawi, Ethiopia, Haiti, Laos, Chad, Burma, and the countries of central Asia including Afghanistan. Other, once poor countries such as India, Brazil, or China are seeing vast economic progress. So why are some countries stagnating, or even becoming poorer? Many of the economists that are studying the situation are using very complex forms of statistical analysis to come up with that answer. 

In his book, “The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing”, Paul Collier suggests that sending money is not always the answer. Change must come from within and cannot be imposed. He suggests that in all these countries, there are reformers and those opposed to change. We may have to help the reformers by the use of military interventions and trade policies. The problems are not easily solved by celebrities spotlighting the problems and there is not a one size fits all solution.

 

Jeffrey Sachs, the author of “The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity"  applies his global economic theories to the US. Sachs is an advocate for economic aid and he works with celebrities like Angelina Jolie and Bono who raise visibility for his programs. His work in Africa has been in the form of initiatives such as the Millennium Villages Project.  He wrote this book as a result of his growing concern that America is not going in the right direction. He suggests that neither party, the Democrats or Republicans have any really substantial ideas.

He believes the Republicans to be the party of “Big Oil” and the Democrats to be the party of “Wall Street.” Just as he believes the right kind of activism can make a difference in the bottom billion countries, so he believes the same for the US.  He advocates that the current diagnosis that big government is the problem is exactly the wrong diagnosis. In reality, only government can fix the real challenges we are facing, globalization, technological change, and environmental threats.

He suggests a partnership between the market economy and government can make a difference and that the top 1% have a social responsibility to do their part.  There are many things in these ides that ring true, both globally and locally. 

 

Eating Ethically

"Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser hits on a subject near and dear to my heart.     I consider myself a "foodie". What that means to me is that I love food and I am thoughtful about what I eat. When possible, I want to know where the food comes from and the impact it has on the planet.

Do I sometimes indulge in fast food? Yes, for convenience or from a craving established in my college years. But I feel that every meal I eat that supports healthy, sustainable agriculture is a tiny victory.

Schlosser suggests there are other things we can do, aside from avoiding fast food. We should push Congress to ban advertising targeted at children and pushing unhealthy food.  We should demand better health safety laws. He goes into great detail around how the meatpacking industry that has often been driven by the fast food industry is a disgrace. There are high rates of worker injuries. Both meatpacking and fast food rely on high turnover employees, with limited access to quality health insurance, training, career advancement, or even basic fair treatment. He has a great quote, "When labor unions have too much influence, they can become corrupt and encourage inefficiencies. But the absence of unions can permit corporations to behave like a criminal enterprises, violating labor laws with impunity." Our food supply is not as safe as it should be and that has been tolerated while the occurrences of food poisoning  continue to grow. The right pressure applied by consumers could result in change faster than anything the government can do. I wonder what the tipping point will be.
 
Imagine a future where more and more of those that can afford to spend more of their income on local, organic, sustainable food decide to do so. That means more restaurants spring up that deliver healthier food. That means more small farmers establish themselves. This could result in the rebuilding of small town America. This means more jobs that do require intelligence but also hard work and not necessarily an over-priced college degree. As this network of farming grows, prices can begin to drop. Once the farmers have more security and a more consistent consumer base and delivery channels, the food can become more and more affordable. While I expect it might take some time before farmers can make a livable profit,  with increased opportunities to work remotely, one spouse/partner could continue to hold a more conventional job.

Spending in the U.S. will slowly shift. One can hope that spending more on food results in less of the cheap, useless goods from China being bought. Perhaps even some of those dollars can be directed to spending on other healthy choices? It is hard to say how that could all play out.  Health care spending should level off as American become healthier.