Big Think

James Alexander on January 18, 2008, 6:21 AM

It just did and that is that.

Amit Sahai on January 18, 2008, 7:33 AM

The truth of the criticisms regarding accountability are beyond question. Friends of mine who work for the UN and other giant aid institutions complain bitterly about the bureaucracy and culture of "taking credit" instead of ensuring results.

These are very difficult issues to resolve. One proposal is to force senior administrators to propose specific measures that they are willing to promise to improve; if they fail, they are fired and/or receive less pay.

However, one mistake Prof. Easterly makes is to attribute the success of the west to "individualism". Prof. Easterly should read Guns, Germs, and Steel for a much more likely explanation.

Robert James Crawford on January 18, 2008, 9:28 AM

I would like to hear what he thinks of the NGOs. Certainly, I agree regarding the big bureaucracies, the failure of the press to inquire, etc. But you are talking about issues that don't concern the overwhelming majority of people, for whom the issue is just an occasional picture they see and who don't have the motivation or tools to really dig deeply.

I saw this guy speak at Davos, where he was debating Bill Gates and Paul Wolfowitz on what constitutes effective aid, and he was good and very thoughtful.

James Alexander on January 18, 2008, 11:21 AM

It just did and that is that.

Adam Lerner on January 18, 2008, 12:30 PM

Though I am sure that increased monitoring or better journalism would be able to eventually put these problems to rest, I am inclined to the idea that permanent (or rather, long-term) solutions to poverty will not come from large bureaucracies like the World Bank. I am not saying that I have the solution, but thus far it has failed and seems to have much more potential for failure than other means. Though I, like amitsahai, am hesitant to place all western success on individualism, I do believe it is certainly a large part of the equation.

Amit Sahai on January 18, 2008, 12:33 PM

The truth of the criticisms regarding accountability are beyond question. Friends of mine who work for the UN and other giant aid institutions complain bitterly about the bureaucracy and culture of “taking credit” instead of ensuring results.

These are very difficult issues to resolve. One proposal is to force senior administrators to propose specific measures that they are willing to promise to improve; if they fail, they are fired and/or receive less pay.

However, one mistake Prof. Easterly makes is to attribute the success of the west to “individualism”. Prof. Easterly should read Guns, Germs, and Steel for a much more likely explanation.

Jeffrey Thomson on January 18, 2008, 1:23 PM

It seems to be a very insightful view of the disipation of aid funds from a former insider; the very process that many have suspected over the years. Hence the question often asked, "where has all the money gone?". Unfortunately, it often seems that the gross wastage is not confined to aid programs, but is endemic to most beaurocracies with a large proportion being consumed in administrative processes and procedures.

Sunny Days on January 18, 2008, 1:38 PM

Even distribution of wealth, until that day comes, then the rich will want to be richer, and only think in self serving terms, the poor will remain poor only while they see themselves as poor, but are probably richer in many other ways anyway, but are propelled to think "money" means rich. Sadly it doesn't, but that's the belief of the day, thank goodness we all have the ability to change our beliefs….

imbecilic omniscient on January 18, 2008, 2:19 PM

Along with others, I too agree that foreign aid tends to fail because the money does not always go where it was intended to go. However, I also think that it fails because it is a "quick fix" to enormous problems. If you give food away to a developing nation, what happens to the farmer who intended to sell food at the local market? I think that aid is given a lot of times in hopes that money and food will solve everyone's problems. It has often been said that if you give a man a fish he eats for one day; but if you teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime. Aid often fails because programs fail, or weren't initiated properly to begin with.

Robert James Crawford on January 18, 2008, 2:28 PM

I would like to hear what he thinks of the NGOs. Certainly, I agree regarding the big bureaucracies, the failure of the press to inquire, etc. But you are talking about issues that don’t concern the overwhelming majority of people, for whom the issue is just an occasional picture they see and who don’t have the motivation or tools to really dig deeply.

I saw this guy speak at Davos, where he was debating Bill Gates and Paul Wolfowitz on what constitutes effective aid, and he was good and very thoughtful.

Adam Lerner on January 18, 2008, 5:30 PM

Though I am sure that increased monitoring or better journalism would be able to eventually put these problems to rest, I am inclined to the idea that permanent (or rather, long-term) solutions to poverty will not come from large bureaucracies like the World Bank. I am not saying that I have the solution, but thus far it has failed and seems to have much more potential for failure than other means. Though I, like amitsahai, am hesitant to place all western success on individualism, I do believe it is certainly a large part of the equation.

Jeffrey Thomson on January 18, 2008, 6:23 PM

It seems to be a very insightful view of the disipation of aid funds from a former insider; the very process that many have suspected over the years. Hence the question often asked, “where has all the money gone?”. Unfortunately, it often seems that the gross wastage is not confined to aid programs, but is endemic to most beaurocracies with a large proportion being consumed in administrative processes and procedures.

Sunny Days on January 18, 2008, 6:38 PM

Even distribution of wealth, until that day comes, then the rich will want to be richer, and only think in self serving terms, the poor will remain poor only while they see themselves as poor, but are probably richer in many other ways anyway, but are propelled to think “money” means rich. Sadly it doesn’t, but that’s the belief of the day, thank goodness we all have the ability to change our beliefs….

imbecilic omniscient on January 18, 2008, 7:19 PM

Along with others, I too agree that foreign aid tends to fail because the money does not always go where it was intended to go. However, I also think that it fails because it is a “quick fix” to enormous problems. If you give food away to a developing nation, what happens to the farmer who intended to sell food at the local market? I think that aid is given a lot of times in hopes that money and food will solve everyone’s problems. It has often been said that if you give a man a fish he eats for one day; but if you teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime. Aid often fails because programs fail, or weren’t initiated properly to begin with.

Andrew Kellam on January 19, 2008, 2:45 AM

Hmm. Upon review of the video and the comments, I can't help but think that this is just an exercise in mental masturbation. Bureaucracies are ineffective? Really? I've never heard of such a thing. Poor people are still poor and don't have the basic things that they need? Really? News to me.

C'mon. The fact that 'we' in the rich world are not doing a good job helping the world's poor is nothing new. In fact, the globalization of the last decade that it is so popular to hate and call evil has probably done more to lift people out of poverty across the globe than any assistance that has ever been provided by a rich world government. Its not pretty, but it is probably true. In any case, what has not been presented here is anything close to a solution. Since this forum is otherwise devoid of those types of ideas, let me offer one: the application of a buycott.

A buycott is an idea introduced but Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff in their book called 'Why Not'? In this application, instead of letting governments set aside $2.3 trillion over 50 years and then decide how it gets spent, why not have governments set aside that money and let the taxpayers who are putting up that money decide where it will go? Qualifying organizations will be decided through sites like charitynavigator.org and taxpayers can decide where to send their money. Those who make no decision will have their money split up proportionally based on those who do vote.

Now you have people directly involved in the giving of funds and an non-governmental organization responsible for easy-to-understand transparency, thereby solving some of the biggest issues Mr. Easterly discusses.

You might not agree with my idea. Which is fine. But I beseech Mr. Easterly and others on this forum to start coming up with solutions – the problems are already obvious.

lesley cook on January 19, 2008, 6:18 AM

Prof. Easterly confirms what we all know and that is all the overpaid and too numerous administrators syphon away all the funds and there is not enough to do any good by th time it gets to the end of the line.

Smaller organizations that are more accountable rather than the existing large organizations would be much more effective. Giving only money to the poor is not the answer. Providing education, taking health clinics to where the poor live and work, providing jobs and encouraging small business are the answer for long term reversal of poverty.

I certainly don't agree that the West became successful because of individualism. Geography, lack of resources, lack of education, internal strife, and leaders who stop thinking collectively and act to prosper as individuals like the the west, all contribute to the state of the poorer nations today.

The "historical" impact of western nations on the countries who currently make up the poor countries is such that the money shouldn,t be called aide but compensation payments.

Andrew Kellam on January 19, 2008, 7:45 AM

Hmm. Upon review of the video and the comments, I can’t help but think that this is just an exercise in mental masturbation. Bureaucracies are ineffective? Really? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Poor people are still poor and don’t have the basic things that they need? Really? News to me.

C’mon. The fact that ‘we’ in the rich world are not doing a good job helping the world’s poor is nothing new. In fact, the globalization of the last decade that it is so popular to hate and call evil has probably done more to lift people out of poverty across the globe than any assistance that has ever been provided by a rich world government. Its not pretty, but it is probably true. In any case, what has not been presented here is anything close to a solution. Since this forum is otherwise devoid of those types of ideas, let me offer one: the application of a buycott.

A buycott is an idea introduced but Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff in their book called ‘Why Not’? In this application, instead of letting governments set aside $2.3 trillion over 50 years and then decide how it gets spent, why not have governments set aside that money and let the taxpayers who are putting up that money decide where it will go? Qualifying organizations will be decided through sites like charitynavigator.org and taxpayers can decide where to send their money. Those who make no decision will have their money split up proportionally based on those who do vote.

Now you have people directly involved in the giving of funds and an non-governmental organization responsible for easy-to-understand transparency, thereby solving some of the biggest issues Mr. Easterly discusses.

You might not agree with my idea. Which is fine. But I beseech Mr. Easterly and others on this forum to start coming up with solutions – the problems are already obvious.

lesley cook on January 19, 2008, 11:18 AM

Prof. Easterly confirms what we all know and that is all the overpaid and too numerous administrators syphon away all the funds and there is not enough to do any good by th time it gets to the end of the line.

Smaller organizations that are more accountable rather than the existing large organizations would be much more effective. Giving only money to the poor is not the answer. Providing education, taking health clinics to where the poor live and work, providing jobs and encouraging small business are the answer for long term reversal of poverty.

I certainly don’t agree that the West became successful because of individualism. Geography, lack of resources, lack of education, internal strife, and leaders who stop thinking collectively and act to prosper as individuals like the the west, all contribute to the state of the poorer nations today.

The “historical” impact of western nations on the countries who currently make up the poor countries is such that the money shouldn,t be called aide but compensation payments.

Rachel Morris on January 20, 2008, 5:23 AM

I think many of us know that much of the money donated never reaches those who need it. While it is understandable that those working full time in charitable organisations need to be paid, it is a sad fact that they often earn much more than the average wage. Perhaps it is time for laws to be passed regarding the wages of charity workers, it would mean that those who donate are not wasting their money and that those who the money is for recieve most of what is donated.

George Jerry on January 20, 2008, 8:33 AM

Economist William Easterly's statement that most of the money donated is not percolating down to the poor is not a shocking revelation. As an economist he should know that the poor have no economic clout and therefore will always get the short end of the stick. That is the way the world works.
The major impediment to lifting the poor out of poverty is corrupt national governments. Solve that problem and you will lift billions out of poverty

Rachel Morris on January 20, 2008, 10:23 AM

I think many of us know that much of the money donated never reaches those who need it. While it is understandable that those working full time in charitable organisations need to be paid, it is a sad fact that they often earn much more than the average wage. Perhaps it is time for laws to be passed regarding the wages of charity workers, it would mean that those who donate are not wasting their money and that those who the money is for recieve most of what is donated.

George Jerry on January 20, 2008, 1:33 PM

Economist William Easterly’s statement that most of the money donated is not percolating down to the poor is not a shocking revelation. As an economist he should know that the poor have no economic clout and therefore will always get the short end of the stick. That is the way the world works.
The major impediment to lifting the poor out of poverty is corrupt national governments. Solve that problem and you will lift billions out of poverty

Joanne L. on January 29, 2008, 2:09 AM

Foreign Aid is tied, and this does very little to address the collapsing social and cultural structures in the majority world. The Aid that is given is often tied to specific programs as decided by the loaning bodies that do not reflect the real needs of the local economy, but that in fact tend to ensure that the local economy is left slightly more vulnerable and more open to infiltration from other quarters. These structural adjustment programs are made from afar, and have very little to do with the needs of the people in the nation. Adapting these policies often results in deregulation, wage suppression, investment, trade liberalization and privatization also all which create ideal conditions for large multinationals, sadly the majority from the Western hemisphere.

When it comes to private donors, more often then not, the agencies that are set up to provide the required assistance to the locals are often inflexible in the way that they operate because once again, their focus is not the development of programs based on the needs as identified by local populations, but on needs as identified by the funding agency. To ensure continued survival, they have to remain in line with the expectations of the funder which is not necessarily what the local population needs.

Joanne L. on January 29, 2008, 7:09 AM

Foreign Aid is tied, and this does very little to address the collapsing social and cultural structures in the majority world. The Aid that is given is often tied to specific programs as decided by the loaning bodies that do not reflect the real needs of the local economy, but that in fact tend to ensure that the local economy is left slightly more vulnerable and more open to infiltration from other quarters. These structural adjustment programs are made from afar, and have very little to do with the needs of the people in the nation. Adapting these policies often results in deregulation, wage suppression, investment, trade liberalization and privatization also all which create ideal conditions for large multinationals, sadly the majority from the Western hemisphere.

When it comes to private donors, more often then not, the agencies that are set up to provide the required assistance to the locals are often inflexible in the way that they operate because once again, their focus is not the development of programs based on the needs as identified by local populations, but on needs as identified by the funding agency. To ensure continued survival, they have to remain in line with the expectations of the funder which is not necessarily what the local population needs.