Pundita's response to Sach's "Global War on Poverty"



Foreign-policy blogger Pundita graciously took the time to summarize her perspective on Jeffrey Sach's proposed solution to global poverty. My basic query was:

If I may summarize, it sounds like your position is that poverty is primarily structural, so we need to force or incentivize systemic change if we really want to cure poverty. That would imply ground-level bottom-up assistance a la Sachs is better than top-down projects that breed corruption, but since [the former] still rely on handouts that would reinforce crippling paternalistic stereotypes.

Her response was a surgically-precise dissection of the causes and cures of the failure of modern development practices. Though she may object to my terminology, it actually aligns well with my views on post-modern paternalism -- where the focus is on raising adults, not merely nurturing children. Some of her most salient points (emphasis mine):

What makes Sachs or you assume that "ground level" projects don't breed corruption?...

Mr. Sachs has a history... of taking a blitzkrieg approach to solving the problems of people in poor countries. That approach pays no mind to the horrific consequences that occur when one treats large numbers of people like game pieces on a chess board...

Sachs aside, it is not by any one way that the world's poorest nations got into their predicament. Thus, it is not by any one way that they extricate themselves. To help them do this takes a variety of approaches, administered on a case-by-case basis, as I indicated in my "Africa who?" essay...

However, there is also a pattern of catastrophic failures...

...should the developed countries continue to take a "paternalistic" approach? Or should they take the position that no matter how poor an adult is, he's still an adult and thus he should act like one?

Indeed, on the eve of the Gleneagles G8 meeting, an African economist pleaded to the world's development nations, "For God's sake, stop the aid to Africa!" I wouldn't go that far but his point is well taken. It's gone beyond swallowing obvious lies. In many cases we have been actively encouraging criminal and even fiendish behavior...

Jeffrey Sachs and the crew he represents are making a specious argument... implying that there is a cause-and-effect connection between poverty and crime/terrorism... That argument grossly insults human beings and it completely ignores character, not to mention facts on the ground. Many if not most of the world's poorest refuse to engage in crime, or terrorist attacks on civilians, because they believe it's wrong. And most terrorism today is state-sponsored -- a fact that Kofi Annan and the lice he's spent years covering for at the UN know very well...

Thus, helping the poor in a way that doesn't line the pockets of thugs takes great creativity and great attention to the projects. Above all, it requires a demand for accountability that is backed up by punitive measures...

...[ground-level corruption] does not arise from poverty. It arises from no confidence in the long term, which goes hand-in-hand with living under governments that are run by thugs and riddled with corruption.

Also, before we tell others how to clean up their show, we should first get our own show in order. We can start by asking, "What is the real aim of a US-sponsored aid program?" We need to make a sharp distinction between trying to help a country solve their problems and trying to help them fit into the WTO/globalized trade machine. Because the first is not necessarily the second, when looking for solutions...

My point is that the best method of correcting others is by setting an example, isn't it so?

This said, the US government has started to wise up. But this unleashes a new set of problems. If the crooks can't flim-flam money out of USAID, they'll just go weeping and wailing to a government that would love to stick it to the USA and/or needs a coveted natural resource...

Posted: Wed - August 24, 2005 at 11:03 AM        

©