Of course, I haven’t seen much evidence to support my gut feel, which (as we’ll see in a minute), is part of my larger point.ĭeaton actually highlights aid and politics a good deal, which is heartwarming to us development economists who took jobs in political science departments. I simply find it hard to believe that aid–both the direct democratization kind, and maybe aid more generally–hasn’t played a big role. But aid and foreign meddling comes a close third. I think the most important forces driving democracy are probably internal to Africa, and the example and economic success of advanced democracies comes second. I’m thrilled to see promising new malaria vaccines, and I’m glad I live in a world where millions are now getting treatment for the world’s greatest ever pandemic, HIV/AIDS.Īnd, frankly, I personally find it hard to believe that levels of democracy in Africa would be as high as they are without aid. You cannot work in northern Uganda or Liberia without seeing the importance of peacekeeping and post-war assistance and administration. I’d say that child sponsorship has done impressive things. I’d say that emergency aid has been pretty good at saving lives for fifty years. Frankly we don’t know, but I think we can say that if aid did ignite this growth, it certainly has been coy about it.īut I wouldn’t diminish these other kinds of aid. And it might not be what’s responsible for falling poverty levels. It probably hasn’t produced growth, even if most of Africa has been growing steadily for ten years. This makes it easier to see what he means by aid not working. This is a lot (if not the bulk) of money sent to poor countries, and so it’s a fair target. I think Deaton has his sights aimed at dollars sent by the West to local governments to supposedly reduce poverty, improve health, and ignite growth. He might exclude child sponsorship. I’m guessing he’s not talking about money spent on vaccine research in the West. He might even exclude support for elections and party-building and other democratization. I don’t think he means the money behind peacekeeping forces and post-war assistance. I don’t think he means emergency relief for disaster and conflicts. Deaton knows this, and my guess is he’s talking about a particular kind of aid. (No one roll yours eyes–if I was truly academic, I’d also say it depends on what “does” means.)Īid isn’t a uniform mass. To see why, it helps to make a simple point: The answer to “Does aid work?” is the same answer to every question in social science: “It depends”.įor instance, it depends we mean by “aid” and it depends what we mean by “work”. You can buy all this but still balk at his stronger point–aid is a roadblock. He also reminds us that trade and migration and other things could be more impactful. They might or might not work, but they are clever and they ought to be tried.
#ROADBLOCK QUOTES HOW TO#
He gives a bunch of good ideas how to make aid better. (Especially if you start from the assumption that you don’t know how to swim.) If so, I think they might have written more nuanced books. It’s hard to imagine these writers have either run a development project or saved a drowning person in their lives. He throws his hands up in frustration at the philosophers of the world who argue that not giving aid to save a life is (ethically speaking) like ignoring a drowning child. He derides dollar aid targets, blind targeting of money to poor countries, and the fact that good money chases the bad. Overall one message comes through: Aid is a roadblock to development. It’s a tirade against aid, especially naive aid. Where he’s enflamed passions, though, is his last chapter: “How to help those left behind”. It is a marvelous overview for the newcomer and the oldcomer. He and others of his generation defined and rewrote the field. It sums up Deaton’s bread and butter research. The bulk of Deaton’s book is an overview of half of humanity’s climb from abject poverty to health and wealth. But it brings up important questions that I can’t answer in 140 characters. And, frankly, it’s a little dangerous as junior faculty to say what you like and don’t like about a senior colleague’s book. I hesitated to write a blog post, in part because my two little monsters kept me from reading the book (any book) as closely as I would like.
#ROADBLOCK QUOTES FULL#
You have to be careful what you wish for. The NY Times wrote a positive but skeptical review this weekend, and my Twitter feed has been full since then with some support but a great deal more skepticism for the book. Deaton is one of the three or four intellectual giants of the field, and so when he sums up a lifetime of work in one volume, it’s worth reading by definition. He expressed surprise that Angus Deaton’s new book on development wasn’t getting more attention. I was talking with a prominent development economist a couple of weeks ago.
0 kommentar(er)
