For anyone unfamiliar with the international development debate, Sachs and Easterly present polar opposite perspectives on how the international community can and has supported or failed to advance the development of growing nations.
Sachs contends that international aid and development has been positive, but it is not enough. We have all the tools, but the intensity of our interventions have not been strong enough. We need more money and support to be really successful. (for more on the school of thought, click here)
Easterly directly disagrees with Sachs stating that we do not have the correct tools and the incentives of the organizations that deliver aid are mis-aligned. Easterly advocates for efforts that incorporate free-market principals in order to drive innovation and competition. (for more, click here)
There are still others who agree with neither Sachs nor Easterly. They lie somewhere in-between on the spectrum.
This is why I am here, in Zambia, working for CRS. From my ‘ivory tower,’ I found it hard to know who was right, or how correct each side of the argument was. It required first-hand experience for me to really know what is going on, and it is sufficiently complex that I am interested and eager for any thoughts people have on this topic.
So what do you think? Who is right? Easterly or Sachs? Both or Neither? And why?
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: CRS, international development, Jeffrey Sachs, William Easterly
8 months into my own sojourn from an Ivory Tower I’ve got to admit that I am totally with Easterly. The view from up close is not pretty and many of the arguments he makes against support corrupt regimes and how development agencies seem to be incapable of learning from their own mistakes (let alone the mistakes of others) seems painfully true.
Coming from a private sector background, I know just how perfectly and painfully your customers tell you if you have got something right or wrong – almost on a daily basis. I see none of that feedback in this development world and as Easterly brilliantly illustrates without it the agencies that aim to do so much good seem doomed to repeat their own ‘top down directed’ failings