Blog Post, #6: Sachs and Easterly Debate Development Aid

By: Rachel Brunts

A)

Chapter 10 talks about the debate on pros and cons of development aid with leading economists Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University) and William Easterly (NYU) pitted against each other. Each side has valid points. After reading for a few weeks about the issue of ending poverty, what is your take on this debate.

In the debate of development aid, I see the benefits of both Jeffrey Sachs and William Easterly’s approaches, so personally I don’t necessarily favor one approach over the other.  Sachs believes that that aid should be monitored because he sees corruption as a poverty trap. Aid will do no good if the money given never reaches its target. Instead, Sachs believes that aid should be distributed towards specific goals such as malaria control, sanitation, and food production. Goals such as these can be easily regulated making corruption in these developing countries more transparent.

Whereas, Easterly believes developing countries can have their own way out of poverty. Easterly takes more of a bottom-up approach, meaning if you fight for democracy and give the power to the people then that can elect officials who look after the interest of the poor. There are many other arguments that could be made on the pros and cons of development aid, one of which is that of Paul Homer. Poor Economics describes Homer’s philosophy as subcontracting someone capable of running a developing country until it is stable and organized enough to be handed back to the people. I think this approach could spark change where it’s implemented.

Overall, I think both Sachs and Easterly make strong cases for their diverse approaches toward how to end poverty. I really think the situation, the people, and the economy in context with each unique country determine which approach (Sachs and Easterly’s) is best suited for solving the problem.

B)

Reflect on the last weeks’ readings on the SDG goals #1 end poverty in all forms everywhere and goal #2 end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. Do Banerjee and Duflo address these issues sufficiently? What are policy measures that seem to work? What needs are addressed and are the global measures taken sufficient?

After reflecting on SDG goal #1, end poverty in all forms everywhere, and goal #2, end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture; Banerjee and Duflo cover these issues sufficiently. Throughout the book, the authors discuss poverty traps across developing countries and the steps being taken by foreign and domestic sources to stop the poverty and the growth spike.

Furthermore, it seemed that Banerjee and Duflo talking about poverty and nutrition as numerical figures and statistics based off of income. While income is a large portion of what defines poverty and is a crucial tie to the SDG’s, it seemed that Banerjee and Duflo barely scratched the surface of goal #2 in towards promoting sustainable agriculture. When they do reflect on policies that work, it seems that most of these policies are bottom-up methods. These policies are either driven entirely by the people or at least work with the people affected in order to develop a policy that works such as the Gram Vida’s program. Unfortunately, even with some of these seemingly working initiatives, the global measures are insufficient. The SDG’s have sadly not been met, and for progress to be made we must work with the governments and the citizens living within these poverty stricken areas.