I think it’s important for those interested in the question of whether developing world aid is effective to look to those who can point to formal studies about the effectiveness of African aid rather than basing their judgments on quotes from individuals whose opinions may very well have been heavily skewed by selection bias and/or driven by ideological considerations which have nothing to do with the available evidence.
Trouble is, most of these studies are far from immaculate when it comes to the ideological or even career interests of their authors. In areas of research whose conclusions cannot be separated from their political and ideological implications, there is no rational reason to believe that the mainstream academic opinion is on the right track at all.
For example, you quote Jeffrey Sachs as someone whose expert authority is supposed to be a strong blow against Shikwati. But what do you expect from someone who has the career track and affiliations like Sachs when faced with such arguments? To say openly that his life work for which he’s reaped status, fame, and power might have been, to a significant degree, a pernicious scam?
It reminds me of the dialogue from “Blackadder” when Edmund starts getting skeptical about his (16th century) doctor who insists that leeches are a cure-all:
Doctor: You know the leech comes to us on the highest authority? Edmund: Yes. I know that. Dr. Hoffmann of Stuttgart, isn’t it? Doctor: That’s right, the great Hoffmann! Edmund: Owner of the largest leech farm in Europe. Doctor: Yes!
Trouble is, most of these studies are far from immaculate when it comes to the ideological or even career interests of their authors. In areas of research whose conclusions cannot be separated from their political and ideological implications, there is no rational reason to believe that the mainstream academic opinion is on the right track at all.
This seems to me to be true for some topics.
I think that the best thing to do in such circumstances is to adopt a position of agnosticism about the issue at hand (as I do with respect to whether the overall impact of aid has been positive or negative).
As for the special case of health interventions, I haven’t seen any expert authority mount an apparently credible case against the idea that health aid has had a positive impact. Have you?
For example, you quote Jeffrey Sachs as someone whose expert authority is supposed to be a strong blow against Shikwati.
My quotation of Sachs was intended to highlight the fact that experts have wildly differing views on the subject of whether aid has been good or bad and that it’s important not to take quotes from any one individual (including Sachs) too seriously.
But what do you expect from someone who has the career track and affiliations like Sachs when faced with such arguments? To say openly that his life work for which he’s reaped status, fame, and power might have been, to a significant degree, a pernicious scam?
I agree that the issue that you allude to is a serious concern. See my discussion in the final section of my top level post titled “A Note on Overcorrecting Bias.”
On this point, it is noteworthy that international health aid eliminated small pox. According to Toby Ord, it is estimated that this has prevented over 100 million deaths, which is more than the total number of people that died in all wars in the 20th century. If you assumed that all of the rest of international health aid achieved nothing at all, this single effort would make the average number of dollars per DALY achieved by international health aid better than what the British Government achieves.
You can always pick a reference class which supports any conclusion you want.
You could just as plausibly claim that international aid mostly propped up various third world dictators and fueled local wars (no matter what “aid money” was for, government could always shift money it would otherwise need to spend on that area into buying weapons or beating up dissidents instead), leading to economic and civilizational stagnation, and over 100 million deaths which would otherwise not have happened.
Or you could categorize reality into reference classes any other way.
multifoliaterose:
Trouble is, most of these studies are far from immaculate when it comes to the ideological or even career interests of their authors. In areas of research whose conclusions cannot be separated from their political and ideological implications, there is no rational reason to believe that the mainstream academic opinion is on the right track at all.
For example, you quote Jeffrey Sachs as someone whose expert authority is supposed to be a strong blow against Shikwati. But what do you expect from someone who has the career track and affiliations like Sachs when faced with such arguments? To say openly that his life work for which he’s reaped status, fame, and power might have been, to a significant degree, a pernicious scam?
It reminds me of the dialogue from “Blackadder” when Edmund starts getting skeptical about his (16th century) doctor who insists that leeches are a cure-all:
This seems to me to be true for some topics.
I think that the best thing to do in such circumstances is to adopt a position of agnosticism about the issue at hand (as I do with respect to whether the overall impact of aid has been positive or negative).
As for the special case of health interventions, I haven’t seen any expert authority mount an apparently credible case against the idea that health aid has had a positive impact. Have you?
My quotation of Sachs was intended to highlight the fact that experts have wildly differing views on the subject of whether aid has been good or bad and that it’s important not to take quotes from any one individual (including Sachs) too seriously.
I agree that the issue that you allude to is a serious concern. See my discussion in the final section of my top level post titled “A Note on Overcorrecting Bias.”
On this point, it is noteworthy that international health aid eliminated small pox. According to Toby Ord, it is estimated that this has prevented over 100 million deaths, which is more than the total number of people that died in all wars in the 20th century. If you assumed that all of the rest of international health aid achieved nothing at all, this single effort would make the average number of dollars per DALY achieved by international health aid better than what the British Government achieves.
You can always pick a reference class which supports any conclusion you want.
You could just as plausibly claim that international aid mostly propped up various third world dictators and fueled local wars (no matter what “aid money” was for, government could always shift money it would otherwise need to spend on that area into buying weapons or beating up dissidents instead), leading to economic and civilizational stagnation, and over 100 million deaths which would otherwise not have happened.
Or you could categorize reality into reference classes any other way.