The End of Poverty Jeffrey D. Sachs (2005)
This is an informative description of the state of extreme poverty in the world as it was in 2005, the plans to end it, the successes, the shortcomings and the scale of investment which needs to be made to make it happen. Sachs dispels many myths and excuses that make it appear as if the solution to extreme poverty is unattainable. It's not only attainable, it wouldn't be that hard and he more or less lays out how it can happen. Sachs has extensive experience working on such programs at Columbia University, with the UN and in the field especially in the least developed parts of Africa.
The current causes of extreme poverty and the difficulties in ending it are not exactly what you might think. War and poor governments have played a role, but physical geography, political borders, and disease have been much bigger factors. There are many landlocked countries with very poor infrastructure making for large areas where there is a great difficulty in exchanging goods and bringing technological advances in. Also the malaria in Africa is an immense problem. For one thing Africa has huge areas where it's endemic, but also the strain of malaria (and/or type of mosquito - I forget) prevalent in Africa is more difficult to treat. He goes into the specifics of this and it's really startling how different malaria in Africa is than it is/was in other parts of the world. That along with other diseases, especially AIDS has cost so much in human lives that many communities have been prevented from rising above the most abject poverty where there is no security.
Sachs' philosophy is generally a standard laissez-faire market economist for much of the world and economy, but with a strong state run health, infrastructure, education, research etc element. He's a believer in rising tides lifting all boats - with basically one exception. The ultra-poor can not do it on their own. In order to grow you need to be able to save something, anything. You need to accumulate some kind of capital. And the very very poorest people can't do that at all. He stresses that there's not one plan for everyone and you need a "differential diagnosis", but basically you need to put people in the position where they aren't dying of malaria or AIDS and have access to some tools to increase agricultural production and good enough infrastructure to reach a market and then the rest will be guided by the invisible hand.
So much so good and I commend him for his work, respect his analysis, and have no problem accepting most of his prescriptions. On to the criticism though. He gives some thumbnail sketches of history which I think are generally quite lacking and presented in a way that is meant to best present his basic "Yea Enlightenment Yea advancing Western Civilization" perspective. For example he talks about the beginning of the era of European dominance and increasing standards of living and pretty much never goes back before the industrial revolution and the early 19th century. The conquests of the 15th through 18th centuries and slavery are not completely MIA, but close. In one example it comes out towards the end of the book in a quote from his number one source Adam Smith:
Quote:
With great eloquence, Smith described how the opening of sea trade between Europe and the East Indies (South and Southeast Asia) and the West Indies (the Caribbean) had certainly not benefited the non-European populations. As he put it: 'To the natives, however, both of the East and West Indies, all the commercial benefits which can have resulted from [the new trade routes] have been sunk and lost in the dreadful misfortunes they have occasioned'.
There are several other points where I think either his history or his description of current political affairs are not very good. Even if they were good, it's kinda tacked on. Like, I was interested enough in the state of extreme poverty and what he thinks it will take in the current era to end it.
And again for something tacked on he pretty much accomplishes a relatively mild, balanced, rant against the hippie antiglobalist protesters. First he recognizes and talks up their accomplishments:
Quote:
The antiglobalization movement has made its mark, and in my view, mostly for the good (except for the moments of violence that fringe elements of a movement) I applaud the overall movement for exposing the hypocrites and glaring shortcomings of governments and for ending years of self-congratulation by the rich and powerful. Before Seattle, the G8, IMF, and World Bank meetings were occasions for unqualified praise of globalization, and for the self-serving accolades of bankers and international financiers and their contribution to the spread of prosperity. Between the speeches and cocktail parties there was little said about the world's poor, the AIDS pandemic, dispossessed minorities, women without rights, and human made environmental degradation. Since Seattle, the agenda of ending extreme poverty, extending human rights, and addressing environmental degradation has been back on the international agenda and that's attracted global media attention, albeit sporadically.
And
Quote:
The protesters have succeeded in illuminating and cleaning up bad or even corrupt corporate practices. U.S. and European companies that buy garments and apparel from low-wage plants no doubt treat their workers with greater civility and dignity today because of the protesters. Oil companies that once bribed African leaders with impunity think twice, or not at all, about doing so today, aware now of protesters' eyes upon them and the direct line between protesters' eyes, investor resistance, and bad corporate publicity. Drug company executives who at one time bellyached that they should have full freedom to price their patent-protected dregs as they saw fit, now give their drugs away or sell them on a zero-profit basis as a result of successful activism.
But then goes on to say
Quote:
At a fundamental level, the global environmental crisis is not the fault of BP or Shell or ExonMobile, and the AIDS pandemic is not the fault of Pfizer or Merck. Nor will the solutions to these crises be found by bloodying the leading energy or pharmaceutical companies.
WHAT? You just said bloodying those companies has been effective!
Continuing
Quote:
The solutions will be found in public policies, at national and international levels, that properly manage the emissions of climate-changing gases and that properly make life-saving medications available to the poor who cannot afford them. The antiglobalization movement is wrong to suppose that private companies are the ones to design the rules of the game. If governments would do their job in setting up the right rules major international companies would play a vital role in solving problems.
Ok, but who will make the government set what policy? It's not the managerial class. He has spend the previous 350 pages explaining how obvious the need is and how people like GWB understood it and set goals around doing what's been needed and then went on to just not provide the funding. The goals and conferences themselves were the rewards for Jeffrey Sachs and his class. That's great, but it wasn't sufficient and he recognized that. Action happens as a result of a combination of many pressures and he wants to cut the legs out from one of the pressures that pushes in the direction he wants. He admits "There is nothing in economic reasoning to justify letting the companies themselves set the rules of the game through lobbying, campaign financing, and the dominance of government policies." Well, perhaps he should ask them nicely not to do that.
Ok, I'm going to finish up with positive stuff. Aside from learning interesting stuff about how awful things are (were? - the book is 13 years old) in some places as well as how feasible it would be to end extreme poverty and how beneficial it would be for everyone, I'm coming away with a kernel of a piece of wisdom I think. The poorest governments are not perfect. They aren't as bad as you may have been lead to believe, but they aren't perfect. But the best way to improve those government, in most cases anyway, is to improve the conditions of the people living there. Starving illiterate people are in a much worse position to demand an end to government corruption than literate fed people. And contrary to a lot of what people are told, most of the reasons that aid money doesn't reach the intended recipients has to do more with waste from the developed world than corruption in the poor countries. Mostly that's not saying give to any country regardless of whether or not warlords are stealing everything, but it's saying it's less like that than you think and expecting perfection is bad. Anyway, the wisdom needs to be more general than that and it's something like just dive in and start making things better and work on the system as you go along. That's probably not the grand takeaway that Sachs means for you to have - and it's not the thrust of the book - because he's big on drawing up plans. Hmm...actually this ties into stuff I've thought about regarding W.E. Deming and continuous improvement that came up in another thread recently. I'll save it for my manifesto I guess.
I guess I recommend this book. My only caveat is that it was talking about pretty topical stuff and it's a little dated.
