EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
- Victory in Seattle as Teachers Win Battle in Standardized Test Boycott
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Poor Need Aid, Not Lectures
The Millennium Development Goals are the world's agreed goals to cut poverty, hunger and disease. Established in 2000, their targets were to be met by 2015. We are now at the halfway point. So far, despite endless words about increasing aid to poor countries, the rich G-8 countries are reneging on their part of the bargain.Cynicism abounds here. At the G-8 Glen- eagles Summit in 2005, member countries pledged to double aid to Africa by 2010. Soon after the summit, I was invited to a small, high-level meeting to discuss the summit's follow-up. I asked for a spreadsheet showing the year-by-year planned increases and the allocation of those planned increases across donor and recipient countries.
Consequences of inaction
The response I received was chilling. ''There will be no spreadsheets. The U.S. has insisted on no spreadsheets.'' The point was clear. Though the G-8 had made a clear promise, there was no plan on how to fulfill it; indeed, there were clear instructions that there would be no such plan.
The G-8 is now reaping the consequences of its inaction. For the first year after the Gleneagles meeting, aid numbers were padded by misleading accounting on debt-cancellation operations. With those debt-cancellation operations largely completed, the data are now revealing the stark truth: Development aid to Africa and to poor countries more generally is stagnant, contrary to all the promises that were made.
Specifically, between 2005 and 2006, overall aid to Africa, excluding debt-cancellation operations, increased by a meager 2 percent. In fact, total official development assistance to all recipient countries, net of debt cancellation, actually declined by 2 percent between 2005 and 2006. Even the World Bank, which usually takes the donors' point of view, recently acknowledged that except for debt cancellation, ``promises of scaled up aid have not been delivered.''
Alarming cynicism
Private reactions among senior government officials in the G-8 are surprising. One senior G-8 official told me that the aid promises are all lies anyway. I don't agree with that, but the cynicism that such a view reflects is alarming. It shows the nature of discussions at the highest reaches of the G-8.
All this would seem to be insurmountable if the basic economics were not clear. We are not talking about unachievable financial goals. Indeed, the sum of money is minuscule. The G-8, representing nearly one billion people, has promised to increase aid to Africa to $50 billion in 2010 from $25 billion in 2004 -- a difference that represents less than one-tenth of one 1 percent of the income of the rich donor world!
To put it in perspective, the Christmas bonuses paid this year on Wall Street -- justthe bonuses -- amounted to $24 billion. Spending on the Iraq war, which achieves nothing but violence, is more than $100 billion per year. So the G-8's commitment could be honored, if rich countries cared to honor it.
To salvage its credibility, the G-8 needs to make crystal clear -- once again -- that it will honor its commitment to increase aid to Africa by $25 billion per year by 2010. That way, cynics within the G-8 governments can understand their assignments. Moreover, unlike in 2005, the G-8 needs to present a plan of action. The lack of specific commitments by specific countries is a shocking display of governance at its poorest.
Finally, recipient countries need to be informed about the year-to-year increases in aid that they can expect, so that they can plan ahead. The increased aid should be directed at building roads, power grids, schools and clinics, and at training teachers, doctors and community health workers. All of that investment requires plans and years of implementation.
Lack of competence
Admittedly, part of the problem with the G-8 is not simply lack of good faith or political will, but basic competence. The U.S. government doesn't really know what it is doing in Africa, because over the years America's aid agency has been largely emptied of its leading thinkers and strategists. Moreover, the Bush administration politicized the delivery of aid by channeling it through private religious groups that are part of the administration's political coalition. That's the reason that much of the U.S. funding on AIDS follows religious strictures rather than science.
It's time for the rich countries to stop giving lectures to the poor, and instead to follow through on their own words. And G-8 citizens must hold their governments accountable for what they have pledged but not delivered.
Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
©2007 Project Syndicate
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

26 Comments so far
Show Allwhat the poor in the world need most is population control -- like the rest of us!
without adequate family planning, that ties the numbers of supportable people to the carrying capacity of the land, we are all more or less goners
goldfish learn this lesson quite instinctively, but it seems beyond humans to do the simple math (hmmm, how many mouths can i feed per hectare?)
IF ONLY there were some sanity on this issue, there might be hope for us as a species
Strange world, it seems harder for the haves to give to the have-nots, than for the have-nots to give to the haves.
Arguably, with the exception of natural disaster causation, most "poverty" and humanitarian crises are caused by grossly unfair/carnivorous/unstable socio-political systems. Some form of violence that pushes people off their lands, disrupts perhaps centuries-old lifestyles. Ordinarily, societies reach sustainable carrying capacities for the most part, people develop trade skills, crops, etc. to support a certain population level.
What the poor in the world need, including those here at home in the US (the Empire preys on both the inside and outside) is title to the land, free and clear. The ability to lay in crops, build irrigation, etc. without warlords, tyrants or banks skimming off their labors.
Money is lent to third world countries for development, and there usually is a stipulation to use a certain company.
I watched C-Span and one legislator stood and argued we should not allow debt relief when that country's leader bought himself a lear jet. The only reason for debt relief was that we couldn't lend that country any more money until the last loan was paid off.
I agree with Paul...
I would just add, hefty reparations must be paid, not aid...
To skeptical: I'm inclined to agree. In college I was exposed to alot of socialist ideas and it seems many of the things they predicted are coming to pass: the widening gap between rich and poor, the destruction of the unions, the insatiable greed of the ruling class to control ALL the resources on earth, and many more. I'm starting to think this system can never be reformed.
The first thing the poor need is to stop being robbed. The (partially) good news in this regard is that in the last few years every medium and large sized country has paid off the IMF, leaving the vampiric masters of extortion with just the poorest and most vulnearable economies still trapped in their grasping maw (that's the bad part). This has resulted in these wizards of sound economics showing a loss of c.$900m this year. Still, at least they'll know what to do to rectify this unacceptable situation. I would expect the following:
1) Fire half their staff and get the remaining half to work harder;
2) Sell their expensive plush offices in Washington and rent somewhere cheap in say, Bangladesh;
3) Henceforth only essential travel will be allowed, and only economy tickets purchased;
4) Liquidate their staff pension fund and use it towards paying off their losses.
While I understand this may result in some mild hardship, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and they can hardly expect taxpayers to bail them out for their own inefficient practices. It's only economics.
While we're at it, it might be a good idea to make sure that senior figures at the World Bank are not using bank funds to pay for their hookers or anything, because they need to keep the wolf from the door as well.
Professor Jeffrey Sachs is one of the world's greatest economists and spokespersons for the hardest hit victims of imperialism and economic terrorism.
He recently gave a series of five brief, eloquent lectures that were hosted by the Royal Society in London.
They can be heard here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/lecturer.shtml
Lecture 1: Wednesday 11 April 2007, 9am (~42 mins)
# Bursting at the Seams
Lecture 2: Wednesday 18 April, 8pm
# Survival in the Anthropocene
Lecture 3: Wednesday 25 April, 8pm
# The Great Convergence
Lecture 4: Wednesday 2 May, 8pm
# Poverty in the Midst of Plenty
Lecture 5: Wednesday 9 May, 8pm
# A New Politics for a New Age
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/lecturer.shtml
------------
Also, in case you missed it:
CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN
How the U.S. Uses Globalization to
Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
by John Perkins
(A NY Times Best Seller!)
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/31/1546207
read excerpt:
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/188
About Jeffrey Sachs :"He proposed shock therapy (though he himself hates the term) as a solution to the economic crises of Bolivia, Poland, and Russia."
RE:The Poor Need Aid, Not Lectures
Please save the poor from Jeffery Sachs
Hello all: The real democratic-manifesto for the new millenium can be found at www.marxists.org www.marxist.com www.rwor.org www.socialistworker.org www.worldsocialism.org www.workers.org and not in any libertarian, third-way, elitist middle class utopy. The best medicine for poverty is Modern Workers-ownership system of Socialism of the XXI Century :-)
And another thing- most poor countries are deeply in "debt" to the World Bank and IMF. Imagine that. Countries so fabulously wealthy they can't count all their money insist desperately poor people with nothing to eat owe them money! These so called debts need to be cancelled. Rich countries got their fabulous wealth by taking diamonds and gold and slaves from poor countries. The real debt is the uncounatble trillions colonial powers aka G8 owe to their vicims, past and present.
Paul Bramscher (above) has it right:
The key to economic justice lies in land redistribution--in the US, as well as in other countries. Fundamental economist Henry George established, once and for all, and over a century ago, that land monopoly is the basis of all economic inequality.
Land redistribution and self-sufficiency through making all people freeholders in the land would go a long way toward solving the problem of climate change, as well--to whatever small extent this may be possible.
"The first thing the poor need is to stop being robbed"
This is such an important statement.
I despise American money laundering system rob/drop charity
/receive tax advantages, honors etc. precisely
because it benefits the robbers mostly.
If want justice, the rich countries and corporations who are guilty of mercilessly exploiting the lesser developed nations will be forced to pay reparations.
Lots of people are afraid that ending poverty will be too expensive, that it's impossible, and that it will contribute to over-population. Those fears are NOT based upon factual information.
As Sachs points out, we can end poverty for less than 1% of the income of rich nations (or for a tiny fraction of the so called "defense" expenditures).
Also when the standard of living increases, the birth rate decreases. Ending poverty will eventually result in a negative birth rate, and a population decrease.
Jeffrey Sachs and Dennis Kucinich are state of the art leaders. More power to them! Most of the other so called 'leaders' stink.
Dear Mr. Sachs,
The poor do not need either aid or lectures. The poor need white man to get off their backs.
Hugo Chavez is on the right path. If only Africa and the rest of the "third world" would wake up and follow suit!!
Everton
Everton - Right On!!!
Chavez is on the path to freeing all of South America from the international corporations/capitalists that have raped their citizens for hundreds of years. I know that Africa has the natural resources to fund such a revolution there, but I don't know if they have any leaders willing to follow the Chavez example. I certainly hope they do before it is too late for them.
I would add that Bush is no Chavez. America cannot hope to help it's poor and impoverished citizens through our current government. Workers have to unite to ensure that workers contributions are valued above the interests of capital that prays on us. The best thing we can do is support ANY laws that make unionization possible again.
First, we need to support the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) introduced by Sen. Edward Kennedy (S 1041) That means that everyone has to contact their Senators to support this bill. Repeatedly! Also, you can find out more by going to Also, you can find out more by going to http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/takeaction/efca/updates.cfm.
Also, check out the National Initiative site at http://nationalinitiative.us/ What these folks are doing is returning power directly to the people. This on is REALLY exciting! Go on over and take a look. Then vote!
Thanks
The problems of poverty will never be solved until there is world wide birth control! The two are linked and always have been and will be whether anyone wants to admit it or not! No access to birth control brings eventual poverty with it! When a woman can not afford an extra mouth to feed it doesn't improve her plight to force her to have another one! In fact, it is criminal to force her. But, instead of encouraging birth control to alieviate human suffering. We have religions trying to outlaw it for everyone! Because it goes against their religious belief's! I am not really certain what there agenda is in doing this (other than the control factor)? Other than they seem to enjoy watching fellow human beings suffer! But, whether they know it or not they are encouraging more world wide poverty, hunger and death! They don't seem to get the message that the two are irrevocably linked. But, until every woman of child bearing age is encourage to seek out, use it and have free access to it. The world is going to have a serious problem. Those responsible for this suffering will be the first to claim they are for life! I have to scoff at the idea they are for life! All they are for is religion! If hunger, poverty, suffering and death come with it! That's fine with them!
Solution:
Socialism of the XXI Century (Go Go Chaves Go)
dechen May 12th, 2007 12:10 pm said above:
"without adequate family planning, that ties the numbers of supportable people to the carrying capacity of the land, we are all more or less goners"
Very true indeed.
Everton, Mr. Sachs knows what he's talking about. The poor definitely need aid. Sachs is not talking about nations that have more oil than Saudi Arabia (like Venezuela). Hugo Chavez the great, and his administration also know that the poor need aid.
Sach's talks are here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/lecturer.shtml
It's a big mistake to throw rocks at the man.
In addition to wealthy nations forcing the poorest nations to pay interest on their loans, thus perpetuating the debts, I recently read about something even more vile.
Vulture funds. The Reverend Jesse Jackson wrote an article on them a few months back. I recommend:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0220-21.htm
Sorry but I'll be blunt.
The idea that we the rich should and can help the poor is absurd and adds insult to injury.
Our wealth is dependent on other people's poverty. WalMArt can sell stuff cheap because most Chinese are dirt poor. If we "give" the poor 100$, they'll have to collectively generate 200$ worth of work (I underestimate) to generate it for us in the first place.
The bourgeois will do anything for the poor except going off their back, wrote Karl May, or was it Karl Marx?
If we want to help the poor in Africa, then let's simply leave the Niger delta's oil - and people - alone. That should be a good start.
I am not throwing rocks at Mr. Sachs. Wasn't he the same one who went to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union and preached about the joys of privatization and economic liberalisation? Look at what happened. A couple of robber barrons became filthy rich while the standard of living of the average Russian declined.The best thing that the rich nations can do for the poor is to leave them alone...... but then, I am not holding my breath.
@Everton
"...the standard of living of the average Russian declined"
Russian GDP 1989-99: -40%
Russian life expectancy 1989-99: -10 years
I think you would be quite justified throwing rocks...
I've read that for every one million dollars "given" as "aid" by the U.S., approx. 10 million are taken as payments on loans that were given to unaccountable tyrants by U.S. economic hitmen, who's job is to keep the dark skinned folks down.
I wish someone would re-print Theresa Hayter's book Aid as Imperialism. Kissinger tried to get it banned when it came out in the early '70s. Maybe he'll try again.
In Russia, they did NOT follow Sach's advice. He left disappointed with the leadership there.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2480932648571689047