The White Mans Burden is an exceptional book. As a recognized economist, William Easterly filters each and every aspect of his decisive understanding and familiarity concerning the foreign aid into this controversial book, without diluting the aid subject which has been noted for its star handling and uncritical reflection.
Considering how foreign aid has failed extremely in countless regions to assuage the pain of the disadvantage, The White Mans Burden could be viewed as a stressful reading. Nevertheless, Easterly’s exceptional humor and patience as well as his superior narrative abilities make this book an inspirational analysis. In one way or the other, no one knows perhaps better than the author that one needs an excellent wisdom of hilarity to work in a foreign relieve to start with.
The concept of alleviating poverty has led to a mounted aid from both government and private funding. This has seen such global activities as the 2005 Love festival, G8 summit, as well as Live8 concert undertaken in the name of fighting poverty. Too, despite highlighting the plight of the global poor, most of these activities are executed with the aim of increasing the foreign aid to the poor. But Easterly’s asserts that, this fund will not only be siphoned, but it will as well be counterproductive (2006).
The author notes that foreign aid is driven and executed by Planners. Conceivably the most prominent planner and an indomitable adversary of the author is Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University in addition to the UN Planners. Schemers or planners suppose of development as a mechanical or technical issue that can be contained through grand, multi-faceted, fundamentally-controlled advocacy, supported by a seamless flow of funds (Easterly, 2006).
Unfortunately, scheming lacks market response systems, therefore it cannot gauge the resourceful performance indicators. In addition planners are never held responsible for their countless failures.
Expertly, Easterly trumps the principle arguments, or prodigies, of the planners, foremost being we must provide the poor with funds to ensnare them from the poverty predicament, the other being that aid will steer the poor to growth.
He establishes that nastiest of all planners are in cahoots with affluent benefactors who, paradoxically, gains from perpetuating the apparent problems. Illustrating that aid agencies paints a picture that they ought to fail in order to sustain their missions. Eventually, if their anticipated programs materialize they may be forced to close shops.
Interestingly he asserts that few are as daring as former rock celebrity, Bob Geldof, the organizer of Live8 concerts, who stated: “Something must be done; anything must be done, whether it works or not”(2006). The author critically demonstrates that almost all aid policies and programs have failed to reach their intended targets:
A UN congregation in 1990, for instance, set a target for the year 2000 of worldwide primary-school conscription. (That is now considered for 2015). A preceding summit, in 1977, set 1990 as the time limit for realizing the objective of worldwide access to water and cleanliness. (Under the MDG, that objective is now 2015).
Nobody was held responsible for these neglected objectives (Easterly, 2006). The point of argument is, the anticipated objectives will never be realized, not with the established policies ratified to reach them. Easterly says “Stop slaying our time with meetings and agendas” (2006). And he repetitively drills home the uncomforting wrapping up that Planners will all the time fail: The West cannot convert the Rest.
It is a daydream to assume that the West can transform multifaceted societies with very dissimilar histories and backgrounds into some reflection of itself. The foremost optimism for the underprivileged is for them to be their own Searchers, scrounging ideas and expertise from the West when it benefits them to do so. When the West is enthusiastic to support individuals relatively than governments, some challenges that tie foreign support in knots are resolute (Easterly, 2006).
To schemers and planners he seems to favor those who accept to gain through trial-and-error aspects in the greater economic fields. The Searchers while will not attain the grand objectives defined by the planners, but they will in some way deliver positive results.
The author opts to consider experiment result oriented, assessed from the responses from recognized or identified recipients, where success is rewarded and failure chastised, as is widespread with the common markets. Too he recommends that agencies should pool all their available resources so as to fund their specific objectives, Instead of concealing failure through elaborate external auditing and reporting procedures.
While the author is decisive of the foreign funds status quo, he cites a couple of diverse exemplars in which foreign aid has performed, such as food coupons to underprivileged families, deputation upon schooling children rather than working in poor productivity employment. Such plan was initiated by Mexico and is seen to be attaining its intended objective (Easterly, 2006).
The subtle explanation provided by Easterly indicates Western intervention in poor third world nations-from WB development schemes to military programs have over the time been designed and executed by planners instead of searchers. Planners are known to go after utopian targets, designs worldwide blueprints, and consequently execute them with decimal local knowledge and minimal response from the intended recipients.
According to the author, Searchers aims to first comprehend and understand the explicit requirements of the anticipated recipients, and then-borrowing from the explicit knowledge, in addition to trial and error, recognizes the practical aspects of dealing with the apparent needs. On the other hand, where Planners take over, transparency and accountability for realizing real gains are decimal or lacking.
In the course of engaging eleven chapters, Easterly navigates through the negative effects generated by Planner mentality in the broad fields of foreign aid, western endeavors to erect free markets and egalitarianism in poor states, colonialism, restricted lending by IMF, and untimely reactions to the HIV/AIDS predicament, decolonization, and contemporary armed forces occupations (Easterly, 2006).
He conveys his argument with wit, intelligibility of thought, and a thought aggravating combination of statistical analysis as well as anecdotes. While his tone expresses his vex over lives overwhelmed by incompetence and willful unawareness on all sides.
Easterly delves extremely deep and resourcefully into the basis of Planner hopelessness when analyzing the case nearer to his personal experience: executive foreign aid.
With countless official aid agencies pursuing the similar vague objectives, all may possibly claim accountability for apparent achievements while accusing other for incompetence; in addition to their affluent constituencies which typically acknowledges the ratios of reports submitted, summits prearranged and dollars used up as if they were gauges of accomplishment.
Therefore aid agencies feel little external pressure to illustrate genuine beneficial effects in the lives of the affected communities. Too, they are equally constrained by traditions of not allowing field workers staying in one area adequately and by regulations requiring them to collaborate with corrupt regimes.
Planners do well in this environment, Searchers are persistently frustrated. By documenting the stoppages of foreign aid, Easterly endeavors to prove to readers that mounting the effectiveness of relieve is at least as significant as latest high-profile attempts to augment the quantity of relieve. By recognizing Planner mindset as an imperative basis of failures, he commences the undertaking of figuring out the way aid efficacy might be enhanced.
In disparity to the characteristically well-meaning but assumed deleterious Planners, the searchers are illustrated as the saviors of the poor.
The distinction between the planners as well as searchers as suggested by Easterly could not be spikier: In foreign aid, Planners proclaim good objectives but do not inspire anyone to execute them out; Searchers unearth things that function and get some remuneration. Planners heave anticipations but take no liability for realizing them; Searchers acknowledge accountability for their actions. Planners establish what to deliver; Searchers uncovers what is required.
Planners concern universal designs; Searchers acclimatize to local circumstances. Planners at the acme lack acquaintance of the foot; Searchers attempts find out what the realism is at the base. Planners never listen to whether the intended got what it required; Searchers do establish whether the consumer is content (Easterly, 2006).
The fundamental oversimplication of this insolvent disparity steers Easterly to a simple overview of his books supposition; Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good, which complements a title extracted from Rudyard Kipling’s expressive paean to elite imperialism. Therefore, the empirical characterization of the real effects of foreign aid is extremely multifarious than Easterly’s summary seems to indicate.
Nor is he specifically fair to portraying the icons that he recognizes as well intentioned doers of massive injuries (such as previous WB President James Wolfensohn, British PM. Tony Blair, British Chancellor Gordon Brown, and the economist Jeffrey Sachs). Actually his position is not persuasive enough especially on his random use of selected quotes.
These quotations are exploited to show how the world is misled by The Economist, The New Yorker, and The New York Times. The book provides a hairline of analysis and equally serves as the root for a reasoned assessment of the formulaic analysis and procedure triumphalism of several of available literature on economic development.
This illustrates that the all comprehensive evidence, both narrative and statistical the author refers in his arguments against the ostentatious designs deserves extreme considerations. In a more moderate approach, they could generate a reflecting decisive perspective on how, why, and when things succumbs to downfall in regard to global endeavors to assist the needy.
Empirical substantiation of the incompetence’s of the countless great development as well as poverty alleviation plans is undoubtedly worth examining precisely and honestly. This is testified by the way Easterly examines the aspects that facilitate the inefficiency of many grand agencies.
Looking at the contemporary economic theories and their application the author has considerably exploited the aspects of neoclassical theory in his arguments. However, he misses the point by anchoring considerably on the aspects of Searchers and this may translate to suggesting that monopoly rather than diversity can help in dealing with the issues of foreign aid.
It should be noted that the scope of foreign aid is typically tied to the aspects of population ratio. Hence, in his argument he seems to avoid the supposition that the contemporary approach to growth whether traditional or in the form of foreign aid, two decisive forces must be involved; population and incomes of the communities being assisted.
More so, even the scope of technologies to help in alleviating poverty within the affected regions has not been adequately explored. Eventually, exploring the issues that the author has identified as some of the positive responses to alleviating poverty, it is obvious they cannot yield to his conclusions.
Even by recognizing such global efforts as initiating diverse programs to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS, as well as provision of oral dehydration therapies for diarrhea. He does not provide the apposite structures of translating the aspects of good intentions into effectual results. Therefore, the challenge is to react to the plight of the needy without ignoring the fact that aid ought to be channeled in resourceful and effective manner (Easterly, 2006).
Examining other similar works with identical argument, Easterly illustrates his distastes on the manner the global planner treats the concepts of foreign aid. On the other hand he dwells on the principals of searchers who he illustrates as the real model of helping the poor.
The problem is this approach presents a considerable problem in that by using statistics to argue his case, he ignores other essential pointers, and this is where he fails. Exploring critically the dynamics of utopian visions, and the manner the west persists in repeating past mistakes illustrates how strong his argument is.
From such observation he has managed to realize poor states are not poor for lack of resources but due to poor governance which the grand Planners ignore to acknowledge. Also another profound analysis pertains to democracy and free markets; from his point of view he believes they cannot be obligatory and in particular by official who are not accountable. It’s thus instrumental to note that aid delivery is often tied to corruption and bureaucracy and this aid in destabilizing the recipient (Easterly, 2006).
The author states the imposing plans including good intents from the donors forms the core features of the mounting problems, rather than the projected solutions. Giving aid to the poor, he asserts, is not adequate-the global community must ascertain that the support reaches the anticipated target through well developed structures.
Though, he does not promulgate to have discovered the right strategy to reform foreign aid, or enrich the needy. Controversially, his he argues that “The right plan is to have no plan” (2006). In essence, he spoils the argument by attacking the aid institution as contented and demeaning. All in all, he believes the foreign funds can be used resourcefully and effectively.
Drawing a line between the donors and the aid recipients Easterly projects two unique claims. Primarily he asserts that executive development aid rarely enhances economic development in the anticipated countries, establishing it as unproductive and wasteful agenda for economic growth. Also, the author seems to suggest that poverty traps are non-existent rather he attributes poor governance as the precursor to poor growth.
Easterly argument is impressive but fails to offer convincing insight into the way forward. Despite his impressive use of data, his analysis stands on the scope how aid has failed to fuel economic growth. Too, he does not illustrate how zero effect on economic investments had zero effect on economic growth, thus offering no room to challenge the rational behind foreign funds in stimulating the economy of poor countries.
All in all, his argument offers countless useful hints in that course (foreign aid). Nevertheless, he has a lot to articulate concerning what breeds malfunction than regarding what breeds accomplishment. The reader ends up anticipating that Easterly had forfeited some of his excursions into disappointments of political as well as armed forces interventions in order to trail further the realistic strides that may be employed to contest Planner mindset and endorse increased responsibility in the management of executive foreign aid.
Reference
Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man’s Burden. NY: Penguin.