Brooks on the Haiti Earthquake

by Don Boudreaux on January 15, 2010

in Cleaned by Capitalism, Complexity and Emergence, Current Affairs, Foreign Aid, Growth, Property Rights

New York Times columnist David Brooks isn’t my favorite pundit, but today – writing about the Haitian earthquake – his wisdom matches his extraordinary eloquence.  Here are some key passages:

This is not a natural disaster story. This is a poverty story. It’s a story about poorly constructed buildings, bad infrastructure and terrible public services.

….

Over the past few decades, the world has spent trillions of dollars to generate growth in the developing world. The countries that have not received much aid, like China, have seen tremendous growth and tremendous poverty reductions. The countries that have received aid, like Haiti, have not.

In the recent anthology “What Works in Development?,” a group of economists try to sort out what we’ve learned. The picture is grim. There are no policy levers that consistently correlate to increased growth. There is nearly zero correlation between how a developing economy does one decade and how it does the next. There is no consistently proven way to reduce corruption. Even improving governing institutions doesn’t seem to produce the expected results.

The chastened tone of these essays is captured by the economist Abhijit Banerjee: “It is not clear to us that the best way to get growth is to do growth policy of any form. Perhaps making growth happen is ultimately beyond our control.”

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • Professor, you're a funny guy. You REALLY had to use David Brooks' opinion to make your self feel better? I guess you didn't wanna be the only guy out there who didn't see the humanitarian side to this whole thing. Don't worry, I saw it from your standpoint as well. In fact, I quoted you in a piece on my school's academic blog.
  • Red Cross volunteers are amongst the agencies assisting the injured survivors of the Haiti earthquake and supporting hospitals struggling to cope with this emergency. Click here Red Cross operations in Haitito watch Pete Garratt, Relief Operations Manager at the British Red Cross explain how the Red Cross operates in this region, how it tackles the specific challenges of operating in Haiti and to support the Red Cross’ contribution to the DEC (Disasters and Emergency Committee) appeal
  • patrickbarron
    The best thing any western nation can do is set a good example by adopting free market economics, limited government, sound money, and adopt unilateral free trade.
  • patrickbarron
    The best thing any western nation, especially the U.S., can do to "help" poor countries is to set a good example and adopt free trade.
  • New high resolution pictures on the destruction from the 2010 Haiti Earthquake have been posted from on the ground in Port-Au-Prince and Jacmel

    http://www.jlaforums.com/album.php?search=haiti...

    http://www.jlaforums.com/album.php?search=haiti...
  • Nathaniel
    Just think of all the jobs that will be created from the earthquake's destruction. Haiti should be on the way to widespread prosperity in no time, right?
  • SheetWise
    Never let a good crisis go to waste! It'll be like a giant stimulus!

    I do believe it's an opportunity to improve and rebuild -- and that they will -- but I don't think that anyone will get their money's worth. It will end up being perpetual poverty with more contemporary accommodations.
  • Methinks1776
    You know, my husband had the same thought. "Oh, look at all those broken windows. According to Obama's logic, the Haitians should be delighted".
  • mark
    A lot of third world tyrant use their people as pawns to get aid from developed countries, all the while skimming a little off the top.
  • NathanS
    I think it's more than a little. Most third world aid programs are direct subsidies to warlords. People in need hardly ever receive the money, and warlords have an incentive to continue to make the country appear impoverished to keep getting aid.
  • OttoMaddox
    I agree. That's why they're called Kleptocracies.
  • danielkuehn
    That providing aid successfully is a difficult task is no secret. But we should also be aware of some causality issues with these sorts of declarations. Yes, countries that received aid haven't turned out as well as we would have hoped. But the whole reason why they're receiving aid is presumably because they are dysfunctional in the first place. So does that mean that aid to developing countries is a bad thing or does it mean that developing countries have a lot of deep-seated issues. I'm guessing it's probably a littlle of both, depending on context. We just need to be careful not to just start trashing international aid because we mix up correlation and causation.

    Regardless of the ultimate cause, Brooks is right that this was a poverty story and not a natural disaster story. The source of that poverty is a little more complex then people like to make it, that's all.
  • "But the whole reason why they're receiving aid is presumably because they are dysfunctional in the first place. So does that mean that aid to developing countries is a bad thing or does it mean that developing countries have a lot of deep-seated issues."

    I agree, aid positively reinforces deep-seated issues.
  • danielkuehn
    Well, my point is it CAN do that, but since dysfunctionality is part of the selection process for aid, it's probably a combination of (1.) positively reinforcing deep-seated issues, and (2.) actual improvement in countries that don't look like they've benefited because they are such basket-cases to begin with.
  • If aid causes (1) it can't cause (2). (2) might be an outcome, but it would be despite (1), not because of it.
  • danielkuehn
    There are many different kinds of aid and many different kinds of society that aid is given to. It cannot cause both (1.) and (2.) in the same circumstances, because as you suggest they're mutually exclusive. But "foreign aid" generally speaking can absolutely cause both, depending on the circumstance. Why couldn't it?
  • The deep-seated issues are the root cause. The deep-seated issue is the degree of liberty.

    In a society with no liberty, even teach-a-man-fish aid is, at best, not effective because someone can take his fish. So, while he has the knowledge to feed himself, he has very little incentive to try. It can also hurt because someone else can enslave him for his knowledge.
  • SheetWise
    I see human action as a process that represents order, you see human action as an arbitrary and aimless endeavor that requires order. We're unlikely to agree any time soon.
  • danielkuehn
    I'm not sure what you mean - I see human action as a process that represents order too. I also see human action, for all it's order and inherent potential for growth, as also having an inherent potential for instability and volatility - and yes I'm more comfortable with addressing that than you. But I don't see how that makes me think that human action is "an arbitrary and aimless endeavor that requiress order."

    My advice to you - stop trying to pigeonhole everyone that has a difference with you as being a polar opposite of you, and just address the differences that do come up. I know you find this hard to swallow, but you guys really aren't the only ones that accept the logic of emergent order. It is entertaining to see you act like it's your unique insight, though.
  • SheetWise
    In your OP, you said "Brooks is right that this was a poverty story and not a natural disaster story. The source of that poverty is a little more complex then (sic) people like to make it, that's all."

    If the source of poverty is complex to you -- then you must believe that the source of wealth is equally complex.

    Tell me what's complex about it.
  • danielkuehn
    Well wouldn't you think wealth or poverty could have a complex origin or a simple origin, depending on how you look at it? I don't feel "wealthy", but since we're making global comparisons (ie - to Haiti) in this thread it's reasonable enough to call me wealthy. I got this way because of thousands of decisions I've made throughout my life, as well as chance and good fortune, and interactions with many people - most of whom I don't even know personally. That's pretty complex. But if you asked me to simplify it, I would also tell you that I'm "wealthy" because of specialization and exchange. There is something that I've found that I'm good at that a lot of other people aren't good at and I have the opportunity to exchange that for money. Specialization and exchange creates all wealth.

    So you can tell a complex story and you can tell a simple story. I think you're trying to read more into my statement than you really can. This isn't the "gotcha" moment that I think you think it is.

    Now - in that statement you cite I was just summing up a comment about foreign aid. Perhaps it would have been more clear if I phrased it this way: "Brooks is right that this was a poverty story and not a natural disaster story. In theory aid should be able to alleviate poverty but obviously in practice it very often doesn't. So the reason why poverty is sometimes, but not always, alleviated by aid is a little more complex thAn people like to make it, that's all."

    I thought that was implicit in the original statement - that I was talking about poverty specifically with respect to it's relationship to aid. That relationship is more complex than people here have been making it.
  • SheetWise
    "In theory aid should be able to alleviate poverty but obviously in practice it very often doesn't."

    Do you have any positive examples of this theory?
  • danielkuehn
    You're dropping your "complex"/"simple" point that easily, huh? I was hoping you'd give me more on what you're trying to get at there.

    OK - Burnside and Dollar found that foreign aid going to developing countries with effective liberal institutions on average helps the recipient country. More specifically, my understanding is that evaluations have found that (1.) children's education aid is generally effective, (2.) most vaccination programs are fairly effective, (3.) anti-malaria campaigns have generally done well, and (4.) I've heard that aid to help build "civil society" programs has been found to be effective, but honestly I'm not really sure what that entails and I'm sure that involves important caveats (ie - what one person may claim is money for the development of "civil society" could just be funneling money to existing political institutions that simply prolong the problem). Microlending initiatives have also been identified as a successful example of aid.

    The problem is, obviously there's a lot of aid that doesn't work. Too many people rely on that unremarkable fact to make very remarkable claims about how aid in general doesn't work. That's unfortunate, particularly given the evidence on what kinds of aid do work.

    You ask about what "in theory" would work. I'm sure you're familiar with public choice theory and rent-seeking behavior. Avoid aid that feeds into that rent-seeking behavior and you're going to have a more successful aid program. That's all the theory you need to come up with a fairly decent aid program.
  • SheetWise
    "You're dropping your 'complex'/'simple' point that easily, huh?"

    I'm not going to address complexities that I don't think exist.

    "I got [rich] because of thousands of decisions I've made throughout my life, as well as chance and good fortune, and interactions with many people - most of whom I don't even know personally. That's pretty complex."

    As a policy decision it's not complex at all.

    "Burnside and Dollar found that foreign aid going to developing countries with effective liberal institutions on average helps the recipient country."

    What does that have to do with alleviating poverty? Buying a fix for a heroin addict helps the recipient as well.
  • danielkuehn
    RE: "I'm njot going to address complexities that I don't think exist."

    Not the complexities, but your point. I thought you were trying to make one.

    Re: "What does that have to do with alleviating poverty? Buying a fix for a heroin addict helps the recipient as well."

    Wow - you're really having trouble picking up on the context in my posts, aren't you. In the context of this entire thread I thought "helps" pretty clearly refered to "alleviating poverty". Was that supposed to be another "gotcha"??
  • SheetWise
    "Not the complexities, but your point. I thought you were trying to make one."

    I was refuting your point that poverty is more complex than people like to make it. That was my point.

    "In the context of this entire thread I thought 'helps' pretty clearly referred to 'alleviating poverty'."

    I don't think they have anything much to do with each other.
  • danielkuehn
    Alleviating poverty isn't helping someone? You've lost me.
    By the way - you weren't refuting anything, you simply asked me a question. That's not really a refutation, which was really what I was curious about.
  • SheetWise
    "Alleviating poverty isn't helping someone? You've lost me."

    Apparently -- but you're the one who keeps moving the target. Of course alleviating poverty helps people -- but that doesn't in any way lead to a conclusion that helping people alleviates poverty.

    "That's not really a refutation, which was really what I was curious about."

    You mean, you want me to explain my non-complex solution to poverty? I'll give it a shot.

    You could free people to make thousands of decisions throughout their life, as to interact with many people - most of whom they'll never know personally.

    How's that? I read somewhere that that's how many other people became rich ;)
  • danielkuehn
    You're the one who keeps moving the target. I never said helping people alleviates poverty - what I said was in the context of the discussion I thought it was implicit that by "helping people" I meant "alleviate poverty". And since you think alleviating poverty is helping people that shouldn't be hard for you to swallow. I'm glad you agree with me on a non-complex way of how to reduce poverty, but my point was you asked a question and then dropped the whole point - I thought you were going to say more about it.
  • SheetWise
    "I thought it was implicit that by 'helping people' I meant 'alleviate poverty'. And since you think alleviating poverty is helping people that shouldn't be hard for you to swallow."

    Read carefully. There's a difference between "helps" and "helping" -- while I believe that reducing poverty helps people, I do not believe that any of our "helping" will reduce poverty. At best, it may reduce some of the suffering. If there's going to be a reduction in poverty, that's something they're going to have to do on their own. And I do not believe that the path for them to accomplish that is complex -- even though the political realities may be. But our "help" really doesn't address that.
  • SheetWise
    "The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.”

    -- Guess Who?
  • danielkuehn
    One of my very favorite selections from Mr. Smith. It's ignorance of this principle that makes aid fail.
  • Mommsen1625
    One can lump developing countries into two groups; those that receive aid and those that do not. The ones that do not receive aid do much better than the former. The ones that receive aid basically spin their wheels. Now it could be the case that the aid nothing to do with the outcomes found in aid receiving countries, but that would mean at best aid is being squander to no effect. But I think it is worse than that; I think aid takes on the form of the so-called "resource curse." I also believe it allows corrupt elites to by-pass their populations and that it instead focuses their attention on what the donors want; what the donors want often times has very little to do with what the local population needs.
  • danielkuehn
    I would just caution against assuming you can have that detailed an understanding of what aid does. Knowing the massive endogeneity problem - that we by definition give aid to the countries that struggle most - you should be very suspicious of conclusions that aid is universally negative (although certainly the situation you describe is relevant in many circumstances).

    It seems to me when we run into massive endogeneity problems like this we should go out of our way to emphasize that aid may not always be bad and that since we expect a negative bias to any simple correlation between aid and growth (by virtue of who gets selected to receive aid), any observed negative correlation between aid and growth is not sufficient evidence against foreign aid.

  • Mommsen1625
    A number of studies have gotten past this problem, one was even featured on EconTalk.

    Aid - and by that I mean development aid - will be effective when pigs fly.
  • danielkuehn
    Ha - yes, watch one economist try to convince another economist that they have successfully overcome an endogeneity problem. These sorts of studies move us forward, but they hardly close the argument. And the results of studies are mixed - you're misrepresenting the literature (the most obvious example is Burnside and Dollar). There is a great deal of failure in foreign aid programs. There are also successes. Rather than just aggregating into "foreign aid" it's probably worth talking about what works and what doesn't. Handing a bunch of money to leaders won't work. Helping set up civil society institutions might have more success. Don't act as if there is a single answer to the question "does foreign aid help" - because there's no single type of foreign aid.

    Aren't you guys supposed to be attentive to when aggregation is dangerous?

  • Mommsen1625
    These sorts of studies move us forward, but they hardly close the argument.

    Nice. You remind me again why I stopped talking to you.
  • danielkuehn
    Do you disagree? Sorry to bust your "when pigs fly" bubble.
  • Mommsen1625
    Nope. The sad part is that nation-states will continue to waste resources on foreign aid as they do now, the "beneficiaries" will continue to suffer, and the various aid bureaucracies created by governments will remain the parasites that they are.
  • danielkuehn
    You do realize that not all foreign aid goes to nation states, don't you?
  • Mommsen1625
    Actually, even foreign aid which goes to private organizations is used by local governments - they "tax" a significant percentage of that aid and private organizations go along with this in order to get the aid in.
  • Methinks1776
    Just to add to your point - NGOs are required to work through the local governments to distribute the aid.

    They can't just go into a country and do whatever they want without the government's consent. They need permission from the government to even enter the country. These are the very same governments that have zero interest in helping their own people rise out of poverty. Countries that do have interested governments don't rely on aid (except during emergencies such as the current one) and don't usually stay in poverty!
  • Mommsen1625
    Let's also remember exactly what foreign aid actually entails, whether we're talking about SWAPs, Project Aid, Program Aid, etc. ... centralized planning.
  • Methinks1776
    Daniel, aid funds the dysfunction, prohibits normal economic development and prolongs the agony.

    African farmers can't compete with free grain from the U.S., so they're forced to stop sowing. All aid must be funneled through the very same corrupt government which is preventing economic development in the first place. Most of the aid is effectively stolen by the kleptocrats.

    you should read "Dead Aid" by Dambisa Moyo and "Lords of Poverty" by Graham Hancock.
  • danielkuehn
    Well that's an awfully homogenous understanding of aid! :)

    Yes - this is often the problem. This was more or less what I was refering to when I wrote "That providing aid successfully is a difficult task is no secret" and "I'm guessing it's probably a littlle of both, depending on context".

    While we're making book suggestions, Easterly's "The Elusive Quest for Growth" provides some excellent background on these issues too.



  • Methinks1776
    God forbid you should ever actually learn something.
  • danielkuehn
    Huh?
  • Methinks1776
    exactly
  • danielkuehn
    You're still impressed with your old "throw out a non sequitor and act smug when no one has any clue what the hell you're talking about" routine, huh? Well I'm glad you're still getting some mileage out of it :)
  • SheetWise
    I know what she's talking about -- as I'm sure a lot of us do. Read it again.
  • Methinks1776
    eh...don't make him do things he's incapable of doing. That's just cruel. Some aid is successful - as measured by the world bank types. The program got funded, didn't it? The people running the program went to a lot of swank parties, didn't they? It's a success. Don't argue with success.

    Plus, every once in a while you actually have something that almost halfway works not only for the people running the programs but for the people they're actually meant to help. So what if you get $1 of return for every $1MM you spend. It's SUCCESS!!!

    My father-in-law spent his entire career knee deep in this crap working for the UN in the third world. The most success he ever saw beyond vaccinations is Mohamed Yunus' Grameen bank.

    Let's not mix things up and throw the baby out with the bath water while mistaking correlation for cause, considering the endogeneity problem, depending on the context, shall we?
  • Randy
    "Beyond. Our. Control"

    Beyond. Duh.

    Our. Who does he mean by "our"? If by "our" he means government, or maybe just "those who claim to speak for society", then the economy isn't theirs. If by "our" he means those who create the economy, those who therefore have property rights to the economy, then the use of "our" in conjunction with the word "control" makes no sense. The people who create the economy only control the aspects of it that they create.

    Control. Isn't necessary for growth. Free people making their own decisions will constantly seek "better" methods. This is the cause of growth.
  • Methinks1776
    Name one country which pulled itself out of poverty with aid.

    I can't name a single one.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: