Merits of Academic Debates on Aids

I have no doubt about the valuable insight generated through aid debates on poverty eradication and development, but recent intense debates among three prominent economists on this issue – Easterly, Moyo and Sachs led me to reassess the contribution of some aid debates in tackling poverty. Picture the academic setting that requires opposing sides to take their stands and defend them rigorously, discredit opposing argument and may the best argument win. Translate this approach into practical reality in addressing poverty, it is not only detached from reality but counterproductive and unnecessarily polarizing a complex issue. Adopt a rigid argument and an oversimplified notion of whether or not to support aids has rendered merits of these academic debates questionable with little practical significance.

Charges of aid critics are nothing short of controversial by stating aids as root cause of poverty and growth impediment in Africa, even though they do acknowledge the economic and political barriers especially corruption in implementing aids successfully. Their obvious call sets to eliminate aids gradually but uncompromisingly within a specific timeframe. In my opinions, the compelling case that aid critics argue about is falling short of being convincing when they deliberately highlight failures and understate successes, with selective and anecdotal evidence based on circumstantial events.

Moyo, the author who has been receiving a lot of publicity lately for her book in Dead Aid, argued that the historical success of Marshall Plan for reconstruction in Europe during World War II is due to circumstantial advantages of having stable political institutions and well-developed economic infrastructure to recover quickly with aids. But the same premise is downplayed when she argued for free market-based solution to tackle poverty in Africa when apparently current political and economic conditions pose as major hindrance. Cited examples of real progress made without aid assistance in developed countries and some developing countries as well as generalized free market prescription advocated by Moyo also lack practical applicability with vague connection to African context.

What is the point of discrediting when both sides have obvious merits? Can poverty be restrictedly turned into an academic issue? Certainly not. I am appalled by the narrow interpretation to attribute large-scale aids as the root cause of poverty. It is analogous to blaming money in the bank as the source of robbery or cheap foreign money as the sole cause of recent financial crisis, discounting the importance of other dynamic factors involved. In the minds of critics, when aids do not work well, eliminate them completely in 5 to 10 years and get Africa ready for a radical shock therapy. We should not cheat ourselves into believing that poverty can be resolved by taking stands to support either aids or market-based approach and miss the synergy of integrated solution. What is truly at stake is billions of lives, but not academic credentials. Make some practical sense and stop the rhetoric to “kill or give aids”.