“The issues that we face today- from chronic poverty and hunger to violent acts of terrorism- require that we work seamlessly toward identifiable goals.” Senator Richard Lugar opened with a strong statement on the importance of aid reform yesterday at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that I attended called The Case for Reform: Foreign Aid and Development in a New Era. Witnesses at the hearing included Peter McPherson, President of Public and Land Grant Universities and former administrator of USAID, Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and Rev. David Beckmann, President of ONE partner organization, Bread for the World and Co-Chair of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network.

The hearing highlighted a bill written by Senators Kerry, Corker, Menendez and Lugar that seeks to strengthen USAID and thereby strengthen the effectiveness of U.S. foreign assistance. The bill has three main facets:

• To strengthen the monitoring and evaluation program of USAID by creating an “internal evaluation and knowledge center” and reinforce the partnership between USAID and the State Department to make sound decisions relating to development.
• To coordinate all U.S. agencies that have a role in foreign assistance by promoting information sharing and appointing a Mission Director at USAID to coordinate all development and humanitarian assistance within all countries where the U.S. works.
• To create a high-level task force at USAID and increase training within USAID and other U.S. development programs to alleviate the disorganization that has arisen with increased funding and decreased staffing at USAID.

McPherson, Sachs and Beckmann spoke very highly of this bill and were in agreement with the idea that the U.S. must increase their capacity in foreign assistance through higher level leadership and monitoring and evaluation. If these steps are taken, USAID will become an effective long-term development agency rather than the short-term disaster relief organization, which it has evolved to in recent years according to Senator Kerry.

Jeffrey Sachs had many strong words of advice to the United States development community. He stated that the framework of development assistance should focus on agriculture, healthcare, education, infrastructure, small business development and climate change, emphasizing that progress on these issues will promote resources which would in turn reestablish law and order in countries like Kenya where it is lacking.

Rev. Beckmann mentioned that the American people value aid reform and increased resources to developing countries, even in hard economic times. He praised ONE along with other NGOs for reaching out to members to voice these opinions and encourage their representatives to support initiatives such as the Water for the World Act and the Global Food Security Act.

- Leah Moriarty

Economist Jeff Sachs has issued a substantive response on the Huffington Post to Dambisa Moyo’s recent attempt to undermine his concerns with the lack of facts and policy rigor in Moyo’s book Dead Aid. For those following this debate, it’s worth reading the exchange.

Some excerpts are below, and you can read his full article here. The original critique Jeff wrote is here.

-Josh Lozman

Ms. Dambisa Moyo’s recent Huffington Post article exposes the confusions that underlie her slashing attacks on aid. Most importantly, she seems to believe that sub-Saharan Africa was economically prosperous and then was pushed into poverty by aid. She makes the following statement: “No surprise, then, that Africa is on the whole worse off today than it was 40 years ago. For example in the 1970’s less than 10 percent of Africa’s population lived in dire poverty — today over 70 percent of sub-Saharan Africa lives on less than US$2 a day.”

Let’s parse that statement for a moment. World Bank researchers Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion prepare the benchmark under-$2-a-day historical headcount data going back to 1981. According to their figures, headcount poverty under $2 a day was 74 percent of the population in sub-Saharan Africa in 1981 and 73 percent in 2005. Other prominent estimates that go back to 1950 or 1970 also contradict Moyo’s statement, by showing high and persistent poverty. All of the macroeconomic time series by Maddison, Summers and Heston, and others tell the same story: the majority of Africa’s population started out impoverished at the time of national independence in the 1960s and 1970s, and a majority remains impoverished till today….

Moyo now campaigns against the kinds of aid that can keep millions of African children from dying or being maimed for a lifetime through the consequences of serious episodes of disease. She advocates cutting the aid that has allowed more than 2 million Africans access to life-saving AIDS treatment, since governments are involved. Almost unimaginably, she opposes the distribution of anti-malaria bed nets for Africa’s hundreds of millions of young people on the alleged grounds that it has put bed net producers in Africa out of business. In her own words:

“Finally, with respect to Mr. Sachs’ remark that I would see nothing wrong with denying US$10 in aid to an African child for an anti-malarial bed net — even labeling me as cruel; I say, if working towards a sustainable solution where Africans can make their own anti-malaria bed-nets (thereby creating jobs for Africans and a real chance for continents economic prospects) rather than encouraging all and sundry to dump malaria nets across the continent (which incidentally, put Africans out of business), then I am guilty as charged. Don’t forget that the over 60 percent of Africans that are under the age of 24 need jobs not sympathy.”

The confusion underlying this remark is staggering. There are hundreds of millions of Africans at risk of a killer disease, around two hundred million cases of the disease, and around 1 million preventable deaths per year, yet Moyo is opposed to urgent help if nets are not produced in Africa. She seems both unmoved by the massive suffering and unaware that Africa has gone from producing exactly zero long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) a few years ago to several million per year now, with thousands of jobs in the local industry, as a result of the demand for nets created by aid for malaria control.

She takes no note of the fact that global aid for malaria control is also training tens of thousands and soon hundred of thousands of rural Africans as community health workers; and seems to be unaware that unchecked malaria has long devastated Africa’s economy while malaria control is finally emptying the hospitals, putting mothers and fathers back to work and children back to school, and contributing to the boost in Africa’s productivity and economic growth of recent years. She says that if her position against aid for LLINs is deemed to be cruel, then yes, she is “guilty as charged.”

Moyo has proposed cutting off bilateral and multilateral aid. African leaders – like President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, Dr. Awa Coll-Seck of Roll Back Malaria, and Ministers Charity Ngilu and Beth Mugo of Kenya – have fought for Africa’s poor and have used aid to save lives and help economies to prosper. These leaders disagree with Moyo’s drastic proposal to cut off aid. They recommend more aid that is fully accountable and properly targeted to meet urgent needs.

Jeffrey Sachs wrote a strong op-ed in the Huffington Post on Sunday outlining the flaws he sees in many anti-aid critics arguments and highlighting the many benefits of effective aid. I pulled out some excerpts below, but recommend reading the full piece.

The debate about foreign aid has become farcical. The big opponents of aid today are Dambisa Moyo, an African-born economist who reportedly received scholarships so that she could go to Harvard and Oxford but sees nothing wrong with denying $10 in aid to an African child for an anti-malaria bed net. Her colleague in opposing aid, Bill Easterly, received large-scale government support from the National Science Foundation for his own graduate training…

I certainly don’t begrudge any of them the help that they got. Far from it. I believe in this kind of help. And I’d find Moyo’s views cruel and mistaken even she did not get the scholarships that have been reported (Easterly mentioned his receipt of NSF support in the same book in which he denounces aid). I begrudge them trying to pull up the ladder for those still left behind. Before peddling their simplistic concoction of free markets and self-help, they and we should think about the realities of life, in which all of us need help at some time or other and in countless ways, and even more importantly we should think about the life-and-death consequences for impoverished people who are denied that help…

Americans are predisposed to like the anti-aid message. They believe that the poor have only themselves (or perhaps their governments) to blame. They overestimate the actual aid from the US by around thirty times, so they imagine that vast sums are flowing to Africa that are then squandered. Many believe, typically in private, that by saving African children we would be creating a population explosion, so better to let the kids die now rather than grow up hungry. (I’m asked about this constantly, usually in whispers, after lectures). They don’t understand the most basic point of worldwide experience: when children survive rather than die in large numbers, households choose to have many fewer children, in fact more than compensating for the decline in child mortality. Africa’s high child mortality is ironically a core reason why Africa’s population is continuing to soar rather than stabilize as in other parts of the world.

Of course, most Americans know little about the many crucially successful aid efforts, because Moyo, Easterly, and others lump all kinds of programs – the good and the bad – into one big undifferentiated mass, rather than helping people to understand what is working and how it can be expanded, and what is not working, and should therefore be cut back. Nor do Americans hear that many poor countries graduate from the need for aid over time, precisely because aid programs help to spur economic growth and successfully prepare countries to tackle future priorities. US aid to India for increased food production in the 1960s paved the way for India’s growth takeoff afterwards. There are countless other examples in which countries have benefited from aid and then graduated, including Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Israel, and others. Egypt is on that path today, and Rwanda, Tanzania, Ghana, and others will be as well if both donors and recipients carry forward with a sensible assistance strategies…

In today’s Business Daily, Jeffrey Sachs asks us to resist letting the “bad news can crowd out good news” and instead to take the time to recognize the many creative feats achieved by governments around the globe to fight poverty, disease and hunger this past year.

As he puts it:

“The point is not merely to make ourselves feel a little better, but rather to confront one of the world’s gravest threats: the widespread pessimism that today’s problems are too big to be solved. Studying the successes gives us the knowledge and confidence to step up our shared efforts to solve today’s great global challenges.”

He goes on to list creative new programs around the globe. Among them:

“Hats off, first, to Mexico for pioneering the idea of “conditional cash transfers” to poor households. These transfers enable and encourage those households to invest in their children’s health, nutrition, and schooling. Mexico’s “Opportunities Program,” led by President Felipe Calderón is now being widely emulated around Latin America.

Recently, at the behest of the singers Shakira and Alejandro Sanz, and a social movement that they lead, all of Latin America’s leaders committed to step up the region’s programs for early childhood development, based on the successes that have been proven to date…”

You can read his full op-ed here.

-Virginia Simmons and Chris Scott

[Photo: children in Mozambique, May 2008]

All this week, Bono and Jeffrey Sachs will be blogging for the Financial Times from the United Nation’s summit on the Millennium Development Goals.

As a precursor, the Financial Times conducted a Q & A with Bono. An excerpt is below, and the full piece is at FT.com.

AB: What is this week [and the Millennium Development Goals summit] all about?

Bono: Most of us woke up on New Year’s Day 2000 with a hangover and a hazy memory of a night of pleasant fanfare and dumb parade. However, the new millennium was also celebrated by our commitment to eight goals that would change the planet and demonstrate to the developing world how we might, through a combination of know-how and resources, partner with them in efforts to help millions out of desperate poverty. We gave ourselves 15 years, we’re halfway there. How do we measure up?

AB: What are the two or three goals you want to achieve this week?

Bono: 1. Blogging for the FT, being your roving reporter in the canyons of Manhattan. While the world upends on Wall Street, I’ll be mostly midtown at the UN and the Clinton Global Initiative talking about the resilience of the world’s poor while the world’s rich find out how fragile life can be.

2. Unlock €1bn of unspent European Union Common Agricultural Policy money. This year our farmers don’t qualify for it, food prices are high. African farmers desperately need it.

3. Show what’s working as well as what’s not. Bad news about Africa travels much farther than good news. There will be a historic and innovative announcement on malaria on Thursday – watch out for it. Thanks to debt relief, aid and African leadership, 29m more children are going to school.

Read the full Q & A here.

Last Wednesday night, a few of us at ONE had the chance to hear Jeffrey Sachs speak at the CARE National Conference. It was a really exciting opportunity to hear from someone who has done so much research and reflection on the challenges of fighting global poverty and more specifically, meeting the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. It was great to hear his insights on both the looming food crisis and the upcoming election.

Sachs cited a lot of data that really put the crisis of global poverty into perspective. He compared the American defense and foreign assistance budgets to demonstrate how little we give to Africa as a percentage or our GDP (we give 1/100 of the defense budget in foreign assistance.) He also mentioned the food crisis as an example of the need to support local farmers and empower their growth instead of limiting our activities to emergency aid.

Sachs concluded his speech by sharing his wish to see the Millennium Development Goals in the next president’s inaugural address as a way of expressing our solidarity with the world’s poorest people. His message and enthusiasm were heard and embraced at the conference, leaving us with yet another voice encouraging us to keep pushing our leaders in such a significant year.

-Sarah Wald, ONE Intern

The Millennium Campus Network held a conference this past weekend to discuss global poverty and health. ONE’s former intern, Sam Vaghar, helped create this new network of Boston area colleges and universities, and their conference hosted over 700 students and included top global health experts like Ira Magaziner, Dr. Paul Farmer, as well as an event with musician John Legend and Dr. Jeff Sachs.

I attended the first day of the event at MIT and immediately noticed a few ONE shirts and many, many ONE bands. After opening statements and a very good speech by Sam, the keynote address was given by former presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards. In his speech, Sen. Edwards spoke about his travels to Uganda and the extreme poverty he witnessed in Africa. He spoke about the need to fight AIDS and malaria to help bring stability to poor nations and citied America’s moral standing in the world.

After his speech, I was able to briefly speak with Sen. Edwards and thanked him for raising the issues of global poverty while on the campaign trail. We even talked about the global poverty speech he gave in New Hampshire.

From the campaign trail to the colleges campuses, people everywhere are organizing and realizing that in today’s world, that we have the resources to fight global disease and end extreme – less than a dollar a day – poverty.

-Matthew Bartlett

From my colleague John Ryan:

Hey Ginny,

Check this out, might be good for the blog. It’s a talk that Sachs gave on the Millennium Development Goals.

It’s pretty interesting, lots of good information. He reviews the last seven years since the MDGs were laid out and goes into what needs to happen if we are to meet them by 2015. I got it through an iTunes podcast (Uchannel) but anyone can listen to it or download it here:

http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2089&Itemid=1

In today’s Christian Science Monitor, economists Jeffrey Sachs and William Easterly tee off on global poverty once again.

For those of you just tuning in, Sachs and his supporters maintain that given a sufficient level of effective aid, foreign assistance can indeed prove the catalyst to end extreme poverty. Easterly, on the other hand, argues that ending extreme poverty must ultimately be a home-grown effort, through democratic reforms, improved governance, and free markets. Some prominent African opinionmakers, among them Kenyan economist James Shikwati and Tanzanian journalist Ayub Rioba, have even suggested that aid in fact does more harm than good.

Read the article and make up your own mind.

-Porter McConnell