PolyMatter - 2022-08-21
Support PolyMatter & watch this video ad-free on Nebula: https://nebula.tv/videos/polymatter-the-problem-with-foreign-aid Watch episode 4 of my new Nebula Original series on Nebula: "Why China Has No Allies" https://nebula.tv/videos/polymatter-why-china-has-no-allies Sources: https://pastebin.com/NQ9ayrt2 Twitter: https://twitter.com/polymatters Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/PolyMatter Email: polymatter@standard.tv How I Make These Videos: https://skl.sh/2OW1YQR Music by Graham Haerther (http://www.Haerther.net) Audio editing by Eric Schneider Motion graphics by Vincent de Langen Thumbnail by Simon Buckmaster Writing & Direction by Evan This includes a paid sponsorship which had no part in the writing, editing, or production of the rest of the video. Music by Epidemic Sound: http://epidemicsound.com Video supplied by Getty Images Maps provided by MapTiler/OpenStreetMap Contributors and GEOlayers 3 Select footage from the AP Archive
There's this movement among African entrepreneurs called 'Trade not Aid' where they are asking foreign buisnesses to invest in their countries and create businesses and jobs and a stable economy so that they don't have to rely on foreign aid. It's really cool and I think people should look into it more.
But that'd create job and solve problems instead of growing dependency. No way!
While ideal in concept, there are many reasons why it doesn't occur frequently. most of those poor countries tend to have a terrible security situation, little governmental stability, and rule of law. foreign businesses tend to not want to risk that some bandits are going to rob them and burn their equipment down, or that there will be a military coup that then outlaws the business or raises taxes by 300% from today to tomorrow. There is a good reason that manufacturing production went from Western countries to East Asia rather than Africa, even though Africa tends to have lower labour costs.
But that actually fixes the problem instead of making you look like you’re fixing the problem
yes, trade is what China does. Then, the salty West complains about it and spreads ferocious anti-China propaganda.
@@TropospherePixels The answer to that is to divert all that aid money to instead be used as insurance money to get that trade going. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up just creating perverse incentives to try scamming said insurance.
This reminded me of a talk I had at school from a charity. They had been doing work with some farmers in an African village, can't remember where, teaching them techniques on how to farm more effectively and building this big communal warehouse so the village could store their crop. When they came back to check on them, they found the warehouse wasn't in use and the farmers were using the same methods as before. Apparently, the farmers they had trained decided not to implement the better techniques because they were worried the less skilled farmers would target them for making more, and the warehouse wasn't used because all the farmers were worried someone would steal their crop so all their work was effectively useless.
Its the equality mentality problem. They need to shift to wealth is the measure of a man mentality and that will be solve.
Oh boy this sounds like a fusion of "the tragedy of the commons" with "crabs in a bucket mentality" this will require centuries long cultural shift to fix
@@sasi5841 Your suggesting millions of people need to change their culture based of a comment some guy gives on YouTube that could (and most likely is) 100& made up
That's ...
That is just plain STUPID, man.
I've also read a similar story told by a foreign aid worker. Went to an African farmer. Arranged a contract with him for three years to supply fertilizer, take the money he earned and re-invest it in his farm. At the end of the three years, he was given control of his finances again. The farmer immediately sold all of his equipment, bought large gifts for the rest of his family, and went back to working by hand on fields that had been five times as productive one season ago. He enjoyed the productivity while it existed, but as soon as he had the money himself, all his family and friends wanted free hand-outs, and the tribal structure of his village meant that not distributing his wealth was considered a social taboo on par with pedophilia. So rather than fight the system and stay profitable, he just went back to his old ways and exchanged his money for a reputation as the most generous man in the village.
Imagine thinking commercial agriculture is the answer to poverty and not even building a storage barn or making sure there's enough water available.
The solution to poverty for most is to escape it rather than make it actually liveable.
commercial should have mean first find something which is sellable
Yeah this was a bullshit project to throw money at a problem. Sure, they had "a handbook". They had a "team" to go around corruption. But who gives a shit, if it's made by people who never saw the target village? Who are oblivious enough to not think "oh crops need water lol"? This sounds like a feel-good project by an economist, not a single farmer seemed to have been consulted. And the corn being planted when people in the village hate it? That's extreme "let them eat cake" levels of stupidity. It's like they didn't consult anything with the people there, instead throwing dollars at the problem. No different than the aid going through government.
Edit: also, the "noone could've predicted these!" - like, everyone could. Even the goats being under the netting, and the children being left out. Animals also need protection from malaria, when there's 15 kids and two goats that feed all of them, you sure as hell are going to put them on the goats. But then again, if that shit costs $1.5, then maybe send them a shitton of it, not "just enough" one per kid or some shit.
Yes... and these are the "smart ones" in universities, investment funds and political lobbies
They should have hired a couple farmers 👨🌾 first to act as teachers 👨🏫 over there
Foreign aid is a way to control governments in most cases. It’s a political instrument for power.
And in that respect, it works very well.
It’s given by one political entity (a wealthy nations government) to another political entity (a poor nations government) of course the money is inherently political by its nature genuine charity is selfless and more effective
In placess where there's no democracy. Aid can keep them in check a weird modern colonialism by UN.
Sorry to put it so bluntly that's what I think look at congo
And it has a great ROI, it is almost never about altruism
you're missing the point
regardless of corruption, power, governments, politics, etc, there's still the fundamental problem of trying to understand a culture, and climate on the other side of the world.
As a political science graduate this video doesn't even scratch the surface of why foreign aid doesn't work, even for a summation. For one thing most of the aid is given in the form of loans (with interest). That locks poor nations into a vicious cycle of getting a loan, going into default and then getting another loan to pay back the first one. Besides interest much of the aid has strings attached to it. For example a few years back the US announced that it would give millions to Nigeria in foreign aid to building something, a bridge I think. What they failed to mention was that Nigeria could only use the money if they hired American companies to do the work.
The reason poor countries hate China is because their aid conditions are even worse. In Kenya China bragged that they built a dam there but they didn't use any local labor do it, in fact they even brought in their own prostitutes for their workers. Plus Asian culture tends to be very blunt on certain things and many Chinese are openly racist against blacks which isn't good for building positive working relationships.
Agreed! They ignore the obvious CORRUPTION that western nations impose on many of their “foreign aid” attempts. At times it can be a more elevated way of donating to a charity for good PR & a tax write-off. The idea that you can just use capitalism to solve poverty is laughable in many ways but the attempts don’t even sufficiently hide the obviously political intentions from geographically-advantaged/privileged (notice don’t say rich or just western) nations.
They do employ blacks, but it's usually for low paying, low skill jobs. They have built a stadium, a university and a hotel here. Funny thing, the camp the chinese workers used to use while building the university was also used as a student hostel at some point
Get your facts straight. Ask chatgpt "How much foreign aid is given in loans vs given in grants".
What was the goal, make Chinse buddies or build a dam?
@@KwaleAkokunduMy man you're really trying to cite ChatGPT as a valid source?!?! It's not an oracle or palantir.
About a decade ago, the US government distributed many 'Clean Cook Stoves' to villages in Ethiopia. It was a well intended project. After all, these stoves used solar power rather than more dangerous and polluting energy sources.
However, many of the villages rejected these stoves because they were given under the concept that Americans have regarding meal planning. In many of the communities that received these stoves, cooking is done as a community. It is done as a gathering. A small stove for one person simply is not how cooking is done in some parts of the world. So, this project went to waste.
One step that was missing from this well intended project was asking the community "how can we help you and what do you need?" Rather than assuming you know what people need, why not ask them?
Exactly i think the missing varuable us accounting for the people culture, traditions and asking them what they need.
The problem is. Sometimes cultural differences is part of the reason why these societies fail.
Maybe not cooking together, that sounds pretty neat tbf. But a lot of these people are reluctant to change. Just as people in the west are.
that sounds like those people are too stupid to just use multiple stoves at a get together and instead choose to be poor lmao
@@thetaomega7816 yeah like I was reading this and I was thinking "You're starving and you won't accept help because it's not the way your community works?"
Because they’re poor and dumb and don’t know better
I was just reading a book on how dictatorships work, and it mentioned how foreign aid enables dictators to survive crises while cutting off aid could help force them to liberalize or be overthrown.
It enables tyranny.
That can be true to an extent. In cases of extreme poverty, aid could actually allow for a dictator to be overthrown. A hungry farmer will rebel, a starving farmer is too sick to rebel.That can often be why dictators restrict the food supply, if you just barely keep your population alive, they will simply not have the energy to resist your rule. This especially true in extractive economies, where the dictator controls natural resource mines which they can hire overseas companies to extract resources from in return for a few palms greased in the government.
Hypothetically speaking
What book? DIctator's guide?
Yea, sadly It doesn't work, people that are struggling to survive don't have the strenght and resources to ovretrow a governmemt
"plz help, we poor"
gives corn
"EW, prison food"
bruh...
Did they actually ask for help though?
@@ninamartin1084 Fair enough
"Well you live in a prison already, so why complain?"
@@Arigatex Still not the best response...
The problem is that "giving money directly to poor people in rural parts of a foreign country" is not super easy to do. If there is no market to sell crops, there's probably also no market to spend your $12000 in.
In my opinion working with and getting feedback from local communities is extremely important. But you still need some sort of method of organizing and working together, and with experts and industry, if you want structural changes. Structural problems require more than just individual action from many people with some extra spending money.
GiveDirectly is exactly what you are talking about. The best part is that it is heavily science based, with control groups. They have one experiment with a single large cash transfer, and another one with a basic income, so they can research what money delivery method has the best results.
Better Question Is : Why Foreign Sanctions Not Always Working❓As in Western (NATO countries, The US, Canada & Australia)Economic Sanctions on RUSSIA 👀🤔
The idea is that if people aren't struggling so much, they'll be able to figure out better systems on their own - systems that actually work for them instead of systems that work for us (kind of) being imposed on them.
Its much the same argument as things like the free education discussions over this side of the world. You can't just shame people into having a better education. They have to be able to afford it. But without a good education its extremely difficult to get a good job, and without a good job you'll never be able to afford that education. Round and round we go.
Just straight up giving those people an education without putting it behind the price barrier (or significantly reducing the price barrier) allows that cycle to be broken. Not for everybody - cost isn't the only barrier to education of course. But its one of the largest barriers in today's world. (Hell. in the US this doesn't even just apply to post-secondary education. K12 education is funded by taxes within the jurisdiction it serves. If you're poor, you probably live in a poor neighborhood. Meaning your schools will be poor, meaning your kids get a worse education leading to worse job prospects and a greater chance that they'll also be poor. Yet another cycle of poverty.)
To bring it back to the original topic though, if people have money to spend at a market but there is no market, they will create a market. Again, it won't be everybody. There will be plenty of people who just stare at the money and have no idea what to do with it. But as long as even 1-2% of the people have a good idea, the money they received can be used to fund that idea (or at least be able to buy groceries so that they don't have to work as hard and can have some spare time left over to develop their idea).
Starving people are rarely the ones who change the world. But lots of things have been invented by people who weren't all that much past the line of starvation. Just having your basic needs met provides immense amounts of opportunity even if the only thing you have beyond that is extra free time.
@@altrag you can't create your own market, when there are no goods to be sold and no infrastructure to deliver them from somewhere else. Money without context is just worthless paper.
@@plainText384 I guess all markets were just magicked into existence by God then?
Every market that exists or has ever existed was created by somebody at some point for some reason.
There are no goods? Figure out how to make some. $12000 can buy a lot of tools if you know what you need.
No infrastructure to deliver your products? Buy a horse or a camel and get your village's products to market the old fashioned way. People are rather creative. The only question is whether they have to resources to indulge their creativity, and in the modern world we measure almost all resources with the metric of money.
And of course they're already doing that with the little they have. Giving them a little more simply allows more of them to make the jump. And when enough of them manage to do that, all their individual endeavors start working together and can become self-sustaining (at least until Monsanto sends in the mercenaries to make the area "safe" and ensure those "rebels" don't do anything that might change up the status quo).
In my country we had a dictator that wrote a book called “The poverty of nations” that basically said all of this. When he has absolute power he builded a basic road system, universities that were basically free, social health, a trains system, a banking system, two utilities companies, an insurance system and all with the money used for the army that he abolished.
Today Costa Rica is the one of the richest countries in Latam without any natural resources and probably the problem has been going against the “original plan”.
It is unfashionable to say so but very often benign dictatorship is the best form of government.
Unfortunately the "benign" part tends to be very rare.
@@doujinflip True that. However, despite everything, the poor and the rich are getting richer. (Generally)
@@ninamartin1084 Absolutely the best. I'm sure we haven't has anything as good as him since and we are still rolling on his success BUT it's a Russian roulette with 7 bullets, very easy to have a bad dictator
@@dsolis7532 Dictators tend to be stronger and more brutal if wealth comes from the land, because mines can be worked by slave labour. Costa Rica likely benefitted from having no natural resources because it meant wealth had to be created through the people.
I remember what a warlord said
"Aid is not corn, grain, milk
Aid is hoes, seeds, tools. That's aid"
Weed 420 too . Keep them stoned
What warlord knew about corn? Not many existed after the 15th century.
@@Noam_.Menashe there are still warlords nowadays
@@Noam_.Menashe a) corn existed before the 15th century
b) There are still warlords
Same applies to poverty in rich countries. Giving them shelter, food, clothes won’t solve poverty, giving them a good work with financial education will do. Very few knows this
My view is that we often oversimplify the problem of lifting populations out of poverty, and fail to see the million and one steps that are required. These foreign aid projects seem to result in asymmetric technology transfers without the social and institutional adaptations, where the good intentions of saving children and keeping people fed might result in unsustainable population growth. Without the necessary economic development to generate jobs and creating the conditions for political instability.
Many of these countries need to invent and discover their own way to economic development, which they need competent bureaucracies, build the minimal required infrastructure and develop industries to incorporate value added, to get more people with good jobs.
But how can they do that if they are poor and their government is corrupt. It is a parodox
Basically violating the Prime Directive
@@victorraphael8028 look at Botswana.
@@johnr797 no, just allowing for people to find their own path. They already were colonized, do you really feel they want some outsiders to remote control them for their own good.
That doesn't preclude interaction, or even help, but in the end they will need to find a working development model.
@@calexico66 that's why I said basically. It's obviously not a 1:1 comparison. It's just that nations giving foreign aid, which is often not for altruistic reasons anyways, need to have a hands-off approach if they don't want to keep funding these people forever. Otherwise, they have no incentive to develop. There's really no excuse. People point to all kinds of reasons why Africa is so underdeveloped but at the end of the day it's their fault and no one else's. It's like playing a Civilization game and exploring the oceans with a frigate and coming upon an island full of spearmen and 1 population cities.
To me education is key from top to bottom, coupled with practical infrastructure so people can work on what they learned. That way they can solve their unique issues and progress in general. Foreign aid can help but it doesn't seem to do much and seems to hurt more than it helps in the short/long run.
Hard to teach them to fish when they are dying because they don’t have mosquito nets. Or dying because they don’t have the medicine they need. Aid works to some extend and this video is clickbait. Aid needs to be a combo of basic necessities such as clean water access, mosquito nets, and medicine but also education.
Bottom to top works better.
People are selfish. If I was born in a developing country and charity gave me a free education, I would be looking to get out and emigrate to a richer nation.
education is not possible in pre-industrial village based societies, they need to develop further on their own, learn their own lessons and experience, education will come when it does. educating amerindians failed, leaving them alone and allowing them to integrate on their own worked. liberalism and its assumptions about human character are just utter nonsense.
If you look at all societies that successfully industrialized throughout history you see that a strong government-backed education system was the main institutional mechanism that allowed for their industrialization.
I'd heard a story that in India, the Rockefeller foundation came to a village and supplied people with metal ploughs instead of wooden ones which they used, for more effective ploughing of the field and durability. They trained them and went away, but upon returning after a few years, they saw that they had gone back to using the wooden ones, the metal ones stored away. Upon asking, they were shy, but ultimately admitted to a local that using the metal ones would leave the wood carpenters of the village jobless, hence we went back to their products for their sake. Not all people have the mentality of endless growth and 'development'.
Giving money directly to the people doesn't happen because:
1. It is difficult to actually do logistically
2. It is much easier for corrupt people to divert the money
3. Giving someone 30x their annual income doesn't give them the wisdom or planning for how to handle such a vast sum of money effectively
4. Influxes of currency at those scales can lead to massive inflation, eating away at the very money being given
There are plenty of other reasons. It's known to be ineffective.
If you hand over hundreds of thousands of dollars to a village full of people living in huts that money is going to get stolen by a local general or police chief as soon as the UN leaves.
Also they're an African village in the the middle of nowhere. What are they going to do with pieces of paper? They can't eat them so they are useless. They need actual infrastructure, education, and a proper government with trade relations. Money doesn't magically fix problems, people do.
You're missing the main reason. Foreign aid is often a money laundering scheme and also a way to pilfer tax money.
Basically a reverse Mansa Musa for the peoples there
I disagree with most of this
1) Agreed, but presumably easier than building infrastructure, teaching how to use crops, putting fertilizer, indulging in education campaigns. You just need people to go door to door and give them cash. Not easy, but much easier than the alternative
2) This is the same for any other type of aid. Most can be given to officials who oversee the project who can divert funds. But also, if you can directly use your own officials to make an agricultural experiment like this, I think there's much less corruption if you hire your own officials to just go and physically give them cash
3) Ah yes, the poor people are too stupid to spend money wisely. Apparently, when a Ugandan farmer is having their family starve, they will spend their money on.... what? drugs? idk, I think they know their situation far better than white westerners with fancy degrees who've never lived in that area do. And most people spend it on common sense things like food and education for their kids. Poor people I think are likely much better at spending money than people like us, since instead of wasting on a fancy meal in a city, or on theater tickets, they will spend on necessities or education or a scooter to go to work faster
4) This is maybe the only valid concern. But I think it only mitigates the benefit. You still end up with more money than before, even if each dollar is worth less. Also, influx of currency in other ways can also increase inflation to a point. If I put big influx of currency into an infrastructure project or agriculture subsidies, each dollar is still worth less.
Yes, giving direct handouts is far from perfect. But surely, if you want to give aid, it is much better than any other alternative. Your arguments just seem to be against giving any aid at all
Long Story Short: You can't have some central planning committee from some far away country know how to optimize peoples' lives. Life is too incomputably complex.
They learn nothing.
This is why the Maoist reforms failed so tragically.
Central planning committees can't even solve problems of their own countries. That's one of several reasons why communism always fails. In this case we have western intellectuals with marxist sympathies, trying to prove once again that "other committees got it wrong, but we will do it right, because we are smarter". It takes special kind of arrogance to believe you can solve the economics, even worse than the ignorance of people who support them.
Foreign aid kills local business, one of the primary drivers of any healthy economy is fabrics and clothing. How are weavers supposed to compete with foreign aid when their clothes are given for free? They can't. Building the roads is already the best way to help the extremely poor. If you look at the root cause of famine you will always see that it is not caused by a total lack of food but the effected areas are concentrated. With roads and transportation the likelihood of famine is less likely.
A capitalist, no matter the size of their company, is still an exploiting piece of shit.
@potsmoker54 What for?
this, this is the primary reason, they keep sending stuff and killing local business
@potsmoker54 many of these places are so under developed that there are few places to buy from. This isn't the west, Africa doesn't have amazon delivery.
@potsmoker54 usually foreign aid is not given to people as direct money handouts.
There was some British reality experiment series that gave several people their 'Benefits' (welfare) in a lump sum of a year, based on the idea that, with approx 20,000 pounds, these people would become entrepreneurs rather than scraping by month to month. It followed maybe 6 typical long-term Benefit recipients as they tried to become financially independent with said lump sum. With financial coaching and support from advisors to help them along.
Feeling empowered, they initially bought the necessary luxury goods, exotic pets, and other goods/services they had been deprived of. They all then started various businesses, money eventually ran out from bills and expenses, and were back on welfare, most of them before the year. The big success was a guy who provided a party service with his exotic pets and DJ service with some bouncy castles. He supposedly made it past the year, but was back on welfare when his mobile DJ business folded.
I worked on an Australian aid project in a small pacific island, helping to build a power plant. We tried to hire locals to work on site, but they all refused, even though we were paying ten times the average wage there, and had to fly in Aussies to help us finish. I joked at the time I thought the locals were idiots for refusing that much money, but then I realised maybe we were the idiots. We were busting our backs in the scorching heat, while they were fishing at the beach. I now know that the project was just a political bargaining chip to keep their country on side, but now China has offered them even more money so they have turned on us and are allowing a Chinese military presence in exchange for money. They weren't friends, just playing countries off to get the most free money.
No. Africans and Polynesians are sick and tired of the West's games. By the time YOU came around, they had already come to the conclusion that you weren't there to help but deliver some kind of Political agenda so they ignored you. US and UK have screwed up and the recent generation isn't falling for the schtick. It's far too late to change tactics now.
Apparently they didn't like Australia on reasons which you conveniently ignored. Ask your government how they pissed those poor people off.
@@sonayyalim lmao what do you think you know about history, Turk? What fantasies does Erdogan teach you about Australia "pssed" on the Pacific Islands. Btw, I'm from here.
@@TomorrowWeLive Apparently Mr. Racist Sheeplover never heard of the opposition.
Even those poor people were obviously aware of your trojan horse to sell coal.
@@julm7744 The countries managed by whites tended to be more successful. Rhodesia had living standards for blacks equivalent to western nations. Then in a heroic struggle for freedom Mugabe took over, redistributed all the productive farms to his cronies and killed 3 million people. The place went from a net food exporter to being stricken by famine and life expectancies halved.
My teacher of international affairs in college told us that often times “foreign aid” is code for bribe. And it usually goes directly from corporations to leaders, or individuals to corporations, rather than to the people who actually will use it
The millennium villages were a good idea but only if you don't use a one size fits all solution, so customize is to the unique needs and preferences of the local population. And you need to do it region wide. A single village lifted out of poverty is of no use if the surrounding villages are still dirt poor. You'll need to focus on a central city and the smaller villages nearby.
Wait, it is WAY too broad to declare that aid 'doesn't work'.
It depends on what you think aid is supposed to do. As short term succor? Sure it works. As long term development? It doesn't, however I don't think anyone in the present day has ever claimed it should.
A more interesting question is if aid causes more long term harm than good.
Its not even about foreign aid in general, its just about one project and even that wasn't approached in detail. Easily his worst video.
The World Bank economic programs are precisely to help countries graduate to developed from underdeveloped. It’s still not working.
Emergency aid as you describe is not the focus of the video.
"Seeing like a State" by James C. Scott and "The Anti-Politics Machine" by James Ferguson basically cover the issues with these sorts of aid programs.
In the end, there's an extraordinary amount of hubris in a bunch of people from halfway across the world believing that they can technocratically solve the issues of a single village, let alone whole societies. Yet the idea they have not just the ability, but the right to do so is incredibly seductive.
How would you give money directly to help recipients? In a way that doesn't cause devastating inflation and that makes it hard for some local strongman to come and immediately steal it.
I think answering that at least partly reveals why foreign aid comes with strings attached.
True. Natural and slow economic growth is necessary for the entire economic system to adjust. You can't just instantly dump a bunch of money in the lap of ever single citizen without completely destroying the value of said currency.
Well you could do it by completely undermining their countries sovereignty, making them use dollars or some cryptocurrency. Then you'd also have to allow them access to international markets, bypassing local traffics, import restrictions etc..
You'd basically have to annex them. But for obvious reasons, that is not an option. What they would need is a change in government, but forcefully changing it from the outside would just be annexation again.
"Solve" everything with robotics and automation. In the ideal world, 90% of locksmiths die of starvation and 10% would adapt through innovations that replace them.
@@Embassy_of_Jupiter " completely undermine their sovereignty and make them use cryptocurrency"
Lmao, smartest crypto bro roght there
@@bimasetyaputra8381 how are you under the impression that my comment is pro crypto? It's anti crypto. I'm only highlighting crypto because it would be harder to block and therefore easier to weaponize.
I'm highlighting why hyperinflation is not an issue you could easily fix from the outside, because the only thing you could do is basically neocolonialism.
If you haven't gotten the memo, undermine another countries sovereignty is a bad thing.
The only ethical fix to hyperinflation can come from within the country.
I absolutely love the very informative videos you make and their insightful content presented in a compelling way. The verbal presentation is so professional I almost didn't do a doubletake at 14mins when I heard "a refreshing breath of fresh air". Sorry, had to make that joke, redundancies are my weakness. Anyways, love the content!
It seems a lot of their problems were because they didnt want to disturb the people too much, their village, and way of life. Their village was not near an market, an economic zone, and their access to water was 3 miles away. What they needed to do was move the people and the village to easier resource and/or economic access points. It would suck to move but things gotta change to be have better.
Or idk maybe actually consult Ugandans on how they can make more money. Educated ones at least
It seems to me that a lot of these issues could have been avoided if they’d simply consulted with the local people on their needs
It's always certain countries deciding what's best for others
You give free money to a Filipino villager, they will spend it on sweets, alcohol, and other wasted consumables while living their simple lifestyles. Giving a lifetime of free money to people who prefer simple lives, because the it's below the donor's standards, doesn't fix the "problem"! Give actual materials THEY need.
Kind of like giving food to street beggars instead of money for alcohol.
Ah yes, except this thought process lead to impoverished neighborhoods with way too many used clothes, so much that the local clothing manufacturers all went out of business and more impoverished. Farmers went out of business because of aid food. As soon as the aid stopped, these people starved.
Keep in mind that at least to some extent the extreme poverty in the African countryside might be by design. Because there are few lifestyles more politically disinvested than that of subsistence farmers.
I find it baffling though that apparently few people in foreign aid organizations look at how Europe lifted itself out of poverty. Because remember, up to ~200 years ago the majority of Europeans likewise were subsistence farmers living in villages only relatively weakly connected to the outside world.
Infrastructure is what lifted Europe out of poverty. Canals at first, then railroads.
Europe pillaged the whole world to ''lift itself up'' as a society, it's not gonna happen again.
👻💬
Not 200 years ago, the number of agriculture workers in many African countries is not that far from the state of for example Japan in 1930s
The thing is, you can read almost any moral out of history. Take the observable fact that the feudal system collapsed after the Black Death, and the systems that replaced it made people richer.
One theory is that because labour suddenly was reduced by a third, ordinary workers gained a huge amount of bargaining power. That led to the end of serfdom, the growth of the middle class, the emergence of democratic nations, and ultimately the industrial revolution.
A different theory is that the Black Death disproportionately killed the poor and the middle class, which concentrated wealth into the hands of government linked businesses. Those newly much richer businesses could now operate at a much larger scale (and therefore more efficient) production and trade, which provided the incentives for the industrial revolution.
Which is true? Maybe both. Maybe neither. Humans are too complex to draw easy conclusions from anything we do.
There are many more factors behind the development of Europe. One is reformation. The push for ordinary people to understand the bible themselves instead of just being told by priests what's in there lead to increasing literacy. That paved the way for more education, opening up opportunities to earn a living outside of the family and therefore more effective cooperation between unrelated people with complementing skills and talents. Up until the early 20th century you could see a productivity gap between catholic and protestant regions in Europe.
I remember you made a video similar to this years ago. Great to see an updated/higher quality version of it.
When you make a claim you have to justify it. You've explained why Sach's project didn't work out but in no way justified the claim that giving money directly is a good solution, much less the best solution.
Considering the channel in this video claimed China giving money with no strings attached without delving deeply. Or in another video claimed it's better for American money to leave shores to China just to buy out American property is a good thing. It's clear that there's a bias
That's cos that's likely a topic for a separate video, one that'd likely heavily feature GiveDirectly, which has tested this idea a lot. Long story short, people's assumptions of that solution are often very very wrong. It works better than you'd think. You can read more about simply by googling their name or research into direct cash transfers in general.
"Why China has a hard time making allies - a fundamental difference in how it sees itself and others."
This is true to a large extent, even down to how Chinese people behave online. They're always an anomaly, either being incredibly formal and responsive or totally dismissive and arrogant of others.
Dude, they’re literally shut off from the rest of the world. How pleasant would you be if you’d been locked in your basement your whole life. They are just people born in worse conditions than us.
@@TumblinWeeds your point makes no sense. If you're locked up and you see free light at the end then being patronising to the people on the other side would not be a very good idea.
@@someonejustsomeone1469 In china, the only good idea is the idea of the gov't.
@@belldrop7365 does the government even have an idea? It always acts like it's clueless, screaming like a small boy so that people don't provoke him.
@@someonejustsomeone1469 If that's all you see, then you're falling right into their lap.
I have vague memories of this Millenium Villages project when it was just getting going being the target of alot of skepticism. Far from the 'how can it fail' attitude expressed here, I remember it being regarded as a vanity project with little to no chance of real success.
I think development is something that has to happen organically and from within. You can't impose it from the outside. The video I think hits close to the mark when it says we should concentrate on not hurting the effort more than trying to actively help. I read an interview with a development economist once who was asked how the west could best help developing nations and his remarks were 'Please God, stop helping.' or something to that effect.
I think we should lower trade barriers, and then look at the NGO indicies that measure economic and political freedoms. When nations move up these indicies significantly, the reward should simply be to pay off some international loans, provided that the country is transparent enough with it's finances that the money isn't just being pocketed. Each milestone reached like peaceful exchanges of power, establishing an independent judiciary, respecting free press, free speech, property rights, etc...Offer to help pay off some loans to buy them more breathing space. Let the locals then decide through their own political process how to proceed.
Something like this already exists, or did - the Mo Ibrahim offer of US$1 million to any African country that could demonstrate effective anti-corruption. To the best of my knowledge this has not yet happened, or maybe it happened and a big deal was not made about it in the media.
To be be honest I am quite skeptical with your method. Lower trade barriers, possibly but gradually, since it can destroy local competition with more international companies, but forgiving loans by increases of NGO measures of economic and political freedoms, eh, aren't these group funded by the west's millionaires and billionaires who've shaped their own countries internally? This seems like it will end up with pro-western businesses and politicians controlling the people there, with the west and its multinational corporations increasing control of the country's economy, by privatization and budget cuts on public utilities like hospitals, water and other infrastructure . Are you sure that this method would go well, considering this sounds like it will lead to a similar, albeit indirect, top-to-bottom approach you wanted to avoid. This is a surefire way for some nations to accuse you of intervention of dubious intent in their government.
Doing that is like asking North Korea to denuclearize for more infrastructure, it's a loaded question for them.
That being said, however, bottom-to-top management works well, so that's that.
the problem under corruption is almost always infrastructure and trust, these are expensive and are prerequisites to economic development. trust in a society can take decades to build and is often why infrastructure doesnt solve the problem. lack of trust leads to corruption which leads to lagging and dis repaired infrastructure which puts us at square 1.
technically the guy was right, he just misdiagnosed the problems that needed to be solved, the ones that did need solving would require decades.
One major issue with African nations and foreign aid is the family and tribal structure. In many such nations, keeping wealth from your family is seen as one of the worst crimes imaginable. There are literally hundreds of tales of Africans getting enough aid to start businesses such as bread-baking or wholesaling, only for thirty of their relatives to immediately turn up and demand they get free goods and services. Refusing these requests is seen in the same light as we in the west would view a son assaulting his elderly parents. Being seen as 'generous' is an incalculable virtue to these cultures, while being seen as 'greedy' means immediate and complete social ostracism. The cynical members of these communities are well aware of this, so whenever anyone gets ahead, they are immediately targeted for what amounts of social extortion. It's a deeply twisted system that is virtually impossible to break out of, similar to Middle Eastern honor culture.
And that's on top of the views towards the structure of the nuclear family. When having many children is seen as being wealthy people will breed like rabbits, and this is not good for long term development. Then there's excluding half of the population from the most important aspects of economic development and wealth creation. When judging how to end poverty we can't just focus on material aspects; you need to look at culture as well.
Very well-written and thought-out examples Evan!
I think it should be noted that a lot of great discoveries are being made within Development Economics in order to understand what we can do to erradicate poverty. In 2019, the Nobel was awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, and Michael Kremer “for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty." (RCTs are a golden standard nowadays for testing hypothesis within the field). Of course, unfortunately, these findings take a lot of time to leak into the public. A channel I would full heartedly recommend is econimate. She makes animations about frontier research in Economics, making them very accessible to laymen.
There is nothing wrong with poverty.
@@joepetto9488 The planet was better off when people were worse off financially.
@@ninamartin1084 The Truth no one wants to hear.
'foreign aid' is about buying influence and building military bases when countries default on their loans.
'aid' is not distributed to be nice to poor people.
Wow, so on point! Love how you clearly presented everything
Right when I sat to eat, perfect timing
It's interesting how difficult this is in practice and provides quite a bit of respect for places where this transformation has rapidly happened by government programs and a country has actually managed to pull itself up by its bootstraps. E.G. China or Vietnam. It also somewhat suggests that preventing imperialistic, predatory behaviors toward these countries or claiming that we know best (about local conditions) is perhaps the most critical aspect.
<has rapidly happened by government programs and a country has actually managed to pull itself up by its bootstraps. E.G. China or Vietnam. >
By adopting capitalist reforms and toning down the central planning a bit.
Imperialstic motives and know-how are different things. Both exist.
There are social and cultural factors at play.
@@zinjanthropus322 as well as geopolitical which seems to be ignored here. You know, the less pink part.
8:55 Developed nations never imported water pipes at $150,000, they built them themselves. If a village can boost it's argicultural produce, that should free up more workers to make their own aquaduct using whatever local technology they have available.
I think they need the water to boost the agriculture in the first place
Wooden pipes. That's what we did.
Wow adi you are so smart. No wonder china is crushing the west
@@Moses_VII wood is available, so the first step would be to make timber pipes
I think the first step would be to let people figure out their problems and solutions, rather than assuming us Westerners know everything about it and just have to teach them our superior enlightened knowledge and skills.
yep this, they keep 'sending aid' but not actually ask what the people really want/need.
Identified by locals problem on top of the list is a tribe on the other side of river that they have feud going apparently for centuries. Please send guns.
As an indian i have said this before and i will say it again, real development must come from within ; not from outside. Most indians have realised now that foreign aid is nothing but curse for any developing country as it makes the people and government lazy and as a result creates demand for more foreign aid until the entire country is stuck in a vicious cycle of dependence and laziness that will completely wreck the economy of that country , western countries must do a favour and not send any sort of foreign aid other than food supplies ; any other aid in the form of money should not be sent no matter how poor the country, let the people work for themselves and build their country
South Korea, China, and much of Europe were quite big recipients of foreign aid until recently. What seems to be more important is having a local government that tries to benefit beyond the ruler's tribe to develop the nation.
@@doujinflip those countries and regions got a lot of foreign investment. Any aid they received was meaningless. It was the business investment that makes them different. China was also smart in saying, " let some people get rich first". This brought infrastructure and wealth to some regions first which then could radiate out to the rest of the country. If your goal is to bring economic improvement charitable aid is the worst way to do that. The way to bring economic improvement is to establish a city or region which you can build the infrastructure and develop business investments. Then let fruits of that investment expand out to the rest of them country.
Just wanted to point out that the marshall plan was over 4 years only and even the highest 4 years on the information shown to raid is less than 1 billion
we paying the salaries of all these charity workers and advertising budgets of every charity we see ads for
The problem is, a lot of groups just kind of throw money and resources into the country, but don't want to actually stick around to make sure things are done right. Because there's no solid group backing these initiatives, they fall apart. You pretty much have to live in the place you're helping full time, for the rest of your life, reinforcing the lessons on a pretty much daily basis until the next generations can take over learning these things as a default. The thing is, when you do that, the local government force start feeling like it's a usurpation of their power/authority, which it kind of is. (cause they're doing a shit job, be it by their own fault or just circumstance.) This usurpation is mainly because you can't just implement these things on a small scale, with one household or something, because otherwise neighbours will get jealous and you risk conflict breaking out. You have to help the entire area all at once, which takes dozens or hundreds, maybe thousands of people, including guards that look a lot like military invaders. It's a difficult thing to do in a way that doesn't end with bloodshed, or the reversion to old comfortable ways.
Things won't just magically work perfectly if you dodge the corruption issues, I'll admit, but nothing can be done while it's present.
An overlooked aspect is the economical role foreign aid serves in the relation between 3rd and 1st world countries. The money flow is not an act of charity, it is an instrument to exert economical control:
The 3rd would on average pays 3 times the amount in rents on debts to the first world, compared to the money they receive in foreign aid.
Also most major infrastructure projects completed using foreign aid funds tend to be done by 1st world constuction companies. This brings every penny of that foreign aid back into 1st world economy, thus boosting itself, rather then the 3rd world, we claim to boost.
Your explanation has improved! Thank you
@WillowGardener - 2022-08-21
Returned peace corps volunteer here. I want to tell a couple stories from my time in a poor West African village.. There was a village near mine who, years ago, was given a grain grinder by an NGO. Pretty quickly, the grain grinder broke down, and there was no agreement among the people about who should pay for it to be fixed. So it just sat there, broken. A few years later, the village got together and bought another grain grinder for themselves, and decided beforehand who was responsible for buying fuel for it and fixing it. It was still operating when I left.
There is a road near my village that, for a 100km stretch, is paved instead of gravel. Every 10km along that road, there is a big billboard saying "this road paid for by USAID". Obviously the purpose of that road was not to help anyone, it was to advertise how amazing and magical the US is. The people I stayed with had definitely internalized that message. They thought all Americans were rich. When I tried to share new ideas for farming with them, they laughed and ignored me, and said "Demba. We want pesticides. We want fertilizer. We want tractors. We want a grain grinder." The vast majority of aid has been set up with the deliberate objective of creating dependence in these populations. And it has worked. But the people have been so cowed by the incredible wealth of the US that they no longer believe in their own ability to make changes in their own lives. They were not interested in trying new things to make their lives better, because we had thoroughly convinced them that they were incapable of doing so. We had convinced them that they were lesser.
So I think that the analysis here is on the right track. The changes in poor countries have to be fundamentally driven by the people there. But I don't think it would be effective in the long-term to simply provide money. Not least because, at least in West Africa, of all the tribal politics involved around distributing money among the community. It would almost certainly be evenly distributed among prominent men in the community, who would then use it to elevate their status by spending it on livestock or parties. No, what we need to get through our heads is that we cannot raise poor nations up. They must raise themselves up. All we can do is support them. We should be establishing schools in these countries. Not with a particular agenda, not with an idea of what they need to learn. We should offer them the option to learn whatever they want. And then we should respect their right to self-determination. Because we will never be the ones to solve their problems. They must do it themselves. We owe it to them to both respect their independence and to support them in their chosen path. They will come up with ideas we would never have thought of, because they understand the local conditions better than we ever will.
@cheesypuffs1342 - 2022-08-21
yup, from what I have seen since 9/11, a lot of USAID & NGO efforts are to bring systemic changes to a country so it creates conditions for dependency. Fascinating to read your analysis on agriculture as I noticed many parallels in exporting America's favorite form of governance. When Norton & Hill + McKenzie Worldwide went hog wild pushing "freedom & democracy," their expectation was if we could change communist china, or any bloc of nations, into neoliberal democratic societies, then the sale of optical scanners, electronic voting booths, proprietary tabulation software would be in the TENS of billions. Not to mention, the growth of multiple political parties would then generate the need for public relations consultancy firms where foreign leaders would essentially have their speeches written for them & their political campaigns & initiatives set by US corporate elites----and not by the citizens of those respective countries. Sovereignty & the right to self-determination be damned
@adarshmohapatra5058 - 2022-08-21
Thank you for your perspective & experience. And as an Indian I agree with the right to self-determination & supporting them, while letting them decide their own path. The path to progress might be slow, filled with many twists & turns. But eventually, given enough time, I am sure all nations & peoples will make progress in making their country better, even if it takes decades.
@WillowGardener - 2022-08-21
@@adarshmohapatra5058 I hope that you are right! I have met many wonderful and brilliant people from India. There is truly nowhere on earth like it. The diversity of cultures and religions is incredible. There is so much potential in your nation, and I am excited to see what you all will create when you have the opportunity. I think India's time to shine will be very soon!
@keithsj10 - 2022-08-21
People need to stop helping. They need to get it out of their heads that they "need" to help. These people have thrived for their entire existence. Their populations haven't gone down, regardless of what has ever been done to help.
Or not.
Ethiopia was starving thirty years ago, yet their population has more than doubled.
Education would seem to be a good idea, but it's up to them to decide.
More money is spent every year on African countries that never actually helps anyone or achieves the desired outcome.
It's just throwing good money after bad.
@suzygirl1843 - 2022-08-21
That's why I don't like US and UK interfering with Africa anymore. At least China is only building what is necessary for industrial reasons. It's business transaction but Africans still need to learn the skills and do it themselves.