The debate between Sachs and Easterly are fierce. However, it is interesting how they both want the same things for Africa: for them to do well. Before agreeing on either one of them, there’s a few things I’d like to point out, and look on both the pros and cons. First, Sachs may well be right that "An African green revolution, health revolution and connectivity revolution are all within reach." He’s right that aid can, and does work. Even though Easterly made an statement about how “ we know aid doesn’t work from the fact that Africans are still poor and modern medicine is ineffective as people still get sick.” Yes, poverty still seems very intense, and healthcare is still an ongoing issue. However, I believe that if all is left alone itself for the past forty, fifty years, both poverty and healthcare will be more of a problem then it is now. Central planning, there are no examples whatsoever that it has worked – central plan is not the answer! And I reckon Easterly was right to challenge it. “All $3 per year that it would cost each person in the rich world to help Africa mount an effective control program” sure, I believe that people who earn more can really help those in need. But I also do agree with Easterly. The dictators of Africa and their cronies are out for our money and they often succeeds in diverting it to their own pockets. The piecemeal approach, (which means aiding the bit by bit, the places in need, for example, give food to the hunger, treat medicine to the ill etc) doesn’t mean less money or less effort for the poor, but simply means redirecting resources. The debate can go on and on, and both of them can be so wrong, but simultaneously so right on so many different angles; nevertheless, if necessary, I have to say that I tend to agree with Easterly. We’ve been trying the Sachs method for too long and obviously there are so much more room for improvement, it’s high time that we changed.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document