While Bill and others were messing around with the New Yorker piece on Chinese development, they overlooked another piece in the same issue that may be even more significant (!) than debates over China’s growth. In “Alms Dealers” [sub reqd] Philip Gourevitch reviews Linda Polman’s book, “The Crisis Caravan: What’s Wrong with Humanitarian Aid?” The central thesis of this book (as presented in the review) is that the people who deliver aid are addicted to horror stories and starving kids, and this addiction is fed by those who benefit from aid, whether they be local leaders, militias committing atrocities or even victims who don’t wear their prosthetic legs because they can get more attention with their stumps. This thesis has always made sense to me (see this this and this at my day-job blog, aguanomics). Polman is merely putting data (multiple anecdotes) to the theory. Here’s the simple version: If people give you money because of A, then you don’t do anything to stop A. Even better, make A bigger so you get more money. Here’s the refined version: Bruce Yandle’s theory of Baptists and Bootleggers holds that Bootleggers quietly cheer Baptists’ efforts to close liquor stores on the Lord’s Day. Closed stores mean less competition for Bootleggers selling booze from their, uh, boots.
Read Zetland's clever analysis here. (It's definitely worth the minute.) Check this Atlantic Wire blurb about that Aid post.
