Storified by Bervyn · Sun, Feb 23 2014 20:45:46
In the article, Nicholas Kristof writes an essay in the NY Times Sunday Book Review about fighting poverty and some of the literature that has arisen. Nobody fights like humanitarians, so there have been battles among the Jeff Sachs camp on the one hand and the Bill Easterly/Dambisa Moyo camp on the other. His take is that the critics have some valid points — money often is wasted, projects fail, and helping people is far harder than it looks — but that we’re also getting better at figuring out what interventions work, and more money definitely is useful for those.
In the video, Prof. Stephen Davies explains that extreme poverty has been on the decline in part because two of the world's most populous countries, China and India, have embarked on a path of economic liberalization and development over the past two to three decades. As more countries have embraced free trade and market-friendly policies, we have seen encouraging news of poverty reductions and greater access to clean drinking water. If such policies continue, Prof. Davies says, it's not out of the question for extreme poverty to be eradicated in the foreseeable future. These gains are likely to be lost, however, if we make poor economic decisions that take us back toward protectionism and economic controls. With good economic policies and free markets, we can help many of the poorest people in the world.
The author, Nicholas Kristof's view is that while some projects are useful in helping the poor, some are just plain waste of resources. He brings in the example of building schools in Cambodia with his wife and how more projects are beginning to see rewards and effects. In my opinion, the author, while valid in his reasoning, did not consider the fact that humanitarian work and efforts to help the poor, while some may be fruitless, are all done in good will. He says that some are beginning to use social work as a form of profit organizing work. However, this is not true in Singapore where school send students to rural areas with poor people such as Vietnam and Cambodia to genuinely help the poor and provide some form of aid for them. Hence the author's views are questionable and ignore the emotional aspect and social aspect behind humanitarian work.
