How does Jeffrey Sachs think about politics?
Via Greg Mankiw, I read with interest Chris Giles’ Financial Times interview with Jeffrey Sachs. This part stood out in particular: We move on to talk about a specific project Sachs is currently involved in, Millennium Villages, where his ideas on fertilisers, malarial bed-nets and the like are tried on the ground. My less-than-ecstatic reaction ...
Via Greg Mankiw, I read with interest Chris Giles' Financial Times interview with Jeffrey Sachs. This part stood out in particular: We move on to talk about a specific project Sachs is currently involved in, Millennium Villages, where his ideas on fertilisers, malarial bed-nets and the like are tried on the ground. My less-than-ecstatic reaction to his reports of their success is clearly the same as that of many aid agencies. It instantly raises his hackles. I suggest there are many examples where success in pilots does not translate into something that can be replicated on a large scale, and that you don?t necessarily need to try something to know it won?t work. ?I?m sorry,? he is almost shouting now. ?That, I disagree with completely. That?s preposterous.? I realise I have exaggerated for effect, and counter that it is equally preposterous to insist they will work. ?I know,? he says, ?but how do you actually do something in life? Do you list all the things that may go wrong and then decide we won?t do it, or do you actually try?? We talk about global warming. It?s easily solvable, Sachs insists, because the costs of doing something about carbon emissions are exaggerated - so people will soon realise that they can cut carbon emissions without much pain. We talk about global trade - all the US has to do is offer an aid, trade and climate change deal to the rest of the world and a solution is within reach. We talk about US healthcare - within a few years, people will see sense and the uninsured will be covered, he predicts. As coffee arrives, I wonder aloud whether economics really can solve these big global challenges. In Sachs?s world, problems aren?t really problems because there is always an easy solution. I suggest vested interests, national differences and the fact that reforms tend to throw up winners and losers make issues rather more intractable than he believes. Bringing the subject full circle back to his lectures, he says: ?The key word of all of these lectures is ?choice?. A generation has a choice, and we have choices we make collectively... We have some absolutely terrific opportunities... but we miss opportunities all the time. That?s why it is really important to understand what these choices are - and that is what I?m trying to explain in these lectures.?Every once in a blue moon, politics works like Sachs decribes in the last paragraph. Most of the time, however, politics bears no relationship whatsoever to this kind of model. And the belief that this is how politics works is a problem that seems to plague really bright economists.
Via Greg Mankiw, I read with interest Chris Giles’ Financial Times interview with Jeffrey Sachs. This part stood out in particular:
We move on to talk about a specific project Sachs is currently involved in, Millennium Villages, where his ideas on fertilisers, malarial bed-nets and the like are tried on the ground. My less-than-ecstatic reaction to his reports of their success is clearly the same as that of many aid agencies. It instantly raises his hackles. I suggest there are many examples where success in pilots does not translate into something that can be replicated on a large scale, and that you don?t necessarily need to try something to know it won?t work. ?I?m sorry,? he is almost shouting now. ?That, I disagree with completely. That?s preposterous.? I realise I have exaggerated for effect, and counter that it is equally preposterous to insist they will work. ?I know,? he says, ?but how do you actually do something in life? Do you list all the things that may go wrong and then decide we won?t do it, or do you actually try?? We talk about global warming. It?s easily solvable, Sachs insists, because the costs of doing something about carbon emissions are exaggerated – so people will soon realise that they can cut carbon emissions without much pain. We talk about global trade – all the US has to do is offer an aid, trade and climate change deal to the rest of the world and a solution is within reach. We talk about US healthcare – within a few years, people will see sense and the uninsured will be covered, he predicts. As coffee arrives, I wonder aloud whether economics really can solve these big global challenges. In Sachs?s world, problems aren?t really problems because there is always an easy solution. I suggest vested interests, national differences and the fact that reforms tend to throw up winners and losers make issues rather more intractable than he believes. Bringing the subject full circle back to his lectures, he says: ?The key word of all of these lectures is ?choice?. A generation has a choice, and we have choices we make collectively… We have some absolutely terrific opportunities… but we miss opportunities all the time. That?s why it is really important to understand what these choices are – and that is what I?m trying to explain in these lectures.?
Every once in a blue moon, politics works like Sachs decribes in the last paragraph. Most of the time, however, politics bears no relationship whatsoever to this kind of model. And the belief that this is how politics works is a problem that seems to plague really bright economists.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
