Talk:Jeffrey Sachs

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

HIID, etc.

Was Jeffrey Sachs a Time Magazine Person of the Year? --

This is Jeffrey D. Sachs, not to be confused with a supposed former boyfriend of a Latin-American actress. See summary when that mistake was removed. --Jerzy(t) 04:34, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

En Bolivia la tesis de Jeffrey Sachs no ha funcionado a pesar de que él ha estado asesorando a los gobiernos bolivianos desde 1985 hasta el 2004. Esto demuestra que probablemente su teoria esté equivocada, tal como lo ha demostrado el premio Nobel de Economia, Joe Stiglitz. Este último menciona que las políticas al estilo Sachs y el FMI, solo sirven para hacer más millonarios a los ricos de los países pobres y a exportar sus capitales a cuentas bancarias en los países del primer mundo. Vale la pena mencionar que su teoría del "choque económico" para ajustes coyunturales, en el caso boliviano funcionó como disminución drástica de la hiperinflación que ese país sufría en 1985. Pero posteriormente sus "soluciones" que habían sido fielmente seguidas por Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, uno de los admiradores de Sachs, logró que la industria textil boliviana se redujese casi en su totalidad, que los agricultores de papa, se quedasen sin cultivos, que la economía boliviana quedase ampliamente expuesta a la evolución del exterior y así por delante.

I question the appropriateness of this paragraph:

Sachs is also tainted by scandal from his time as director of Harvard’s Institute for International Development (HIID). Several trails resulted from allegations of insider trading and no-bid government contracts, although Sachs himself was not the direct target. In the midst of the scandal Sachs fired fellow Harvard economist Andrei Schliefer whose wife was accused of insider trading based on knowledge derived from HIID consulting contracts with Russia. While the details remain murky, some suggest that the hostility Sachs faces is the result of the gross mismanagement of HIID and subsequent conflict within Harvard.

Whether someone is "tainted" is a matter of opinion rather than fact, so the statement isn't NPOV. Whether HIID was grossly mismanaged is also a matter of opinion, albeit one shared by many. As far as I know (and I don't claim to be an expert on the matter) the only people who see Sachs as being tainted by the HIID scandals are those who believe in guilt by association; I don't think there is any evidence that Sachs did anything improper. This paragraph also cites "some" as authority for the claim that hostility toward Sachs (and the article doesn't even say there is such hostility) stems from the HIID problems. On top of all that, the paragraph's author misspelled "trials" as "trails". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00.00.00.00 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 00 Jan 0000

Dunno when the above was written, but I've added HIIG material back in. It's not "guilt by association"; Schleifer's activities continued during Sachs' directorship, resulting in the boat hitting the reefs on Sachs' watch, Sachs bailing ship (in two stages), etc. And Schleifer claimed it was Sachs' responsibility... Not saying I agree with Schleifer, but Sachs' had, for over a year, assumed responsibility for HIID oversight that didn't get performed. Andyvphil 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment made in Criticism section

"(which the UN subsequently blocked from public access)" - I think this statement should be deleted or edited because it is misleading. It seems to imply that that the UN statistics office is trying to hide the information.

1. It is also blocked from private access as well(within the organization). 2. This data can be found elsewhere within the organization and even from other companies in the private sector or NGOs as well.

I hate to nit pick, but that just isn't an issue- I will try and see if I can find the data that supposedly disappeared and try to link to it.

195.8.3.165 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Still haven't found it? If they didn't hide it why didn't you find it? Andyvphil 08:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment below is a valid one, and needs to be considered when assessing Sachs's thesis in The End of Poverty concerning his view there that a large part of the solution to African development is to dramatically increase aid (this will be called here "the Sachs thesis" in what follows). A distinction should be made between The End of Poverty as a utopian vision, which is what it is in the light of reality on the ground in Africa and the western donors' record so far with big aid flows, and the book as a feasible policy blueprint, which it is not. What is striking, is that if it is put forward by Sachs as a feasible policy blue print then it is in harmony with his record with the ill-conceived policy of shock therapy in the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. What shock therapy and The End of History both show, (why they are consistent with one another), is their fatal lack of consideration and inclusion of the sociological basis of the context that these external, "clinical", interventions was/are applied to. A possible explanation for this, as far as can be seen from the evidence, is that Sachs is not a development economist by training, as is the case of another notable western economist, Joseph Stiglitz, who also rose to prominence internationally by changing careers from non-development economics topics to the role of chief economist at the World Bank, but without serious consequences. This lack of appropriate policy use by western advisors intervening in developing and transition countries has been noted and criticised on mutliple occasions by multiple authors to date, therefore this criticism is well documented, and based on the record of shock therapy in Russia at least, well founded. The focus on Sachs here is therefore not meant as a personal attack, but rather as critical policy analysis. The key issue though remains that it is troubling that, given Sachs's current influence in the development community, including with major western NGOs and notables such as Bono and Bob Geldof, and the visibility of the Africa issue, he is again putting forward a policy that is devoid of context, i.e. does not understand and include the context it is being applied to. And this is before considering such logistical praticalities as whether it is possible to find the large number of professionals required to administer and implement such a hugely expanded aid effort, referred to as absorptive capacity for aid. All of this discussion could be listed as an example under the law of unintended consequences, which Sachs is surely aware of; he therefore owes it to Africa to reconsider his ideas before a new aid boom turns into tomorrow's debt crisis (again) and another "lost decade".Dev economist (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This article omits the fact that Sachs theories about the underlying and natural existence of the market in all societies. When he was part of the advisors brought in to establish a new socio-economic system in post-soviet Russia (and most of Eastern Europe), he recommended a "shock therapy" by completely deregulating the market overnight as well as privatising large state industries and infrastructures creating a 'spontaneous order'. It quickly became apparent that the neo-liberal idea that the market is a natural aspect of human organisation was wrong. The economic downfall and the long-lasting consequences of Sachs' inspired policies in Russia and Eastern Europe have been disasterous. Sachs' utopian ideal is ridiculous, and is also being repeated in Iraq: the destruction of all pre-existing civil society in order to create a 'spontaneous order' and the result is and will remain, chaos. --Oinj 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Although this last statment is blatantly an opinion on the most part alot of academic literature on the outcomes of his work could be included in the criticism section. Whether 'shock therapy' will work in the long term is a matter of opinion, its instant effects (massive inflation, oligarchs etc.) aren't. - louis

While Oinj's remarks are not encyclopedic, (neither are mine ;-) ) they point to the need for more criticism of the "shock therapy" Sachs, as louis says. (There is and was plenty from the left, e.g. Edward S. Herman in Z magazine and elsewhere. and Russia experts at least) An interesting source is Sachs himself. Sorry to not provide references or any help on the article, but recent things he has said to distance himself from shock therapy and its often catastrophic consequences in Russia and Latin America seem to me to provide a fascinatingly, umm, novel history of the period from the undisputed leader of the shock therapists. John Z 07:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sachs "savaged" by Easterly?

"While a hero to many, some economists also view Jeff Sachs’ proposals as dangerously naive. One of his strongest critics is New York University (NYU) Professor of Economics William Easterly who savaged End of Poverty in his review for the Washington Post."

Having just now followed the link to the review, I think saying "dangerously naive" and particularly "savaged" are exaggerations. The review is respectful - at times very positive - and hardly "savage". The word "danger" does appear, but not in a way you'd expect, given the sentence in Wikipedia.

To illustrate, let me quote the first and the final two paragraphs of the review, which I think fairly well capture the tone of the review:

"Jeffrey D. Sachs's guided tour to the poorest regions of the Earth is enthralling and maddening at the same time -- enthralling, because his eloquence and compassion make you care about some very desperate people; maddening, because he offers solutions that range all the way from practical to absurd. It's a shame that Sachs's prescriptions are unconvincing because he is resoundingly right about the tragedy of world poverty. As he puts it, newspapers should (but don't) report every morning, "More than 20,000 people perished yesterday of extreme poverty..."

"...Perhaps we can excuse these allegedly easy-to-achieve dreams as the tactics of a fundraiser for the poor -- someone who's out to galvanize public opinion to back dramatically higher aid abroad. Sachs was born to play the role of fundraiser. And it's easier to feel good about his sometimes simplistic sales pitch for foreign aid if it leads to spending more dollars on desperately poor people, as opposed to, say, wasteful weapons systems."

"The danger is that when the utopian dreams fail (as they will again), the rich-country public will get even more disillusioned about foreign aid. Sachs rightly notes that we need not worry whether the pathetic amount of current U.S. foreign aid -- little more than a 10th of a penny for every dollar of U.S. income -- is wasted. Foreign aid's prospects will brighten only if aid agencies become more accountable for results, and demonstrate to the public that some piecemeal interventions improve the lives of desperate people. So yes, do read Sachs's eloquent descriptions of poverty and his compelling ethical case for the rich to help the poor. Just say no to the Big Plan."

Now, is that "savage"?

217.11.197.10

So you'd like...

"While a hero to many, some economists also view Jeff Sachs’ proposals as "simplistic". One of his strongest critics is New York University (NYU) Professor of Economics William Easterly who criticized End of Poverty as "unconvincing" and "absurd" in his review for the Washington Post."?

Andyvphil 08:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

End of poverty & economics courses

"Sachs book, The End of Poverty, is used in many economics courses. [citation needed]" Don't know about a citation, but it is a core reading on the reading list of the University of York's Developmental Economics course, which I'm taking this semester. - Saluton 02:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

critics/criticisms

Removed the plug for Dambisa Moyo who is certainly not on the same level as Sachs/Easterly and whose view is not relevant for the criticism page. Her main contribution to the debate on development aid (her book) has been blasted by a number of (notable) publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.146 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

i would suggest referencing author Naomi Klein as a critic of Sachs' work, she strongly criticises his views on sweatshops in her book 'no logo', quoting him as saying "my concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few...those are precisely the sort of jobs that were the stepping stones for singapore and hong kong and those are the sort of jobs that have to come to africa to get them out of back-breaking rural poverty"- her criticism of these views is that, "development built on starvation wages, far from kickstarting a steady improvement in conditions, has proved to be a case of one step forward, three steps back", and that (if i interpret the book correctly) sweatshops opening up can cause food shortages as the promise of factory work lures people from farming. further (as i understand chapter 9 of the book) she claims that human rights abuses in factories and sucessful methods to subvert minimum wage laws and national tax policy in fact inhibit sustainable development.

can anyone provide clarification here- im not sure whether this would be relevant or if i have fully understood either Sachs' or Klein's point of view

78.146.209.39 13:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Klein's analysis really stands up. First, The point is that people wouldn't work in a factory unless they had nothing better to do. A large part of the end of poverty is devoted to agricultural producitivity and problems of hunger. As western countries have gotten rich the proportion of people working in farming has fallen drastically. Those socieities now have problems of overeating rather than hunger. Second, Sachs is not the first to make this point. Third, there is enough debate about Sachs' own theories to discuss here. Fourthly, Klein isn't an economist and Sachs has more respected critics than her. AleXd (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Klein is a self-educated economist and well-informed in the subjects she discusses -- (her book No Logo on branding and marketing is far superior to the average Ph.D. thesis granted in commerce and marketing) as are many other journalists -- e.g. Linda McQuaig (Behind Closed Doors, ca. 1987, subsequently The Wealthy Banker's Wife, Shooting the Hippo, The Cult of Impotence), Connie Bruck (The Predators Ball, ca. 1990, and Doug Henwood (Wall Street, 1997, After the New Economy, 2003, and "Left Business Observer"). The appeal to credentialism in economics is particularly disingenuous and/or pernicious because much of economic theory is ideological propaganda -- Klein's very point in Shock Doctrine (and in McQuaig's books) -- or even just plain wrong, if you read Herbert Simon (e.g. An Empirically-Based Micro-economics, ca. 1997) I'd also note some advice from the preface of John Ziman's Advanced Quantum Theory that if you really want to learn a subject, don't read books in the subject, write them!

137.82.188.68 (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nov. 2011: I just read this page for the first time and was surprised that Kleins criticisms were not covered; especially in Shock Doctrine. I suspect both of her two books which criticize Sachs have been read by more people than any of the other critics mentioned here. Her arguments are now widely respected, and as time goes by it becomes increasingly evident that they are correct. That Sachs seems to have become more Keynesian and less Friedman-ian since his his recommendations in Bolivia and Poland (i.e. more in agreement with Klein) is no reason for ignoring his leading critic.

_______________

I would suggest Dr. Micheal Hudson as an economist who's analysis of Mr. Sachs work stands up to criticism.

Debtor Nation - The Hijacking of America’s Economy

Tainted Transactions - an exchange

~17 min mark

WjtWeston (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

criticism: quantify

In the 'Criticism' section, the phrase "massively scaled-up foreign aid" is used (and later, "large", etc.) Presumably (?) this refers to the earlier statement "from the $65 billion level of 2002 to $195 billion a year by 2015". A typical reader has absolutely no sense of what is or is not a "large" number when they see values in the billions. "Large" compared to what? (Other countries aid? Emergency aid/intervention? Farm subsidies? Per-capita soda consumption?) Is there a good reference page to link to here with such information? In order to have any meaning at all to a reader, numbers in the billions need to be compared to something else. (Preferably normalized per-capita, inflation adjusted, etc.) DKEdwards 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

what about "double" the foreign aid payements? I think he claims that by himself, indeed because it is more catchy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.10.252 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-organisation of article

I think this article is long enough to warrant some better organisation and categories.

Firstly, make his biography part less a discussion of his work and more a factual description of his life until he became well known. A sub-section can deal with his academic career. A seperate section should be created for his work as advisor and consultant to governments, since this is a major part of his work and there are criticisms of it.

The criticisms section rambles a bit, it would be nice if it could be synthesised into four or so subsections. Perhaps they could be grouped thematically for instance Sachs is distinctive because of his emphasis on the role of physical geography as a determinant of poverty, his work on the economics of health and disease prevention and his arguments for a big increase in foreign aid to LDCs. It hink this would be superior to a grab bag of individuals who have criticised him or his work in the past. General criticism of liberal economics don't really belong here as they have a certain consensus in the profession. Unless you're going to insert them into the article of every mainstream economist.AleXd (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Somebody really should write more about his role in Russia's voucher privatization. Russian Minister of that time is Anatoli Chubais also used the term "shock therapy" during advertisement of this privatization method. Chubais is now a rich man himself together with a handful of so called oligarchs while the population still lives in poverty. I think this is too important to be left out in this article. People shouldn't praise this "prodigy" without accepting that he failed pretty hard in russia. 30 May 2008

The new picture

I can't believe it. I went to this page half an hour ago. The pic was awful. I wrote an email to several people at Columbia telling them of the disgraceful photo. Half an hour later (two blows of a user's horn): BAM! new photo. Those guys can really move. I have been trying for a week to get a decent pic of Kamilo Beach from left wing eco-hippies at different orgs. 2 out of 20 wrote back. Way to go Columbia University!!!!

Oh, and while I'm soapboxing: Why is Sachs not President? The current leader (of earth) is the polar opposite. What's wrong with this planet? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How much more useless could this article get

90% of Sachs' career has been implementing and advocating for quick neoliberal restructuring of developing economies. The last few years he goes off on a tear about foreign aid, and that gets 90% of the article. This is a PR piece, not an encyclopedia article. 98.204.59.229 (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Another embarrassing, probably PR firm influenced, non-encyclopedic entry.Haberstr (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Too much like an advertisement. Farmanesh (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Keynesian???

In line with the previous comment about his neoliberal credentials: what makes him a neo-Keynesian? Just because he says so? Or calling for aid and debt cancellation? These surely do not. Based on his work, he is definitely a NEOLIBERAL economist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PogiZoli (talk • contribs) 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for that label. He _is_ the world's most famous neo-liberal.Haberstr (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)