Beran makes several good points in his article about unsustainable aid to Africa. However, his vilification of Sachs borders on the slanderous.

Sachs's speech in Uganda could hardly be considered paternalistic if one were to understand the context of Uganda's anti-malaria program, which has begun using social marketing techniques to increase the use of insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs). This market-based approach, which replaced a former strategy that simply gave the nets away for free, has seen a dramatic increase in proper use of ITNs.

Sachs was not speaking to the villagers as if they were children. His remarks in Uganda were part of the Ugandan ITN social marketing program, attempting to drum up support for the nets and increase consumer demand for them.

I could go on pointing out inaccuracies and other items pulled out of context, but I have to get back to work. Let it be known, however, that reading Bacon, Smith, or de Soto does not qualify one as a public health or international development expert.

Good article. Something else the West can do is liberate its farm policies to enable African countries to export more freely to the lucrative Western markets. This will enable them to become more self-sufficient. Protectionism in the U.S. and EU, in particular, greatly limits the viability of exporting there - tariffs on a host of agricultural imports often exceed 200%. Also, produce is exported from the U.S. and EU. with the aid of subsidies and sold at knock-down prices on world markets, thus making production in African countries less viable. Liberalization of farm policies is happening, but only very slowly.

I can agree with all of this except what is missing: the protectionism of rich Western countries' agricultural sectors that is the flip side of paternalism. Why do "free market" critiques of aid tend to emphasize the paternalistic contradictions of UN programs while remaining quiet about the way the rich world keeps Africa out of lucrative markets for agricultural produce? There are also powerful lobbies and business interests (e.g., mercenary armies) in the North that benefit from Africa's weak states and from access to unprocessed African raw materials. It's hard to see how a Hayekian critique can account for this kind of complicity.

This is ideology and received ideas masquerading as thought. All of these arguments are really, really old hat.
The truth is not nearly so neat as Mr. Beran would have it. Is all of the "aid" he cites really aid? Has he done his homework? How much of it is in fact lending? What of the conditionality attached to such lending? Were the conditions and the ideology behind them always sensible, or were they in fact very often part of the problem?
What of the international economy, with its rich economies that protect old industries and agricultural products (cotton, sugar, etc.) in ways that make climbing the development ladder immeasurably more difficult? Do they share any blame?

And what, finally, of the history of imperial penetration and colonization of Africa? Is it simply excuse making to cite these things as very real factors in the continent's backwardness, or are they in fact things that have a profound, real and lasting legacy?

Yes, there is terrible corruption and mis-government in Africa. Yes, of course, aid alone cannot lift the continent onto an equal footing with wealthier parts of the world, but this screed really tells us very little of the real Africa, with all of its problems, that exists in the real world. It is mostly attitude, in fact, and tells us very little that we haven't heard before.

Thank you so much for this article. The insight offered needs to be spread much more widely -- among humanitarian aid organizations, our State Department/USAID, and all foreign ministries in the West. I spent eight years in East Africa, mostly southern Sudan. My wife is Kenyan. I know where you're coming from ,and I much appreciate that perspective. I hope Africans of the practical intellectual status of James Shikwati are given much more attention. Maybe it would help if he became a movie star.

An interesting article. However, the cutting edge of this debate has moved on. The traditional argument within economics is that given the right institutions, wealth will be created in time. Greg Clark's excellent book, "A Farewell to Alms," refutes this view using copious historical evidence from the UK spanning the years 1200 to 1800. He offers an alternative and subtler view that institutions, culture, and genes co-evolved due to a selection process that favors middle-class traits.

Obviously true, given the failure of Great Society policies to lift black America out of poverty, and instead proved the pernicious effects of dependency on the psyche of an entire population. Another example is the failure of the former DDR to rise to the level of the former West Germany, despite the hundreds of billions in wealth transfer. Subsidy is good, but it must reward success, not failure.

So...What's your plan? You seem to think that all persons who are trying to help Africans just want to give them a handout. It's true that plenty of "nations," not just African ones, have learned how to rip off monies from other developed nations (mainly the U.S.). However, if you had bothered to read anything about Bono and what he is striving for--aid with accountability--you would know he doesn't subscribe to just "a handout." I can't speak for Madonna, but I'd vouch for Angelina Jolie and her work any day. Bono's objective is to give aid to educate the people of Africa (and other nations) to compete for their fair market place in this selfish world. Maybe you should check out the ONE website and actually see what he's advocating.

I've seen this article before, not verbatim, but very close. It reads almost the same: They can't be helped, just let them die.