Empirically speaking, aid is almost completely useless[0], no matter who administers it. So whether he gives it all to the "appropriate organization" or "wastes" some of it on an aid trip is ultimately irrelevant.
That's not true. There are hundreds of thousands of different aid project, it would be miraculous if all were entirely ineffective. E.g. you'd have to be crazily skeptical to suggest that the programs recommended by GiveWell aren't of positive expected value; there's just so much evidence to the contrary. In terms of the link between aid and economic growth - aid is just such a small part of developing countries' economies that you simply can't peer through the statistical fog; it's such a weak signal, and there are so few data points ,that it's not surprising that we can't detect a correlation. A nice even handed discussion is given by Owen Barder of the Centre for Global Development: http://cf.owen.org/wp-content/uploads/Can-Aid-Work-Owen-Bard...
>E.g. you'd have to be crazily skeptical to suggest that the programs recommended by GiveWell aren't of positive expected value;
Their top charity for a long time was a mosquito net distribution agency. It turned out that the mosquito nets were used as fishing nets instead and, since they were treated with insecticide, polluted the local lakes.
It turns out that the nets in question came from net distributors with shoddy follow-up practices; GiveWell suggested Against Malaria instead of other distributors in part because they saw this issue years ago.
To me there are two issues at stake: taking their 90% claim at face value that may very well still leave them a very effective charity.
I am more concerned for the fishing stock. Assume 5% chooses to use their nets to fish with - is the this enough to have a material impact on fishing stocks? Will this effect the community to the point that the rest also have to use these nets to catch enough fish? Even if not, what is the effect of the insecticide?
Your articles seem to be really convincing with usages rate, but unfortunately rather handwavingly with the insecticide.
The ciriticism is that malaria is just a symptom of the larger problem of a lack of economic growth and development. Aid can save a child from malaria, but it will never solve the underlying problem.
Reducing or eradicating these diseases removes a huge burden from those in extreme poverty, it definitely is among the underlying problems that contribute to a lack of growth. It's also the most tractable.
Obviously there was a lot more to the Civil Rights movement than a lack of malaria. But it was one of the factors that helped. How likely is someone with “body aches, headache and nausea, general weakness, and prostration” to make it to the polls, to school, or to work? How likely are they to march on Washington?
It's easier to dream big from behind a windowscreen. Easier when you're not hungry. When you're not sick. When you're not weakened from parasites and malnutrition. And for those of us who would love to see systemic change, the "one-trick ponies" may be a good way forward.
"""
Having children not die of malaria causes economic growth. And economic growth causes children not to die of malaria. So either way they're connected...
Easterly's book is about aid mostly from western governments to developing country governments to encourage growth. That I can believe doesn't work very well and can end in rent seeking and corruption.
Giving $3.5k to save a child from dying of malaria is quite a different thing and seems obviously a good thing to do.
[0] Easterly's book is great if you're interested in the stats: http://www.amazon.com/The-Elusive-Quest-Growth-Misadventures...