Print
Share
The Moyo Criterion: Is Easterly a Truer Scholar than the Gateses?
October 28, 2009
Yesterday, Bill Easterly and Laura Freschi took Bill and Melinda Gates to task for building an aid success story on dubious African malaria statistics. Perhaps, Easterly and Freschi suggest, the leaders of the largest private endowment ever are stubbornly clutching questionable statistics because they conveniently support the conclusion that “The money the US spends in developing countries to prevent disease and fight poverty is effective, empowers people, and is appreciated.” Easterly and Freschi humbly express hope that they themselves meet a higher standard, letting the evidence determine their conclusions rather than the other way around. Whether a person meets this standard of objectivity, they point out, can be judged
…by the response to evidence AGAINST one’s prior position – do you change your beliefs at all? The Gateses seem to fail this test on malaria numbers. We hope we do better when it comes our time to be tested, as we should be.
I’d like to suggest another test of commitment to the pursuit of the truth: whether one challenges the reasoning of one’s supporters and dissenters with equal enthusiasm. By this standard, I think Easterly has fallen short. (Disclosure: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a major funder of the Center for Global Development.)
Last spring, just after Easterly launched the Aid Watch blog, the Zambian-born Dambisa Moyo exploded onto the scene with her book Dead Aid. Maybe you heard about that. Before reading the book, Easterly called Moyo’s ideas “fascinating on their own merits.” After reading it he said…almost nothing. On March 25, I posted a review calling the book “sporadically footnoted, selective in its use of facts, sloppy, simplistic, illogical, and stunningly naive.” Even so, I confessed to “sympathize less with Jeff Sachs than with Bill Easterly”: I did not defend the proposition that aid can save Africa. Many others weighed in on Dead Aid too. But not Easterly.
A commenter on Aid Watch challenged Bill E. on his silence:
I have to wonder whether you really subject those whose findings you agree with to the same level of scrutiny as those you don’t. The fact that you’re happy to ignore Dambisa Moyo’s howling errors on African poverty…suggests not.
Bill answered with a non-answer:
I was not trying to argue Moyo Vs. Sachs, that is up to them. I am concentrating on my own disagreements with Sachs’ analysis.
Indeed, while mute on Moyo, BIll had plenty to say about others. He blogged dissension with Jeff Sachs several times, called him a “serial Moyo attacker,” criticized the Gateses’ use of the malaria statistics two times not counting the new post, and called out Dani Rodrik, a thinker vastly more rigorous than Moyo, on a subtle but important mathematical point (P(a|b) ≠ P(b|a)).
Why the silence on Moyo? One theory is that Bill sees little to quibble with in her book. Another is that he finds it inconvenient to undermine a powerful voice that happens to reach his conclusions, if by a confused analytical path. (”I would pride myself,” she stated at a public event in which Bill interviewed her, “in saying I’m on the side of truth, logic, and evidence….which is why I’m very proud to be on the side of Professor Easterly”.)
The first theory seems dubious. Bill Easterly has parodied those who claim to know how to end poverty (”What must we do to end world poverty? At last, an answer“). Moyo says she has that answer: if donors call African leaders and tell them aid is ending the continent will prosper. “Is all this as easy as it sounds? One phone call, and it all slots into place? Why not? Development is not a mystery” (pp. 148–49 of Dead Aid).
To put it mildly, Bill Easterly has not challenged the reasoning of his supporters and dissenters with equal enthusiasm. Doing better on this score would help him in his humble aspirations to the scholarly ideal—and raise his credibility in my eyes.
Share 
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
7 Responses to “The Moyo Criterion: Is Easterly a Truer Scholar than the Gateses?”
Post a Comment
We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:24 am
You have a very good point. Balanced criticism is very important.
On the other hand, in the interest of transparency, do you agree with the Gateses’ use of the WHO malaria data? Are they being responsible? You skillfully “mute” on that question in your post. By the same standard that you are holding Mr. Easterly to you should also be judged, particularly since you graciously disclose that you are a major recipient of money from the Gates Foundation.
By the logic of your own argument your own credibility depends on the directness with which you answer that question.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Justin, thanks for you astute comment. My muteness on the malaria statistics question arises out of ignorance: I have not studied the issue enough to offer an informed opinion. Actually, I know almost nothing about it. Mostly I am working on microfinance now, not health. If the Gates Foundation has built the case for aid success on the sand of bad statistics, then it is a problem which Bill Easterly and Laura Freschi are absolutely right to point it out. I too tend to be skeptical of such statistics. How central they are to the claim of aid success, I don’t know; obviously it was not my central interest.
Lets be frank: many think twice before criticizing the Gates Foundation because it is so big and funds so many organizations. We should value open critics of the Foundation such as Bill and Laura for that reason alone, even as we hold them accountable in the spirit of genuine debate.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I’ll return your frankness with my own.
You dodged the question. How convenient is your inability to “offer an informed opinion.” Again the logic of your own argument is that we must be equally vigilant in our examination of those who support us as of those with whom we may disagree.
I think your lack of vigilance disturbingly coincidences with your monetary interests.
I’d suggest that you should make the effort to inform yourself so that you can offer an opinion, just as you counsel Mr. Easterly to take the time to offer his informed opinion of Moyo’s dubious claims.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
that was just brilliant Justin!
October 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Justin, as I already wrote, my prior is to doubt such statistics, ergo to believe Bill and Laura’s criticism. Until I hit evidence to the contrary I will guess that they are more likely right and the Gates Foundation more likely wrong. In fact, at CGD I have written several papers challenging those who claim to use national-level statistics to show that aid works (this, this, this, this). I coauthored the first with (and under) Bill Easterly, an experience that affected me profoundly enough to lead me to write the others on my own. I got a lot out of working for Bill. I like him. I agree vehemently with him in his challenges to claims that aid has been shown to work in aggregate. Yet I have just criticized him too.
As you can see, I have thought some about what constitutes credible reasoning in the grand debates over aid effectiveness. My post is about that. I know little about measuring malaria prevalence, but expect that the question of whether we are making progress on malaria is complex and should not be written about lightly. I could have riffed on some other Aid Watch post, but this one about malaria happened to bring my thoughts to the fore. That is an economical explanation, seemingly supported by Occam’s Razor, not a dodge. If you are concerned about my ability to be reasonably even-handed, note that I have just publicly criticized someone with whom I have publicly agreed, and perhaps check my work on the impacts of microfinance.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
“…I will guess that they are more likely right and the Gates Foundation more likely wrong.”
It looks like that is as good as we are going to get folks. Without discounting the complexities of measuring malaria, surely , if you tried, you could do more than “guess.” An informed opinion doesn’t require a PhD, you’re a very smart guy after all.
Regarding what your post is “about.” As I said, I think you make a very good point. Yet your own lack of commitment to following that point makes me wonder what you think about it.
And your other work, on microfinance, I like it very much too.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
David
Have you seen this set of Easterly & Moyo videos?
http://www.templeton.org/video/moyo_easterly/