Jeff Sachs’ ego to the rescue: or maybe not . . .

Jeffrey Sachs [Photo by World Economic Forum/ Flickr]“as much as I don’t understand it, Jeffrey Sachs really, really, really doesn’t understand it.” Nina Monk, author of The Idealist

“I don’t want to argue with you Jeff, because I don’t want to be called ignorant or unprofessional. I have worked in Africa for 30 years. My colleagues combined have worked in the field for one hundred plus years . We don’t like your tone. We don’t like you preaching to us. We are not your students. We do not work for you.” USAID head Pamela White to Jeff Sachs.

I just listened to yet another excellent EconTalk, this time with the author of The Idealist, which is about Jeffery Sachs’ efforts to end poverty and how they ran into well known problems. Problems that not only could have been predicted in advance, but problems that were predicted in advance.

I started tweeting words to the effect that “I’d always thought Jeff Sachs was a snake oil salesman”. Then conscience clicked in.  I thought I’d better check Troppo to see if I was right – as H.L. Mencken says “conscience is that little voice inside you that tells you someone might be watching”. In any event, I’m not unhappy with my response to Sachs before the data was in.

In many ways this story is of a piece with my dyspeptic take on Red Tape and Political Correctness.

One might write this off as just a pity, a small silly excess to which we have gone, but it is an example of a larger phenomenon that is becoming more and more evident and unfortunate – the domination of daily life with edicts from on high. In this case, an issue arises. Those at the top of the hierarchical system then get into ‘something must be done’ mode. It is time to issue instructions. So instructions are issued. The problem is that the issue may be one of considerable subtlety. In the case of regulation, we really need the people at the coalface to be thinking about the efficiency of what they’re doing within a larger whole. It’s very difficult for the top, or the centre to get this to happen – as it has to happen at the periphery, but no matter. We’ll issue instructions.

Enough said – or enough said for now – I’m quite busy.

This entry was posted in Economics and public policy, Political theory, regulation, Society. Bookmark the permalink.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
paul walter
paul walter
7 years ago

Enjoyed it.. a nice drop of red. I can see also there might be lines of attack as regards it, but for now, hope you have a satisfying day sorting other things.
A little Mencken is always exquisite, like Drambuie.

paul walter
paul walter
7 years ago

Hmmmmm.. a message in there some where, I guess.

David Walker
David Walker(@d-w-griffiths)
7 years ago

Nick, I’m glad someone else enjoyed this too. The EconTalks seem to actually be getting better over time, in large part because Russ Roberts is pursuing the unusual course of questioning his own core beliefs and the fundamentals of his profession.

I’m kind of surprised you didn’t summon up this quote from the Theory of Moral Sentiments to describe Sacs, because it seems to fit perfectly:

“The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it.

He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.”

paul walter
paul walter
7 years ago

If Sachs is a crackpot, what should we think of the likes of Joe Hockey, Gottliebsen, Mccrann, et al.

murph the surf.
murph the surf.
7 years ago
Reply to  paul walter

Realists perhaps?