AudienceTOE

Last Monday we had the pleasure of hosting a few of our closest friends at Cooper Union’s Great Hall to celebrate the launch of Professor Easterly’s new book, The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor. Paul Romer gave a gracious introduction, and many audience members had the chance to question Bill’s audacious theories in a Q&A at the end of the lecture. Below are just a few selected clips from the evening (Paul’s introduction, Bill on his membership in Authoritarians Anonymous, and his answer to the perennial favorite question: “But What Can I Do?”). To hear more, take a look at the author’s speaking schedule for the next few months which will take him to Boston, DC, the West Coast and London, and of course, read the book.

 

Tyranny of Experts Book Launch from NYU Devt Research Institute on Vimeo.

Photo courtesy of Jessica Kane. See more photographs from the launch here.

We were honored to host Angus Deaton last week for a lecture on his brand new book. A standing-only crowd piled in to hear Deaton, Professor of International Affairs and  Economics at Princeton, discuss humanity’s “Great Escape” from poverty as well as the troubling health and income inequalities that still persist.

deaton-cover

IMG_4007

14-0165-002

14-0165-012

14-0165-023

14-0165-024

14-0165-032

14-0165-033

14-0165-042

14-0165-046

14-0165-045

14-0165-048

14-0165-052

14-0165-066

14-0165-057

14-0165-064

All photos ©NYU Photo Bureau: Prouhansky

Short Clip 1- Some Things That Would Do Good

Short Clip 2- It’s Not About The Money

Short Clip 3- What Is to Be Done about Weak State Capacity?

The World Bank hosted a debate (click on the above screen shot to get to the link for the whole webcast) on the proposition:

Continued AIDS investments by donors and governments is a sound investment, even in a resource-constrained environment.

Jeffrey Sachs and Michel Sidibé  (head of UNAIDS) argued in favor, and Mead Over and Roger England argued against. There was a show of hands of the audience pro and con before and after. As Mead Over reports, nobody was surprised that a vast majority was pro before the debate; the surprise was that a substantial minority changed their minds to con after the debate.

Mead Over has written a post summarizing the debate, paraphrasing in his words each participant’s argument (see the video linked above if you want the exact words of each). Here is Mr. Sachs:

Jeff Sachs: This debate is a sham, because resources are not really scarce. With financial transactions taxes and higher taxes on the rich we would have more than enough money to address all the health problems of the world.

Mead Over and Roger England argued that, in the real world, alas, there really is a budget constraint on health and on everything else.

The cost of pretending this budget constraint does not exist, they argued, is that the lives saved by increasing AIDS spending cause many more lives to be lost when AIDS crowds out more cost-effective health interventions.

Cost-effectiveness calculations of course make the big assumption that both AIDS and alternative  interventions are or would be effectively implemented.  Aid critics like me have of course questioned aid effectiveness, but I and others have also argued that aid’s effectiveness is greater in health than in other sectors.

Roger England doubted even the effectiveness rate in AIDS (as paraphrased by Over):

Roger England: The $100 billion that has been spent so far on AIDS has created an “AIDS-industrial complex” and the international AIDS meeting in Washington this week is its trade fair. The money has otherwise accomplished much less than it could have if wisely spent.

Sounds like Mr. Budget Constraint did win the debate.