Doing Bad by Doing Good: Why Humanitarian Action Fails

by Christopher J. Coyne

In 2010, Haiti was ravaged by a brutal earthquake that affected the lives of millions. The call to assist those in need was heard around the globe. Yet two years later humanitarian efforts led by governments and NGOs have largely failed. Resources are not reaching the needy due to bureaucratic red tape, and many assets have been squandered. How can efforts intended to help the suffering fail so badly? In this timely and provocative book, Christopher J. Coyne uses the economic way of thinking to explain why this and other humanitarian efforts that intend to do good end up doing nothing or causing harm. In addition to Haiti, Coyne considers a wide range of interventions. He explains why the U.S. government was ineffective following Hurricane Katrina, why the international humanitarian push to remove Muammar Gaddafi in Libya may very well end up causing more problems than prosperity, and why decades of efforts to respond to crises and foster development around the world have resulted in repeated failures. In place of the dominant approach to state-led humanitarian action, this book offers a bold alternative, focused on establishing an environment of economic freedom. If we are willing to experiment with aid―asking questions about how to foster development as a process of societal discovery, or how else we might engage the private sector, for instance―we increase the range of alternatives to help people and empower them to improve their communities. Anyone concerned with and dedicated to alleviating human suffering in the short term or for the long haul, from policymakers and activists to scholars, will find this book to be an insightful and provocative reframing of humanitarian action.

Genres: Economics, Social Science, History, Nonfiction, Politics

272 pages, Hardcover

First published May 1, 2013

About the author

Christopher J. Coyne is Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University and Associate Director of the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center. He is the author of Doing Bad by Doing Good: Why Humanitarian Action Fails (Stanford, 2013) and After War: The Political Economy of Exporting Democracy (Stanford, 2008).

Reviews

[Trey Malone · Rating 4 out of 5]

At 204 pages, it's worth the quick read. Anyone skeptical of foreign aid will find a lot to agree with, and Coyne does a great job of highlighting other important writers in the area (i.e. Easterly, De Soto, Boettke). I would enjoy to read a follow-up that focuses more on specific, positive examples of how developing countries can more meaningfully participate in the global economy.

[Michael Wu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Drawing on the insights of Austrian economics and public choice theory, Coyne explains the incentive and knowledge problems that repeatedly frustrates the humanitarian efforts of well-intentioned politicians and activists. Rather than relying on a top-down, centralized model of delivering aid, Coyne counsels policymakers to consider liberal ideas of free trade, open borders and the like to alleviate human suffering.

[A · Rating 2 out of 5]

Coyne is a good writer, and makes some reasonable points throughout the book. A reader who naively thinks that international aid is super efficient and effective at “developing” countries, and all we need to do is give more money, would benefit from understanding some of the critiques Coyne makes (though in my view Easterly’s White Man’s Burden is a better, and more even-handed, critique of aid). But, Coyne ultimately fails to present a particularly compelling argument for anyone that has a more nuanced view of economics and policy. The analysis was simply not strong enough to make the case (theoretically or empirically) that humanitarian aid does not, to at least some meaningful degree, help people and make the world a better place.

A few assorted thoughts on the book:

-The caricature of the “man of humanitarian system” got annoying. This kind of straw man ultimately becomes a way of just dismissing anyone who thinks about public policy in a particularly way, instead of actually engaging with the debates/research/arguments of these “men of the humanitarian system.”

-I think the book recognized, but failed to adequately account for, the diversity of purpose and function of “humanitarian aid”. Aid ultimately serves many functions and goals, from bribing countries into not going communist during cold war, to public relations, to discrete problems (malaria, aid, literacy, etc.), to comprehensive development plans. Some aid is poorly planned, some isn’t. Some is poorly implemented, some isn’t. Some responds to immediate crises, some is intended to be long term. Pulling everything together into a broad category of “humanitarian aid” and trying to evaluate it all together ultimately wasn’t a very convincing approach.

-Coyne seems to think that he has made a slam dunk case for some of his points, but I very frequently found myself thinking “yeah, that is a relative point, but what about X, Y and Z counterpoints? What about these issues 1, 2, and 3 not addressed?”

-The theory of how bureaucracies function seemed inadequate. While status, prestige, and seeking larger budgets are certainly drivers of bureaucratic behavior, they are not the only drivers (or even necessarily the main drivers) of people’s behavior in bureaucracies. It would have been interesting to see some more empirical analysis and discussion of bureaucratic behavior.

-Coyne suggests that there has been a huge increase in humanitarian spending over the last fifty years, which I’m not sure is a totally fair presentation of the data. While the total value of aid has grown a lot over the last 50 years, it seems to be a relatively stable relative to the size of donor country economies (around 0.3% of gross national income for OECD countries goes to aid). This suggests to me that it is kind of a constant and pretty stable budget item, not something growing exponentially because of all the lobbying from bureaucrats that Coyne suggests.

[Emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting, pretty dry. Makes very good economic arguments while still having a humanitarian heart, perhaps even more so than the humanitarian system we have in place now.

[Becca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent approach and compelling arguments as to why humanitarian action cannot substitute or replace the need for changing political systems and economic infrastructure. It’s an easy, smooth criticism of the “man of the system” approach and walks through the reason outsiders simply don’t have the ability to provide effective aid. My one wish is that he touched or at least addressed literature on developmental economics since many randomized control trials demonstrate cost effective interventions that help in the development contexts. That being said, much of that literature is from the last ten years and his critique focuses more on US foreign aid. I think tackling the daunting topic of state funded foreign aid was a clear, efficient message.

[Robert Clarke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Christopher Coyne's "Doing Bad by Doing Good" explores the mentality of humanitarian actors, and seeks to explain why the constantly expand their goals even as they fail to achieve previous smaller aims. It unpacks economic thinking behind aid - mostly pointing out the lack of it rather than how it's applied.

It's a valuable dive into why, even ten years ago when the book was written, NGOs and government programs meant to help people suffering often fall short, and how we can think about changing the dynamics to try to improve things.

[Hassan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a refreshing read after having gone through several books on the topic of humanitarianism, humanitarian aid, and humanitarian intervention which did not raise enough questions around the actual process of international humanitarianism. Doing Bad by Doing Good indulges itself with these questions by tackling everything from bureaucracy and communication issues to wasteful spending and misappropriation of aid funds. You don't have to agree with Coyne--you just have to recognize that he's asking some very real questions to consider when reflecting on humanitarian aid. The language of the book is direct and not overly self-indulgent--you won't find labyrinthine terminology and meta-meta-discussions of language and morality here. It's an economics book at heart, and seemingly intended for people who have already read other development scholars such as JD Sachs and Paul Collier (in fact, he references them towards the end). I give this a 4 out of 5 because, while the questions and discussions brought up are important and worth considering, Coyne in my opinion did not do enough to refute existing development scholars, which could have bolstered his position even further. Still, this one goes to my favorites shelf!