What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time
A respected international economic advisor and the director of The Earth Institute shares a wide-spectrum theory about how to enable economic success throughout the world, identifying the different categories into which various nations fall in today's economy while posing solutions to top political, environmental, and social problems that contribute to poverty. 50,000 first printing.
396 pages, Hardcover
First published April 7, 2005
971 people are currently reading
18845 people want to read
About the author
Jeffrey D. Sachs
93 books869 followersJeffrey David Sachs, is an American economist, public policy analyst, and former director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, where he holds the title of University Professor, the highest rank Columbia bestows on its faculty. He is known as one of the world's leading experts on economic development and the fight against poverty.
Sachs is the Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs and a professor of health policy and management at Columbia's School of Public Health. As of 2017, he serves as special adviser to the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 global goals adopted at a UN summit meeting in September 2015. He held the same position under the previous UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and prior to 2016 a similar advisory position related to the earlier Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), eight internationally sanctioned objectives to reduce extreme poverty, hunger and disease by the year 2015. In connection with the MDGs, he had first been appointed special adviser to the UN Secretary-General in 2002 during the term of Kofi Annan.
In 1995, Sachs became a member of the International Advisory Council of the Center for Social and Economic Research (CASE). He is co-founder and chief strategist of Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger. From 2002 to 2006, he was director of the United Nations Millennium Project's work on the MDGs. He is director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and co-editor of the World Happiness Report with John F. Helliwell and Richard Layard. In 2010, he became a commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, whose stated aim is to boost the importance of broadband in international policy. Sachs has written several books and received many awards.
Sachs is the Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs and a professor of health policy and management at Columbia's School of Public Health. As of 2017, he serves as special adviser to the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 global goals adopted at a UN summit meeting in September 2015. He held the same position under the previous UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and prior to 2016 a similar advisory position related to the earlier Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), eight internationally sanctioned objectives to reduce extreme poverty, hunger and disease by the year 2015. In connection with the MDGs, he had first been appointed special adviser to the UN Secretary-General in 2002 during the term of Kofi Annan.
In 1995, Sachs became a member of the International Advisory Council of the Center for Social and Economic Research (CASE). He is co-founder and chief strategist of Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger. From 2002 to 2006, he was director of the United Nations Millennium Project's work on the MDGs. He is director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and co-editor of the World Happiness Report with John F. Helliwell and Richard Layard. In 2010, he became a commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, whose stated aim is to boost the importance of broadband in international policy. Sachs has written several books and received many awards.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 796 reviews
November 24, 2013
Towards the End of Poverty: A Manifesto
The difference between a solid policy prescription book and an evocative manifesto is hard to make out if it is an economist writing it. I should have known which side this would fall on once I saw that the introduction was by Bono, but I let the forceful and articulate Bono force me into buying this one. In the store, Bono’s righteous anger was infectious and the book could not be put down. It sounded like a moral obligation:
Fifteen thousand people dying needlessly every day from AIDS, TB, and malaria. Mothers, fathers, teachers, farmers, nurses, mechanics, children. This is Africa's crisis.
That it's not on the nightly news, that we do not treat this as an emergency—that's our crisis.
Sachs has often come into some criticism for advocating a too-simple model. But, perhaps the point is that one has to take his prescriptions as those of a reformist, of an evangelist, of one who is willing to put his reputation on the line to get the ball rolling. He is okay to work out the details later. His prime interest is to convince the world that progress in the fight against poverty is possible, and that depends on giving them a believable model, a get-go plan.
The model he presents is the Ladder of Development. This is the easy and feel-good model, the one for the headlines. The more realistic prescription is hidden inside. It is what he calls ‘Clinical Economics’. This review wont be covering that. Another interesting part of the book is Sachs’ analysis of China. It is an insightful take on why socialism failed in Russia but flourished in China. It is worth a read, but again won’t be covered in this review since it will take away from the forcefulness of the main thrust. The reviewer is determined to be a disciple of Sachs in this respect.
In the simple model, Sachs tells us that there exists a Ladder of Development. It is made of many successive rungs that have to be climbed to reach where the developed world currently is. The Ladder is not a normal ladder, the rungs are not equally spaced - they get closer together as you climb higher. So that it gets easier and easier to climb the higher you are. This is illustrated by countries who were poor only a few decades ago but had so called ‘economic miracles’. To Sachs, there was nothing miraculous about it, it was all about getting high enough in the ladder for the growth to be self-sustaining.
The very hardest part of economic development, according to Sachs, is getting the first foothold on this Ladder. This is so because, true to its peculiar nature, the lowest rung of the Ladder is very high off the ground. Most of the poor countries cannot easily reach there. If only they could, they would then be climbing as if they were born ladder-climbers, Sachs is sure. Economic development works. It can be successful. It tends to build on itself. But it must get started.
This is where the ones on top of the Ladder has to step in. This is where the role of aid, the crux of Sachs’ advocacy, becomes crucial. If the developed nations could just pull these countries on to the First Rung and perhaps even hold their hand for the next few rungs, we could soon be at The End of Poverty.
So, the rich countries should stop obsessing over trivialities (too much economic thinking, Sachs says, has been directed at the wrong question—how to make the poor countries into textbook models of good governance or efficient market economies) and focus on making sure that every country is safely on the Ladder. All the squabbling and fighting happens when they can’t get on it and focus all their abundant energies towards the exciting adventure of climbing it. Once they are on that task, other peripheral aspects of development would follow naturally. So stop breaking your head over it and get on the real task - this is Sachs radioing the world, loud and clear.
Sachs sees the Ladder and knows that a better world is there for the taking. He sees that much of the world is focused on comparatively trivial things when they could be saving lives and ending misery. That is why Sachs is angry. And this book is the result. It leaves little doubt about the duty of this generation. Sachs is supposed to be most important economist of this generation, and based on his results, he might indeed be. There is definitely no doubt that he is the loudest (especially with Bono for company). You can question his approach, but not his passion.
September 16, 2007
You, being a smart person who is up on contemporary debates in economics and development and/or are a reader of Vanity Fair, probably already know all about Sachs and this book.
Sachs made his name giving “shock therapy” to various third world economies. He recommended they jack up interest rates, and pushed them towards neo-liberal free market structures. His career hit a bit of a bad patch when he was associated with the economic meltdown of the former Soviet Socialist Republic. This book is his recommendations for development in Africa.
Sach’s ideas at base a pretty simple - Sub Saharan Africa needs lots and lots more aid. This aid should be put to use curing easily defeatable diseases and establishing local agrarian and eventually manufacturing economies, and right wing type who say that more aid won’t fix the problem are wrong. That’s about it.
I think Sach’s has this all about half right. More aid is a good idea, but alone, and in the style he suggests, I doubt it will lead to an end to poverty. Paul Collier’s more nuanced book The Bottom Billion, which I just finished, and will review soon, gives a better battle plan for dealing with seriously fucked countries. Sach’s plan is a little too throw-money-at-the-problem for me.
Still, this book is worth a read. If you’re going to talk about world poverty now a days (and I tend to talk about world poverty a lot), you going to have to know what Sach is up to. He is by far the biggest name in the field. He may not always be right, but he’s a player that you need to know about.
Sachs made his name giving “shock therapy” to various third world economies. He recommended they jack up interest rates, and pushed them towards neo-liberal free market structures. His career hit a bit of a bad patch when he was associated with the economic meltdown of the former Soviet Socialist Republic. This book is his recommendations for development in Africa.
Sach’s ideas at base a pretty simple - Sub Saharan Africa needs lots and lots more aid. This aid should be put to use curing easily defeatable diseases and establishing local agrarian and eventually manufacturing economies, and right wing type who say that more aid won’t fix the problem are wrong. That’s about it.
I think Sach’s has this all about half right. More aid is a good idea, but alone, and in the style he suggests, I doubt it will lead to an end to poverty. Paul Collier’s more nuanced book The Bottom Billion, which I just finished, and will review soon, gives a better battle plan for dealing with seriously fucked countries. Sach’s plan is a little too throw-money-at-the-problem for me.
Still, this book is worth a read. If you’re going to talk about world poverty now a days (and I tend to talk about world poverty a lot), you going to have to know what Sach is up to. He is by far the biggest name in the field. He may not always be right, but he’s a player that you need to know about.
July 7, 2011
I expected to give this book one star, but I could get behind enough of Sachs' ideas to give it two. Sachs opposes IMF/WB austerity measures to promote development, and defends health care, education, and other services as public goods. He advocates taxing the rich and getting the world's wealthiest people to invest their money in the world's poorest people. He opposes Bush's excessive military spending because he thinks US and global security are more effectively guaranteed by cutting down global poverty. He emphasizes the need to understand and act on the vast range of factors that might contribute to poverty in specific countries and regions. But predictably, Sachs, guided by Enlightenment and Adam Smith-type rationalism and market logic, is misguided on the basic point of what constitute "wealth," "poverty," and "development" (e.g., for him, private property is a precondition for ending poverty and inequality). He also drastically downplays colonialism's role in global inequality, posing it as purely a matter of economic relations.
Overall, there are some decent ideas here, but Sachs isn't changing the terms of the development debate.
Overall, there are some decent ideas here, but Sachs isn't changing the terms of the development debate.
February 22, 2022
By bashing the rich, it's tough to get people up on the supposed ladder... rich create jobs and poor get that. However, it is up to the policy-makers and those money-mongers, corrupts sitting on the higher ranks in the hierarchy of the United Nations and other organisations supposedly working to 'make the world better' to do something meaningful. Reading this book in the light of the COVID pandemic makes much sense – what can we rely on? Redundant to an extent and yet having some gold-standard arguments.
Read
November 7, 2018Poor Jeffrey Sachs. He reminds me of the autistic kid in elementary school who isn't sure why no one likes reading the marginalia of comic books as much as he does. After all, the other kids like Spiderman too. So why doesn't everyone else want to do the cross-referencing (I may have been awfully close to being that kid)?
Jeffrey Sachs' basic perspective is that all we have to do to solve poverty is pump aid money in and engage in debt relief. Let's ignore, for a moment, the fact that he was largely responsible (intellectually, and to a certain extent in practice) for disastrous shock programs in Eastern Europe that threw millions into sudden poverty, provided a fertile ground for the rise of crony capitalists of the worst order, and largely fueled the rise of neo-fascism, but let's look at his starry-eyed worldview, a world in which if enough nice people do nice things, everything will be nicer.
But he ignores everything that would prevent this from happening, because he's, I'm guessing a very personable head-in-the-clouds idealist. He's right to criticize "cultural" explanations of poverty, and right to criticize the IMF and World Bank for keeping countries poor. And yet he ignores the brutal realities of extractive economies, the ways in which foreign capital colludes with militaries and gleefully ignores local laws, and the ways in which the aid machine pats donors' backs without making a real difference.
Jeffrey Sachs' basic perspective is that all we have to do to solve poverty is pump aid money in and engage in debt relief. Let's ignore, for a moment, the fact that he was largely responsible (intellectually, and to a certain extent in practice) for disastrous shock programs in Eastern Europe that threw millions into sudden poverty, provided a fertile ground for the rise of crony capitalists of the worst order, and largely fueled the rise of neo-fascism, but let's look at his starry-eyed worldview, a world in which if enough nice people do nice things, everything will be nicer.
But he ignores everything that would prevent this from happening, because he's, I'm guessing a very personable head-in-the-clouds idealist. He's right to criticize "cultural" explanations of poverty, and right to criticize the IMF and World Bank for keeping countries poor. And yet he ignores the brutal realities of extractive economies, the ways in which foreign capital colludes with militaries and gleefully ignores local laws, and the ways in which the aid machine pats donors' backs without making a real difference.
January 10, 2011
One of Cambridge Sustainability's Top 50 Books for Sustainability, as voted for by our alumni network of over 3,000 senior leaders from around the world. To find out more, click here.
The End of Poverty argues that extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank as having an income of less than $1 a day, is 'the poverty that kills'. However, it is almost entirely preventable and solvable (as has been shown in developed countries and many developing countries) through the provision of basic services in water, sanitation, healthcare and food. Hence, the end of poverty is not only possible, but also morally imperative.
Sachs challenges the wholly pessimistic view of poverty, pointing out that five-sixths of the world have excaped extreme poverty due to the scientific and industrial revolution, which has raised living standards and life expectancy. This shows that development does work, and that the remaining one billion poor are not inevitably condemned to remain destitute.
The End of Poverty argues that extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank as having an income of less than $1 a day, is 'the poverty that kills'. However, it is almost entirely preventable and solvable (as has been shown in developed countries and many developing countries) through the provision of basic services in water, sanitation, healthcare and food. Hence, the end of poverty is not only possible, but also morally imperative.
Sachs challenges the wholly pessimistic view of poverty, pointing out that five-sixths of the world have excaped extreme poverty due to the scientific and industrial revolution, which has raised living standards and life expectancy. This shows that development does work, and that the remaining one billion poor are not inevitably condemned to remain destitute.
December 28, 2010
Sachs visited Malawi a few times in the 2000s, and met the country's vice-president, "a remarkably fine individual, a dignified, eloquent, a popular figure in what is against all odds a multiparty democracy." He "came to know Malawi relatively well" and saw people dying of AIDS, depleted soil, no medicines in the hospital, children stunted from malnutrition. Paul Theroux visited the country in 2001; unlike Sachs, he speaks Chichewa, the Bantu language widely spoken in Malawi, having worked in what was then called Nyasaland in the 1960s. He read that "on the day the minister of finance announces his financial austerity plan, it is revealed that thirty-eight Mercedes Benzes have just been ordered from Germany," saw ruins of the shops formerly owned by the Indians expelled by dictator Hastings Banda, heard a British nurse complain that African doctors wouldn't work for what she and her doctor husband are paid, and saw his own novel Jungle Lovers, which is set in Malawi, on the index of prohibited books, alongside works by Orwell, Nabokov and Rushdie. Theroux is a novelist, and Sachs is an economist; a novelist would say that malnourished children by themselves do not make a good story, but malnourished children juxtaposed with the ban on Nabokov do; an economist would say that the index of prohibited books is irrelevant to the problem of soil depletion. Yet it seems to me that Sachs came to know Malawi not at all compared to Theroux. How well did Sachs come to know the other countries he advised on economic reform, most famously Russia?
February 24, 2008
A well written book. In my opinion it can not be read without also reading William Easterly's book "The Quest For Growth." The two scholors are at war with each other. Their debate is all the more interesting when you read the back and forth op-ed pieces they have written in the Washington Post.
I tend to agree with Easterly: Sachs means well, but he is very full of himself. His book is more a tribute to what he can do, and other economists can't than a good debate on the issues. Flying Bono around makes for nice PR but it doesn't address the serious economic issues/problems of international growth. Easterly takes a (in my opinion) less rigorous and more anecdotal approach, call it the softer side, to growth. He offers answers which everyone wants to hear, but which don't always bear fruit when fully analyzed.
Unfortunately, it is this fluffy side of growth that politicians like to promote. They promote it because its easy, because people like to think they are doing something, even if all they are doing is throwing money into a black whole.
Anyhow, this book makes for good reading, and I recommend it to everyone interested in economic growth, the hot topic of macroeconomic research these days. Just don't read it in isolation.
I tend to agree with Easterly: Sachs means well, but he is very full of himself. His book is more a tribute to what he can do, and other economists can't than a good debate on the issues. Flying Bono around makes for nice PR but it doesn't address the serious economic issues/problems of international growth. Easterly takes a (in my opinion) less rigorous and more anecdotal approach, call it the softer side, to growth. He offers answers which everyone wants to hear, but which don't always bear fruit when fully analyzed.
Unfortunately, it is this fluffy side of growth that politicians like to promote. They promote it because its easy, because people like to think they are doing something, even if all they are doing is throwing money into a black whole.
Anyhow, this book makes for good reading, and I recommend it to everyone interested in economic growth, the hot topic of macroeconomic research these days. Just don't read it in isolation.
December 27, 2012
Another book written by a rich caucasian on how to solve "Third World" problems. Sachs floats a lot of "economic theories" and Bono throws in his bit as well. Understandably so, they've never walked a mile in a poor person's shoes. Some things are just as nature intended. We cannot all be wealthy CEOs, who'll do the ground work?. Intervention does more harm than good, most of the time. Some relief schemes are built on greed and filth. Just look at USaid!! Closer to home, look at the giant retailers!!! We need to understand how each country is built first before we offer "tried and tested" solutions. Two industries keep a country going: farming and manufacturing. Stop outsourcing the manufacturing to the Chinese. Build factories here at home. Empower the citizens through transfer of skills!!! Enough said. Loathed the book! Sachs is an imperialist and snotty!!
August 13, 2011
يمنحنا المؤلف في الكتاب منهج لاستئصال الفقر من العالم بحلول عام 2025 ، عبر تحليل متميز وشرح منطقي للتجربة ..
الكتاب متميز قرأته للمرة الأولى من حوالي سنتين ،والآن أكتشف فيه الجديد بعد القراءة الثانية ..
الكتاب متميز قرأته للمرة الأولى من حوالي سنتين ،والآن أكتشف فيه الجديد بعد القراءة الثانية ..
November 30, 2020
CORRUPTION IS NOT THE CAUSE OF POVERTY
IT'S THE UNFORTUNATE ORIGIN
It greatly signifies poverty, a problem that must be handled with infallible plan, with efforts from everywhere around the world is must. Thanks to it's simple use of language, I was able to understand myriad basics and background details of economic development and governance in a respectable degree. But it almost felt like a guide book (like a youtube video tutorial hehe 😁) and the points it discussed were almost similar throughout the book (almost got bored at end and I skipped few end pages of book hehe 😅😁). At random occasions, I didn't felt persuaded to arguments and points. Persuasion department of writing was fine (if jeffery focused on it, quality of book would vastly increase, just saying hehe 😁🤗😉). But overall, a great book!
Very Good, Jeffery Sachs! I enjoyed it very much! ☺️❤️
IT'S THE UNFORTUNATE ORIGIN
It greatly signifies poverty, a problem that must be handled with infallible plan, with efforts from everywhere around the world is must. Thanks to it's simple use of language, I was able to understand myriad basics and background details of economic development and governance in a respectable degree. But it almost felt like a guide book (like a youtube video tutorial hehe 😁) and the points it discussed were almost similar throughout the book (almost got bored at end and I skipped few end pages of book hehe 😅😁). At random occasions, I didn't felt persuaded to arguments and points. Persuasion department of writing was fine (if jeffery focused on it, quality of book would vastly increase, just saying hehe 😁🤗😉). But overall, a great book!
Very Good, Jeffery Sachs! I enjoyed it very much! ☺️❤️
May 1, 2019
some excerpts
"Equality is a very big idea, connected to freedom, but an idea that doesn’t come for free. If we’re serious, we have to be prepared to pay the price. Some people will say we can’t afford to do it …. I disagree. I think we can’t afford not to do it.
When the preconditions of basic infrastructure (roads, power, and ports) and human capital (health and education) are in place, markets are powerful engines of development. Without those preconditions, markets can cruelly bypass large parts of the world, leaving them impoverished and suffering without respite.
One of the ironies of the recent success of India and China is the fear that has engulfed the United States that success in these two countries comes at the expense of the United States. These fears are fundamentally wrong and, even worse, dangerous. They are wrong because the world is not a zero-sum struggle in which one country’s gain is another’s loss, but is rather a positive-sum opportunity in which improving technologies and skills can raise living standards around the world.
The greatest tragedy of our time is that one sixth of humanity is not even on the development ladder.
The crucial puzzle for understanding today’s vast inequalities, therefore, is to understand why different regions of the world have grown at different rates during the period of modern economic growth.
Technology has been the main force behind the long-term increases in income in the rich world, not exploitation of the poor. That news is very good indeed because it suggests that all of the world, including today’s laggard regions, has a reasonable hope of reaping the benefits of technological advance. Economic development is not a zero-sum game in which the winnings of some are inevitably mirróred by the losses of others. This game is one that everybody can win.
First, British society was relatively open, with more scope for individual initiative and social mobility than most other societies of the world.
Britain’s advantages, in summary, were marked by a combination of social, political, and geographical factors. British society was relatively free and politically stable. Scientific thinking was dynamic. Geography enabled Britain to benefit from trade, productive agriculture, and energy resources in vast stocks of coal.
Most important, modern economic growth was not only a question of “more” (output per person) but also “change.” The transition to modern economic growth involved urbanization, changing gender roles, increased social mobility, changing family structure, and increasing specialization.
I believe that the single most important reason why prosperity spread, and why it continues to spread, is the transmission of technologies and the ideas underlying them.
Economists call ideas nonrival in the sense that one person’s use of an idea does not diminish the ability of others to use it as well. This is why we can envision a world in which everybody achieves prosperity.
Countries are often told that if their debts are cancelled, they will no longer be creditworthy. This argument is backward. If a country has too much debt, it cannot be creditworthy.
Rational investors will not make new loans. If debt cancellation is warranted by financial realities, is negotiated in good faith, and the country pursues sound economic policies afterward, then debt cancellation raises creditworthiness rather than reduces it.
At that point, George Soros helped me to meet a young Soviet reformer, Grigory Yavlinsky, who was a new economic adviser to Mikhail Gorbachev.
In November 1991, Boris Yeltsin asked Yegor Gaidar, a leading young Russian economist, to create an economic team. Gaidar invited me and David Lipton to a dacha outside of Moscow to work with the new economic team in putting together a reform plan for Russia.
One recalls Chinese Premier Chou En-lai’s quip when asked whether the French Revolution had been a success or failure: “It’s too soon to say.”
In China, the European incursion was especially disastrous. Great Britain attacked China in 1839 to promote British narcotics trafficking, launching the first of the Opium Wars of 1839–42 to force China to open up to trade. Among other things, Britain insisted that China agree to the importation of opium that British commercial interests were producing and trading in India. British policy makers were interested in China’s vast market, including solving the conundrum of how to pay for Britain’s national craze: Chinese tea. The solution was ingenious and utterly destructive. Britain would sell opium to China and earn the wherewithal to purchase China’s tea. It is as if Colombia waged war with the United States today for the right to sell cocaine.
Boring as it may seem, we need to fix the “plumbing” of international development assistance in order to be effective in helping the well-governed countries. Aid flows through certain pipes—bilateral donors, the World Bank, the regional development banks (such as the African Development Bank)—but these pipes are clogged or simply too narrow, not able to carry a sufficient flow of aid.
Redeem the Role of the United States in the World The richest and most powerful country in the world, long the leader and inspiration in democratic ideals, has become the most feared and divisive country in recent years. The self-professed quest by the United States for unchallenged supremacy and freedom of action has been a disaster, and it poses one of the greatest risks to global stability.
The lack of U.S. participation in multilateral initiatives has undermined global security and progress toward social justice and environmental protection. Its own interests have been undermined by this unilateral turn. Forged in the crucible of the Enlightenment, the United States can become a champion of Enlightened Globalization. Political action within the United States and from abroad will be needed to restore its role on the road toward global peace and justice.
Rescue the IMF and the World Bank Our leading international financial institutions are needed to play a decisive role in ending global poverty. They have the experience and technical sophistication to play an important role. They have the internal motivation of a highly professional staff. Yet they have been badly used, indeed misused, as creditor-run agencies rather than international institutions representing all of their 182 member governments. It is time to restore the international role of these agencies so that they are no longer the handmaidens of creditor governments, but the champions of economic justice and enlightened globalization.
Strengthen the United Nations It is no use blaming the UN for the missteps of recent years. We have gotten the UN that has been willed by the powerful countries of the world, especially the United States. Why are UN agencies less operational than they should be? Not because of UN bureaucracy, though that exists, but because the powerful countries are reluctant to cede more authority to international institutions, fearing reduction of their own freedom of maneuver. The UN specialized agencies have a core role to play in the end of poverty. It is time to empower the likes of the UN Children’s Fund, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agricultural Organization, and many others to do the job—on the ground, country by country—that they are uniquely qualified to lead, helping the poorest of the poor to use modern science and technology to overcome the trap of poverty.
Harness Global Science Science has been the key to development from the very start of the industrial revolution, the fulcrum by which reason is translated into technologies of social advance. As Condorcet predicted, science has empowered technological advances in food production, health, environmental management, and countless other basic sectors of production and human need. Yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to lead them. It is not surprising, I have noted repeatedly, that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of endogenous growth, whereas the poorest of the poor are often left outside of this virtuous circle. When their needs are specific—by virtue of particular diseases, or crops, or ecological conditions—their problems are bypassed by global science. Therefore, a special effort of world science, led by global scientific research centers of governments, academia, and industry, must commit specifically to addressing the unmet challenges of the poor. Public funding, private philanthropies, and not-for-profit foundations will have to back these commitments, precisely because market forces alone will not suffice.
Promote Sustainable Development While targeted investments in health, education, and infrastructure can unlock the trap of extreme poverty, the continuing environmental degradation at local, regional, and planetary scales threatens the long-term sustainability of all our social gains. Ending extreme poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are more productive on their farms, they face less pressure to cut down neighboring forests in search of new farmland. When their children survive with high probability, they have less incentive to maintain very high fertility rates with the attendant downside of rapid population growth. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, the environmental degradation related to industrial pollution and the long-term climate change associated with massive use of fossil fuels will have to be addressed. There are ways to confront these environmental challenges without destroying prosperity (for example, by building smarter power plants that capture and dispose of their carbon emissions and by increasing use of renewable energy sources). As we invest in ending extreme poverty, we must face the ongoing challenge of investing in the global sustainability of the world’s ecosystems."
"Equality is a very big idea, connected to freedom, but an idea that doesn’t come for free. If we’re serious, we have to be prepared to pay the price. Some people will say we can’t afford to do it …. I disagree. I think we can’t afford not to do it.
When the preconditions of basic infrastructure (roads, power, and ports) and human capital (health and education) are in place, markets are powerful engines of development. Without those preconditions, markets can cruelly bypass large parts of the world, leaving them impoverished and suffering without respite.
One of the ironies of the recent success of India and China is the fear that has engulfed the United States that success in these two countries comes at the expense of the United States. These fears are fundamentally wrong and, even worse, dangerous. They are wrong because the world is not a zero-sum struggle in which one country’s gain is another’s loss, but is rather a positive-sum opportunity in which improving technologies and skills can raise living standards around the world.
The greatest tragedy of our time is that one sixth of humanity is not even on the development ladder.
The crucial puzzle for understanding today’s vast inequalities, therefore, is to understand why different regions of the world have grown at different rates during the period of modern economic growth.
Technology has been the main force behind the long-term increases in income in the rich world, not exploitation of the poor. That news is very good indeed because it suggests that all of the world, including today’s laggard regions, has a reasonable hope of reaping the benefits of technological advance. Economic development is not a zero-sum game in which the winnings of some are inevitably mirróred by the losses of others. This game is one that everybody can win.
First, British society was relatively open, with more scope for individual initiative and social mobility than most other societies of the world.
Britain’s advantages, in summary, were marked by a combination of social, political, and geographical factors. British society was relatively free and politically stable. Scientific thinking was dynamic. Geography enabled Britain to benefit from trade, productive agriculture, and energy resources in vast stocks of coal.
Most important, modern economic growth was not only a question of “more” (output per person) but also “change.” The transition to modern economic growth involved urbanization, changing gender roles, increased social mobility, changing family structure, and increasing specialization.
I believe that the single most important reason why prosperity spread, and why it continues to spread, is the transmission of technologies and the ideas underlying them.
Economists call ideas nonrival in the sense that one person’s use of an idea does not diminish the ability of others to use it as well. This is why we can envision a world in which everybody achieves prosperity.
Countries are often told that if their debts are cancelled, they will no longer be creditworthy. This argument is backward. If a country has too much debt, it cannot be creditworthy.
Rational investors will not make new loans. If debt cancellation is warranted by financial realities, is negotiated in good faith, and the country pursues sound economic policies afterward, then debt cancellation raises creditworthiness rather than reduces it.
At that point, George Soros helped me to meet a young Soviet reformer, Grigory Yavlinsky, who was a new economic adviser to Mikhail Gorbachev.
In November 1991, Boris Yeltsin asked Yegor Gaidar, a leading young Russian economist, to create an economic team. Gaidar invited me and David Lipton to a dacha outside of Moscow to work with the new economic team in putting together a reform plan for Russia.
One recalls Chinese Premier Chou En-lai’s quip when asked whether the French Revolution had been a success or failure: “It’s too soon to say.”
In China, the European incursion was especially disastrous. Great Britain attacked China in 1839 to promote British narcotics trafficking, launching the first of the Opium Wars of 1839–42 to force China to open up to trade. Among other things, Britain insisted that China agree to the importation of opium that British commercial interests were producing and trading in India. British policy makers were interested in China’s vast market, including solving the conundrum of how to pay for Britain’s national craze: Chinese tea. The solution was ingenious and utterly destructive. Britain would sell opium to China and earn the wherewithal to purchase China’s tea. It is as if Colombia waged war with the United States today for the right to sell cocaine.
Boring as it may seem, we need to fix the “plumbing” of international development assistance in order to be effective in helping the well-governed countries. Aid flows through certain pipes—bilateral donors, the World Bank, the regional development banks (such as the African Development Bank)—but these pipes are clogged or simply too narrow, not able to carry a sufficient flow of aid.
Redeem the Role of the United States in the World The richest and most powerful country in the world, long the leader and inspiration in democratic ideals, has become the most feared and divisive country in recent years. The self-professed quest by the United States for unchallenged supremacy and freedom of action has been a disaster, and it poses one of the greatest risks to global stability.
The lack of U.S. participation in multilateral initiatives has undermined global security and progress toward social justice and environmental protection. Its own interests have been undermined by this unilateral turn. Forged in the crucible of the Enlightenment, the United States can become a champion of Enlightened Globalization. Political action within the United States and from abroad will be needed to restore its role on the road toward global peace and justice.
Rescue the IMF and the World Bank Our leading international financial institutions are needed to play a decisive role in ending global poverty. They have the experience and technical sophistication to play an important role. They have the internal motivation of a highly professional staff. Yet they have been badly used, indeed misused, as creditor-run agencies rather than international institutions representing all of their 182 member governments. It is time to restore the international role of these agencies so that they are no longer the handmaidens of creditor governments, but the champions of economic justice and enlightened globalization.
Strengthen the United Nations It is no use blaming the UN for the missteps of recent years. We have gotten the UN that has been willed by the powerful countries of the world, especially the United States. Why are UN agencies less operational than they should be? Not because of UN bureaucracy, though that exists, but because the powerful countries are reluctant to cede more authority to international institutions, fearing reduction of their own freedom of maneuver. The UN specialized agencies have a core role to play in the end of poverty. It is time to empower the likes of the UN Children’s Fund, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agricultural Organization, and many others to do the job—on the ground, country by country—that they are uniquely qualified to lead, helping the poorest of the poor to use modern science and technology to overcome the trap of poverty.
Harness Global Science Science has been the key to development from the very start of the industrial revolution, the fulcrum by which reason is translated into technologies of social advance. As Condorcet predicted, science has empowered technological advances in food production, health, environmental management, and countless other basic sectors of production and human need. Yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to lead them. It is not surprising, I have noted repeatedly, that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of endogenous growth, whereas the poorest of the poor are often left outside of this virtuous circle. When their needs are specific—by virtue of particular diseases, or crops, or ecological conditions—their problems are bypassed by global science. Therefore, a special effort of world science, led by global scientific research centers of governments, academia, and industry, must commit specifically to addressing the unmet challenges of the poor. Public funding, private philanthropies, and not-for-profit foundations will have to back these commitments, precisely because market forces alone will not suffice.
Promote Sustainable Development While targeted investments in health, education, and infrastructure can unlock the trap of extreme poverty, the continuing environmental degradation at local, regional, and planetary scales threatens the long-term sustainability of all our social gains. Ending extreme poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are more productive on their farms, they face less pressure to cut down neighboring forests in search of new farmland. When their children survive with high probability, they have less incentive to maintain very high fertility rates with the attendant downside of rapid population growth. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, the environmental degradation related to industrial pollution and the long-term climate change associated with massive use of fossil fuels will have to be addressed. There are ways to confront these environmental challenges without destroying prosperity (for example, by building smarter power plants that capture and dispose of their carbon emissions and by increasing use of renewable energy sources). As we invest in ending extreme poverty, we must face the ongoing challenge of investing in the global sustainability of the world’s ecosystems."
sounded_good_but_no
October 10, 2020Okay, I would most likely never have read this book anyway, but chapter 3 of Mexico Unconquered begins with some of Sachs' ideas and basically says how far off base he is, so I'm going to quote/summarize some of John Gibler's comments from Mexico Unconquered.
Gibler quotes Sachs: "Let me dispose of one idea right from the start. Many people assume that the rich have gotten rich because the poor have gotten poor. In other words, they assume that Europe and the United States used military force and political strength during and after the era of colonialism to extract wealth from the poorest regions, and thereby to grow rich" (89). Gibler points out Sachs' immediate dismissal of this idea ("Let me dispose of one idea right from the start"), without even considering it or having a thought-out argument about it, as if "the idea has no basis in historical reality" (90). Strike one. Strike two: please prove to me that's wrong. If you're going to say that this is an unworthy view, tell me why it's not. Because, really, they did, right? Europe and the U.S. *did* use military force and political strength to extract wealth from areas and people who couldn't stand up to them.
Next: Sachs also says "The key fact of modern times is not the transfer of income from one region to another, by force or otherwise, but rather the overall increase in world income, but at a different rate in different regions" (qtd. p. 89). Gibler responds by saying that Sachs is basically considering enslavement, slaughter, land theft, and genocide as a "transfer of economic goods" (91). So, okay, you consider slave labor, land theft, etc., as a simple "transfer of income...by force," an "Oopsie, maybe they had to get rough a little." Also, an "increase in world income, but at a different rate in different regions" -- could those be the natives the Europeans took the land from, and the enslaved people they brought to work their ("their") new (Newly found! Look ma, I was just walking along, and tripped over this land that didn't belong to anyone! Can I keep it?) land? That's definitely a different rate in income: the natives and slaves had a rate of 0 (more like a rate of a negative number, what with their own resources and land being taken away from them), while the Europeans had an actual positive rate, and both situations have continued.
Gibler later quotes Sachs as saying "The Americans, for example, believe that they earned their wealth all by themselves. They forget that they inherited a vast continent rich in natural resources..." (92). Sachs seems to believe that the Americans inherited their land and resources. He forgets that the European explorers came over and forcibly took the land and resources away from the people who were living here, forced them off their home lands, forced people from other continents to come to this land and work the natural resources, and neglected to let them be free or own their own land, which, for both of these non-European groups, led to them living -- and continuing to live, thanks to years and years of systemic racism -- in poverty.
Sachs also says that the "white man's burden" was "the right and obligation of European and European-descended whites to rule the lives of others..." (qtd. p. 92-93). Now, Gibler takes offense to a different part of the quote, which I haven't included, and at first, I did, too, but on re-reading, I wonder if Sachs is actually making the same point Gibler is, but not as strongly. Still, my problem is with the white man's burden being "the right and obligation" of the white men. Not *perceived* right and obligation, or "they saw it as their right and obligation"; Sachs uses no language to imply or state that this was *their* view; he makes it sound like he's right there with them that The White Man's Burden Is To Civilize Everyone Else, And That's Just HOW IT IS. True, Sachs calls The White Man's Burden "infamous," but ... can we throw a qualifier like "perceived" or "they thought" or "they felt like" in there?
Based on just these few passages that Gibler quotes, as well as his overall summary of Sachs' book and the fantasy world he seems to be living in, I can't imagine what other tripe is in Sachs' arguments.
Gibler quotes Sachs: "Let me dispose of one idea right from the start. Many people assume that the rich have gotten rich because the poor have gotten poor. In other words, they assume that Europe and the United States used military force and political strength during and after the era of colonialism to extract wealth from the poorest regions, and thereby to grow rich" (89). Gibler points out Sachs' immediate dismissal of this idea ("Let me dispose of one idea right from the start"), without even considering it or having a thought-out argument about it, as if "the idea has no basis in historical reality" (90). Strike one. Strike two: please prove to me that's wrong. If you're going to say that this is an unworthy view, tell me why it's not. Because, really, they did, right? Europe and the U.S. *did* use military force and political strength to extract wealth from areas and people who couldn't stand up to them.
Next: Sachs also says "The key fact of modern times is not the transfer of income from one region to another, by force or otherwise, but rather the overall increase in world income, but at a different rate in different regions" (qtd. p. 89). Gibler responds by saying that Sachs is basically considering enslavement, slaughter, land theft, and genocide as a "transfer of economic goods" (91). So, okay, you consider slave labor, land theft, etc., as a simple "transfer of income...by force," an "Oopsie, maybe they had to get rough a little." Also, an "increase in world income, but at a different rate in different regions" -- could those be the natives the Europeans took the land from, and the enslaved people they brought to work their ("their") new (Newly found! Look ma, I was just walking along, and tripped over this land that didn't belong to anyone! Can I keep it?) land? That's definitely a different rate in income: the natives and slaves had a rate of 0 (more like a rate of a negative number, what with their own resources and land being taken away from them), while the Europeans had an actual positive rate, and both situations have continued.
Gibler later quotes Sachs as saying "The Americans, for example, believe that they earned their wealth all by themselves. They forget that they inherited a vast continent rich in natural resources..." (92). Sachs seems to believe that the Americans inherited their land and resources. He forgets that the European explorers came over and forcibly took the land and resources away from the people who were living here, forced them off their home lands, forced people from other continents to come to this land and work the natural resources, and neglected to let them be free or own their own land, which, for both of these non-European groups, led to them living -- and continuing to live, thanks to years and years of systemic racism -- in poverty.
Sachs also says that the "white man's burden" was "the right and obligation of European and European-descended whites to rule the lives of others..." (qtd. p. 92-93). Now, Gibler takes offense to a different part of the quote, which I haven't included, and at first, I did, too, but on re-reading, I wonder if Sachs is actually making the same point Gibler is, but not as strongly. Still, my problem is with the white man's burden being "the right and obligation" of the white men. Not *perceived* right and obligation, or "they saw it as their right and obligation"; Sachs uses no language to imply or state that this was *their* view; he makes it sound like he's right there with them that The White Man's Burden Is To Civilize Everyone Else, And That's Just HOW IT IS. True, Sachs calls The White Man's Burden "infamous," but ... can we throw a qualifier like "perceived" or "they thought" or "they felt like" in there?
Based on just these few passages that Gibler quotes, as well as his overall summary of Sachs' book and the fantasy world he seems to be living in, I can't imagine what other tripe is in Sachs' arguments.
February 3, 2022
Sachs is much criticized for his egoistic delivery, yet the book sounds insightful in its description of poor countries, their plight of poverty trap, and the unequal distribution of global wealth. He starkly blames developed nations for this inequality and appeals them to make difference through offering poor countries the opportunity to climb the “ladder of development”. Here is how the opportunity should be granted, according to Sachs.
Firstly, he appeals developed countries to cancel the debts given to poor countries simply because these paralyzing debts just cannot be repaid and even aggravate the costs of borrowing and financing. He requests developed nations to go the extra mile to offer modest developmental aids in addition to debt cancellation.
Secondly, poor countries should be given opportunities to participate in the global exports and free trade. This gives them the chance to sell goods to developed nations - the hard climbing process on to the “ladder of development” could begin here for poor countries, as Sachs explains.
He further suggests that the medicinal and agricultural science need to focus on the problems faced by poor countries too – for example, dengue fever is still an area less researched and resolved while diabetes is quite the opposite since it is a disease affecting developed nations as well. Similarly, he asks developed nations to bear greater responsibility for climate change quoting African continent which emits little carbon dioxide and consumes less energy, but the continent is unfairly affected by the global climate change.
The author’s equitable suggestions to end poverty seem insightful, but how to bring those developed nations agreed on this shared objective still appear gloomy. Definitely a good read.
Firstly, he appeals developed countries to cancel the debts given to poor countries simply because these paralyzing debts just cannot be repaid and even aggravate the costs of borrowing and financing. He requests developed nations to go the extra mile to offer modest developmental aids in addition to debt cancellation.
Secondly, poor countries should be given opportunities to participate in the global exports and free trade. This gives them the chance to sell goods to developed nations - the hard climbing process on to the “ladder of development” could begin here for poor countries, as Sachs explains.
He further suggests that the medicinal and agricultural science need to focus on the problems faced by poor countries too – for example, dengue fever is still an area less researched and resolved while diabetes is quite the opposite since it is a disease affecting developed nations as well. Similarly, he asks developed nations to bear greater responsibility for climate change quoting African continent which emits little carbon dioxide and consumes less energy, but the continent is unfairly affected by the global climate change.
The author’s equitable suggestions to end poverty seem insightful, but how to bring those developed nations agreed on this shared objective still appear gloomy. Definitely a good read.
June 5, 2014
As someone with a passion for helping the poor, I thought this book would be a worthwhile read. However, I walk away feeling like I listened to a broken record for the entire book.
Sachs' main thesis in my opinion is that poor countries need a fresh start via debt cancellation, coupled with an injection of ODA provided by the world's rich countries. He illustrated this argument 500 times in a variety of ways. His style was too confrontational and "I know best" for my liking. After hearing "me", "my", and "I" more times than I could count in the first half of the book, I was partially turned off.
Not only that, but Sachs managed to condemn more groups and individuals than he praised. Throughout the book, he gave a black eye to America, Americans, President Reagan, President Bush, Christians and other religious folks, the rich, Republicans, neoconservatives, and more. I imagined him coming to my door, punching me in the face, and then asking for my tax and personal dollars like nothing even happened.
My opinions of economists have not improved after reading Antifragile and Think Like a Freak. I sincerely wish the world met his challenge of giving 0.7% of GDP to see whether it would work or not. Economists can make predictions and give advice all they want, but life is not rational, predictable, or linear enough for them to work out a majority of the time.
For a balanced perspective and a book that was critical of Sachs conclusions, try Why Nations Fail. I also found Poor Economics to be much more readable and interesting, with more behavioral economics tie-ins.
Sachs' main thesis in my opinion is that poor countries need a fresh start via debt cancellation, coupled with an injection of ODA provided by the world's rich countries. He illustrated this argument 500 times in a variety of ways. His style was too confrontational and "I know best" for my liking. After hearing "me", "my", and "I" more times than I could count in the first half of the book, I was partially turned off.
Not only that, but Sachs managed to condemn more groups and individuals than he praised. Throughout the book, he gave a black eye to America, Americans, President Reagan, President Bush, Christians and other religious folks, the rich, Republicans, neoconservatives, and more. I imagined him coming to my door, punching me in the face, and then asking for my tax and personal dollars like nothing even happened.
My opinions of economists have not improved after reading Antifragile and Think Like a Freak. I sincerely wish the world met his challenge of giving 0.7% of GDP to see whether it would work or not. Economists can make predictions and give advice all they want, but life is not rational, predictable, or linear enough for them to work out a majority of the time.
For a balanced perspective and a book that was critical of Sachs conclusions, try Why Nations Fail. I also found Poor Economics to be much more readable and interesting, with more behavioral economics tie-ins.
July 26, 2011
I was more impressed by this book than I thought I would be. My distaste for Jeffery Sachs stems from his intervention in Eastern Europe specifically Poland where I thought his "shock therapy" was unnecessary and determintal to people as much as it was good for macroeconomic statistics. His blase dismissal of the middle age workforce he acknowledged was disrupted and hurt by his policies did little to impress me. The first part of the book recounts his Polish and other experiences and are far more interesting than the second part where he lays out in an alphabet soup of agencies, reports and goals that he thinks may be helpful. Its apparent that he has learned from his experience and is less market inclined thah he was initially. However, he still fails to credit non-market policies when he should. India's jump into the IT world as opposed to the traditional sweatshop labour of most Third World countries stems from Nehru's education policies. Nehru fails to recieve proper credit and is dismissed as the License Raj for his fondness of bureacracy.
September 11, 2007
Oh Jeff...can I call you Jeff? No? Ok. Dr. Sachs, you're ideas are way too lofty and boring, but you're really enthusiastic about them so everyone likes you. I only think you're OK. What happens when all of Bono's money goes into the pockets of corrupt dictators? Will he be able to afford more sunglasses so he can continue to have pictures of himself taken with brown kids in the bright African sun? I think he will. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs in those bright African places will continue stay stagnant and poor.
November 11, 2023
I started reading this book with a great deal of suspicion. I doubted whether it is still relevant at all, seeing that it was published close to 20 years ago. Even more importantly though, I had automatically assumed it to be yet another book written by a rich white man speaking from a moral high ground speaking about what countries of the Global South should and shouldn’t be doing.
Well, I was wrong. Firstly, it was almost shocking to see how relevant this book is still, as the challenges that our world faces when it comes to eradicating poverty remain very much the same (endemic diseases, poor infrastructure, etc.). Similarly, the solution is still the same - in Sach’s terms, that means rapidly increasing official development aid. Therefore, rather than telling countries besieged by poverty what to do, he actually calls on the rich countries (and the super rich elites) to do more. The book is essentially an account on why that is so crucial and has to be done despite the many excuses made by the West. Moreover, he shares his personal story about working towards this goal and inspires us to do our share because as he puts it by recalling John F. Kennedy’s call to action: great social forces are the mere accumulation of individual actions.
Well, I was wrong. Firstly, it was almost shocking to see how relevant this book is still, as the challenges that our world faces when it comes to eradicating poverty remain very much the same (endemic diseases, poor infrastructure, etc.). Similarly, the solution is still the same - in Sach’s terms, that means rapidly increasing official development aid. Therefore, rather than telling countries besieged by poverty what to do, he actually calls on the rich countries (and the super rich elites) to do more. The book is essentially an account on why that is so crucial and has to be done despite the many excuses made by the West. Moreover, he shares his personal story about working towards this goal and inspires us to do our share because as he puts it by recalling John F. Kennedy’s call to action: great social forces are the mere accumulation of individual actions.
December 22, 2025
it took me almost three months to get through this, but as someone who has just begun their journey of studying economics, i think i can definitely say that it's one of the most important books i've ever read and will ever read. sachs holds global superpowers accountable for their lack of funding, while giving perfectly logical and more importantly, sound reasonings for all his arguments. his focus on the economic impact of social issues and vice versa only further fleshes out his points, and helps gain a deeper, more insightful understanding into the points he puts forth. it's maddening and upsetting that extreme poverty has not ended yet globally, especially since he said it could end in 2025 twenty years ago when this book was published, but the fact that this still remains a possibility left me with an extremely important sentiment: hope.
January 24, 2022
Extremely detailed analysis pointing towards why and how extreme poverty still pervades in the 21st century. Professor Sachs cites actionable steps that can eradicate extreme poverty in this lifetime. There needs to be more like-minded influential policymakers/economists championing this cause like Professor Sachs.
August 28, 2008
Generation X seems to have missed out on causes greater than ourselves. The Greatest Generation had World War II. The baby boomers had efforts to overcome racial discrimination and end the war in Vietnam. Gen X'ers have enjoyed economic prosperity and although there were events going on in the world where we should have stood up and rallied the nation around the need to do the right thing (ending genocide in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur come to mind), we opted to continue the materialistic pursuits chronicled in the media during our formative years in the '80s and exemplified by the movie Wall Street ("Greed is good").
Sachs outlines a cause we can and should all support, namely, ending extreme poverty in the world within 30 years. As an econ major, I enjoyed reviewing the figures Sachs provided, but I know that certain sections of the book are dry reading for many. Regardless, the case is clearly made that as lofty as his stated goal may sound, it is more than possible. It is entirely realistic, but it will require that the US stand behind its commitments to the global community. If we simply allocate 0.7% of the world's GDP to a concerted effort to improve infrastructure, technology, and farming methods in Africa and Asia, extreme poverty will no longer exist on this planet.
How do you rally the nations of the world around this cause? One convert at a time. And it begins by reading this book.
Sachs outlines a cause we can and should all support, namely, ending extreme poverty in the world within 30 years. As an econ major, I enjoyed reviewing the figures Sachs provided, but I know that certain sections of the book are dry reading for many. Regardless, the case is clearly made that as lofty as his stated goal may sound, it is more than possible. It is entirely realistic, but it will require that the US stand behind its commitments to the global community. If we simply allocate 0.7% of the world's GDP to a concerted effort to improve infrastructure, technology, and farming methods in Africa and Asia, extreme poverty will no longer exist on this planet.
How do you rally the nations of the world around this cause? One convert at a time. And it begins by reading this book.
October 8, 2018
Note: Old review. TEOP may be canon in the development field but should merely be read as a starting point, or perhaps a snapshot of development theory in the early 2000s from a simplistic liberal econ perspective.
-----------------
I strongly believe that this is an important book to read for everyone of our generation. Although Sachs at times seems like an ideologist, I share his sentiments and I am grateful for how his book portrays that ending extreme poverty is within our grasp- and probably a lot simpler than we think. His experiences weave a compelling narrative which provides generalized but valuable lessons on development work. His check-list approach to the causes of (and solutions to) poverty is widely discredited for being overly simplistic and essentializing, and many disagree with his old 'shock therapy' approach (which he has supposedly distanced himself from in later years), but 'The End of Poverty' remains an important starting point in the development studies literature.
-----------------
I strongly believe that this is an important book to read for everyone of our generation. Although Sachs at times seems like an ideologist, I share his sentiments and I am grateful for how his book portrays that ending extreme poverty is within our grasp- and probably a lot simpler than we think. His experiences weave a compelling narrative which provides generalized but valuable lessons on development work. His check-list approach to the causes of (and solutions to) poverty is widely discredited for being overly simplistic and essentializing, and many disagree with his old 'shock therapy' approach (which he has supposedly distanced himself from in later years), but 'The End of Poverty' remains an important starting point in the development studies literature.
October 21, 2020
Aprendi muito!!!
Bem mais técnico do que achei que fosse!
Sacks trouxe o porque de existir a pobreza absoluta em alguns lugares do mundo, e de forma concreta como poderíamos resolver. Trouxe muito da vivência dele como consultor financeiro em países que estavam buscando uma reconstrução econômica (e alguns, política).
Enfim, Sacks é alguém que vale a pena ouvir quando o assunto é o que podemos fazer pra combater a pobreza. Como economista, trabalhou com órgãos importantíssimos (ou que deveriam ser) no combate à pobreza e saúde, educação...então tem conhecimento técnico, empatia, e viveu na prática as dificuldade e as conquistas em muitos lugares do globo!!
Bem mais técnico do que achei que fosse!
Sacks trouxe o porque de existir a pobreza absoluta em alguns lugares do mundo, e de forma concreta como poderíamos resolver. Trouxe muito da vivência dele como consultor financeiro em países que estavam buscando uma reconstrução econômica (e alguns, política).
Enfim, Sacks é alguém que vale a pena ouvir quando o assunto é o que podemos fazer pra combater a pobreza. Como economista, trabalhou com órgãos importantíssimos (ou que deveriam ser) no combate à pobreza e saúde, educação...então tem conhecimento técnico, empatia, e viveu na prática as dificuldade e as conquistas em muitos lugares do globo!!
July 17, 2019
I read this book several years ago as an undergrad and picked it up at a garage sale to re-read. Although I do think several of Sachs ideas have merit, I couldn’t get over some of the language he used to describe African countries. In addition to painting a very general picture of the continent, I found his description propagated the narrative of Africa being a “dark” continent in need of “saving”. To his credit, he has done some very important work - especially related to health (HIV/AIDS) but I do think the way he speaks about poverty contributes to a colonial/white saviour narrative.
April 20, 2008
A new way to think of global economics, for sure. I need some time to process his concept of capitalism with a heart as the best vehicle for social justice. I can respect the way Sachs tries to find a middle ground between dog-eat-dog free-market systems and closed authoritarian systems. A little repetitive at the end and not super well-written.
September 20, 2013
A rallying whimper
JDN 24565554 PDT 20:54.
A review of The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs
This should have been one of the greatest books ever written. It should have been the rallying cry for a radical new approach to global development, a seminal advance in what it means to do economics—it should have been quite literally a book to save a billion lives.
And make no mistake, Jeffrey Sachs has a project that really does have the potential to have that kind of impact. But The End of Poverty doesn't quite manage to sell that project, for reasons that are not all that easy to pin down.
I think part of the problem is that Sachs was trained as a neoclassical economist and hasn't quite managed to break free from this indoctrination. This makes Sachs, and thus The End of Poverty, of two minds: On the one hand he wants to say that the Washington Consensus has failed, capitalism is in crisis, and we are approaching a fundamental paradigm shift in development economics. On the other hand, he keeps talking about market incentives and rational expectations, and dismisses socialism as an obvious failure—even though many of the reforms he wants are in some sense socialist reforms. I couldn't find the passage when I looked back to quote it, but there's even a section where he talks about the shift from communism to capitalism and says "only then did unemployment emerge" and makes it sound like a good thing. It's really bizarre; rather than saying, "Yes, these workers had to bear the pain of unemployment, but in the long run the market reforms were necessary and made everyone better off," he actually speaks as though he thinks laying off all those state employees was intrinsically beneficial.
At the end of the book he calls upon us to see past narrow self-interest and work to create the world we want to live in. This is exactly right; and like him, I do believe it is possible. But in earlier pages he talks about how collective farms obviously fail because they don't have market incentives... and I find myself asking, "Well, why couldn't they see past narrow self-interest?"
Much of what Sachs says is not only right, it is desperately needed. His message sounds like a pipe dream—ending poverty in less than 20 years?—but his economic sophistication is undeniable. He not only shows how it can be done, he calculates how much it would cost and what would be the most efficient way to pay for it. The number he derives is now widely accepted by development economists, yet so few laypeople comprehend it: $100 billion per year. 0.7% of GDP. That's how much the United States would need to spend; the rest of the First World, mostly Europe and Japan, would add another $100 billion. And that's it. That's all it would take. For less than 1% of our total income, we could end extreme poverty forever.
Now, to be fair, this is extreme poverty—it's the kind of crushing poverty that leaves you starving in a rusting shack made of corrugated steel in a slum by the train tracks in Ghana. Sachs is not proposing to eliminate relative poverty—the dramatic difference between the richest and the poorest in the US—and it's not clear whether his plan would even fully eradicate absolute poverty—the state in which some people don't have enough to meet their basic needs. There are some things that might be considered "basic needs", especially in a First World society (like electricity, transportation, and dentistry) that might still remain out of reach for some of the world's poor. But Sachs' proposal really does have a serious chance of ensuring that everyone in the world has food to eat, water to drink, shelter to live in, and basic medical care. Sachs asks us to imagine a world without starvation or malaria, and then provides concrete steps we could take right now to get us closer to that world.
The problem is, Sachs appears torn between the neoclassical concept of selfishness and an idealistic concept of altruism. What he needs is a fundamentally new paradigm, something that is neither selfishness nor altruism—what he needs is what I call the tribal paradigm. Humans are not selfish individual utility maximizers; indeed, one would have to be a psychopath to act that way. But nor are we selfless altruists, giving everything we have to anyone who asks. The default setting for human moral intuition is tribalism—it is to think in terms of an "in group" that we are altruistic toward, and an "out group" that we are not. Put another way, our unit of rational action is the tribe, not the individual.
I'm actually working on how I might work this into an empirical paper or an econometric argument—perhaps my master's thesis will ultimately be titled, "The Tribal Paradigm"—but for now, let me offer some illustrative examples.
Are racists selfish? Is it acting in your self-interest to hate Black people? No, it isn't. Indeed, the reason neoclassicists have thus far utterly failed to explain or respond to racism is that it couldn't exist within their model of human behavior. There would always be a market incentive to not be racist, because whatever the color of their skin, the color of their money is the same. But does this mean racists are altruistic? It certainly seems odd to say so; if they're such altruists, shouldn't they be nicer to Black people? The answer is that they are tribalists—they are altruistic to their in-group (White people) and not to those outside it.
Here's another example, particularly relevant to economics: We often speak of "the firm" or "firms" as economic agents with well-defined interests and actions. Sometimes we speak of "the government" in a similar way. But for fundamental game-theory reasons, there's no reason to think that the interests of a firm are the same as the interests of any individual in that firm, or even necessarily an aggregate of all their interests put together. Yet we can with some accuracy predict the behavior of firms by assuming they are self-interested agents; how? Because sometimes people identify with the company as their tribe. And let's be honest: Who in the US government doesn't think of the US government, or the American people as a whole, as their tribe? You have to at least convincingly fake such tribalism to even be elected—we call this "patriotism".
I certainly hope Sachs succeeds. I just wish he were a little better at selling it.
JDN 24565554 PDT 20:54.
A review of The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs
This should have been one of the greatest books ever written. It should have been the rallying cry for a radical new approach to global development, a seminal advance in what it means to do economics—it should have been quite literally a book to save a billion lives.
And make no mistake, Jeffrey Sachs has a project that really does have the potential to have that kind of impact. But The End of Poverty doesn't quite manage to sell that project, for reasons that are not all that easy to pin down.
I think part of the problem is that Sachs was trained as a neoclassical economist and hasn't quite managed to break free from this indoctrination. This makes Sachs, and thus The End of Poverty, of two minds: On the one hand he wants to say that the Washington Consensus has failed, capitalism is in crisis, and we are approaching a fundamental paradigm shift in development economics. On the other hand, he keeps talking about market incentives and rational expectations, and dismisses socialism as an obvious failure—even though many of the reforms he wants are in some sense socialist reforms. I couldn't find the passage when I looked back to quote it, but there's even a section where he talks about the shift from communism to capitalism and says "only then did unemployment emerge" and makes it sound like a good thing. It's really bizarre; rather than saying, "Yes, these workers had to bear the pain of unemployment, but in the long run the market reforms were necessary and made everyone better off," he actually speaks as though he thinks laying off all those state employees was intrinsically beneficial.
At the end of the book he calls upon us to see past narrow self-interest and work to create the world we want to live in. This is exactly right; and like him, I do believe it is possible. But in earlier pages he talks about how collective farms obviously fail because they don't have market incentives... and I find myself asking, "Well, why couldn't they see past narrow self-interest?"
Much of what Sachs says is not only right, it is desperately needed. His message sounds like a pipe dream—ending poverty in less than 20 years?—but his economic sophistication is undeniable. He not only shows how it can be done, he calculates how much it would cost and what would be the most efficient way to pay for it. The number he derives is now widely accepted by development economists, yet so few laypeople comprehend it: $100 billion per year. 0.7% of GDP. That's how much the United States would need to spend; the rest of the First World, mostly Europe and Japan, would add another $100 billion. And that's it. That's all it would take. For less than 1% of our total income, we could end extreme poverty forever.
Now, to be fair, this is extreme poverty—it's the kind of crushing poverty that leaves you starving in a rusting shack made of corrugated steel in a slum by the train tracks in Ghana. Sachs is not proposing to eliminate relative poverty—the dramatic difference between the richest and the poorest in the US—and it's not clear whether his plan would even fully eradicate absolute poverty—the state in which some people don't have enough to meet their basic needs. There are some things that might be considered "basic needs", especially in a First World society (like electricity, transportation, and dentistry) that might still remain out of reach for some of the world's poor. But Sachs' proposal really does have a serious chance of ensuring that everyone in the world has food to eat, water to drink, shelter to live in, and basic medical care. Sachs asks us to imagine a world without starvation or malaria, and then provides concrete steps we could take right now to get us closer to that world.
The problem is, Sachs appears torn between the neoclassical concept of selfishness and an idealistic concept of altruism. What he needs is a fundamentally new paradigm, something that is neither selfishness nor altruism—what he needs is what I call the tribal paradigm. Humans are not selfish individual utility maximizers; indeed, one would have to be a psychopath to act that way. But nor are we selfless altruists, giving everything we have to anyone who asks. The default setting for human moral intuition is tribalism—it is to think in terms of an "in group" that we are altruistic toward, and an "out group" that we are not. Put another way, our unit of rational action is the tribe, not the individual.
I'm actually working on how I might work this into an empirical paper or an econometric argument—perhaps my master's thesis will ultimately be titled, "The Tribal Paradigm"—but for now, let me offer some illustrative examples.
Are racists selfish? Is it acting in your self-interest to hate Black people? No, it isn't. Indeed, the reason neoclassicists have thus far utterly failed to explain or respond to racism is that it couldn't exist within their model of human behavior. There would always be a market incentive to not be racist, because whatever the color of their skin, the color of their money is the same. But does this mean racists are altruistic? It certainly seems odd to say so; if they're such altruists, shouldn't they be nicer to Black people? The answer is that they are tribalists—they are altruistic to their in-group (White people) and not to those outside it.
Here's another example, particularly relevant to economics: We often speak of "the firm" or "firms" as economic agents with well-defined interests and actions. Sometimes we speak of "the government" in a similar way. But for fundamental game-theory reasons, there's no reason to think that the interests of a firm are the same as the interests of any individual in that firm, or even necessarily an aggregate of all their interests put together. Yet we can with some accuracy predict the behavior of firms by assuming they are self-interested agents; how? Because sometimes people identify with the company as their tribe. And let's be honest: Who in the US government doesn't think of the US government, or the American people as a whole, as their tribe? You have to at least convincingly fake such tribalism to even be elected—we call this "patriotism".
I certainly hope Sachs succeeds. I just wish he were a little better at selling it.
September 14, 2017
I found Jeffrey Sachs' The End of Poverty to be extremely enlightening and informative on the issues of poverty, globalization, and the issues developing countries face that prevent them to achieve the first steps towards economic development. I'll admit to having no prior knowledge or experience in this area, especially in economics. There were parts of the book where I became confused by the data explained and density of the writing, but, in general, Sachs' ideas are easy to comprehend and clarified in very specific detail. Sachs shows how all issues, like climate, health, poverty, technology, etc., are interconnected and effective different communities. Sachs passionately argues on what the reader and the global community can do to help improve the conditions of impoverished countries and communities. Additionally in the book, Sachs describes his work as an economist and advisor to other countries, like Bolivia, Poland, and India. His recount of his experience in those countries are fascinating to read about and I don't find myself saying that often about economics. This book was thorough, thoughtful, and gave the reader information that appears very practical to implement. After finishing The End of Poverty , I definitely felt Sachs' call to action to end extreme poverty.
April 28, 2025
Maybe 7.5 or 8/10. In-depth book review out later. This is just a brain dump
I enjoyed reading the book but still have my reservations.
I liked reading about his approach to economic advising for diff countries. I need to do more research about the longterm results of his advising (especially with his shock-approach in Poland, since most people seem to not like that) before I can adequately review the book & critique Sach’s suggestions.
I agree that to alleviate extreme poverty, we need to focus on a longterm, detailed plan to help nations get out of the poverty trap instead of just handing them aid $$ and hoping for the best. Some of the solutions I liked, others I need more convincing.
But I’ll write more later. I still recommend to read it — just w/ a critical eye (which is how you should approach all books)
I enjoyed reading the book but still have my reservations.
I liked reading about his approach to economic advising for diff countries. I need to do more research about the longterm results of his advising (especially with his shock-approach in Poland, since most people seem to not like that) before I can adequately review the book & critique Sach’s suggestions.
I agree that to alleviate extreme poverty, we need to focus on a longterm, detailed plan to help nations get out of the poverty trap instead of just handing them aid $$ and hoping for the best. Some of the solutions I liked, others I need more convincing.
But I’ll write more later. I still recommend to read it — just w/ a critical eye (which is how you should approach all books)
January 12, 2023
I think everything I have to say is better said by other reviewers (Especially Doug Henwood, review here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/... and Nina Munk’s The Idealist, summarized here: https://psmag.com/social-justice/smar...). I would encourage anyone who thinks that Sach’s neoliberal economics would save the world take a look at Sach’s history both before the book and after in his Millenium Villages. When I read the book, I thought he was a kind although misguided economist trying to fit the problems of the world into his economic framework. After looking at other reviewers and getting a broader perspective, it seems that Sachs is an egomaniac who wants to be known not for saving the world, but for someone years from now to say he was right, despite ignoring evidence that could harm his arguments.
March 22, 2018
Well written and intriguing, but I was looking for more of a boots on the ground directive of how to help those in poverty. This does give a great overview of the history and the situation and the fix.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 796 reviews