Teams With No Winners
By Ryan Decker

Growing up in Colorado, I was a loyal fan of the Denver Broncos. I engaged in typical fan behavior: I defended my team’s actions and blamed officials when penalties were imposed and I interpreted any announcers’ criticisms of my team as evidence of bias. Losses were the fault of the officials, the dirty play of the other team, and maybe a rogue player; but the team itself was not guilty. Were the playing field “even” my team would have always won.

This mentality is also present in our political culture. Rather than being vehicles for strategic solutions to policy problems, Republican and Democratic parties are teams with loyal fans who demonstrate the same behavior as dogmatic sports enthusiasts. For the fans, elections are only lost due to media bias or rogue players, moral outrage is only expressed when scandals are committed by the other team, and, most importantly, any actions which may benefit the other team are opposed regardless of their potential benefit to the welfare of the country. The result is a deliberately uninformed electorate which supports Washington team posturing at the expense of sound solutions to problems.

Team voters choose to consume only information and opinion that supports their team. For conservatives, sources like CNN and the New York Times are clearly biased; instead they get news and commentary from the Wall Street Journal and Rush Limbaugh (think of Glenn Beck’s condescending “Here’s What You Need To Know” segment). For liberals, Fox News is a joke, but the reporting of Campbell Brown, Slate, and Huffington Post is “quality analysis.” Some fans want to appear open minded, so they consume the other team’s media; but only to trumpet it as more evidence for the existence of media bias. Valid arguments from the other team are discounted or ignored, but arguments for “our team” are adopted indiscriminately from any source that shouts them. Habits of uncritical evaluation render fans unable to conduct their own fact-finding and analysis without simply repeating the dogma of their team’s talking heads, resulting in a subconsciously biased, uninformed electorate more interested in chanting phrases like “Yes We Can” or “Support Our Troops,” which have been stripped of any meaning by their detachment from reality and nuance, than in really understanding the complexities of events and conditions.

This continual proliferation of unsophisticated analysis is evident in the way team members respond to the actions of their leaders. Since the talking heads of the Right angrily deny the existence and consequences of climate change (largely because the Democrats do the opposite), conservative fans ignore scientific consensus in favor of an eclectic scientific minority. When conservative hero Rush Limbaugh remarked that he hopes Obama fails, his fans forgot that just a few short years ago they attacked “unpatriotic” liberals who would not support the president’s controversial policies. Liberal fans of Obama and the Democrats mindlessly parroted his big promises to bring dramatic changes to foreign policy, but they do not seem to have noticed that Obama’s policies for Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and what Robert Kagan has sarcastically called “the activity formerly known as the War on Terror” are substantively nearly identical to Bush’s. Fans of both teams are told by their leaders what events and conditions look like, and they accept the party line with Orwellian devotion.

The misinformed echo chamber of fan opinion enables team behavior to dominate even high politics and elections. Lawmakers and candidates choose sides with or against ideas based on which team proposed them instead of what would benefit the country.

Obama and the Democrats opposed the Iraq troop surge because the other team, Republicans, proposed the idea. They resorted to irrational discussion of the original invasion instead of analysis of the marginal benefits of increased troop presence. As evidence mounted that the surge was helping, Team Democrat had to spin the news and oppose the progress. Fans allowed their team loyalty to determine who they listened to and what they believed, effectively ignoring both the facts of the issue and the hypocrisy of their team. Similar inanities occur for issues like trade protectionism and wealth redistribution. Indoctrinated fans of the Left do not mind the team posturing; rather, they encourage it by parroting the platitudes of team superstars.

During the Republican primaries, accusations by team heroes (like Romney, Beck, Limbaugh, and Coulter) that McCain was a closet member of Team Liberal (a “RINO”) led to considerable weakness in the general election. Instead of developing an attractive platform to attract desperately needed moderate voters, McCain spent time and money affirming his team loyalty by abandoning pragmatic positions on immigration and taxation; and he selected team loyalist Sarah Palin as his running mate, who affirmed the ticket’s conservativism but cost McCain precious moderate votes. When important team members like Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley jumped (the sinking) ship and endorsed Obama, conservatives labeled them as traitors instead of considering whether their concerns about Team Republican were valid. This deliberate failure to appeal to moderate voters was suicide for an unpopular GOP. The willingness of conservative power brokers to sacrifice electability for team loyalty shows that the actual implementation of sound policies is less important to them than protecting their status and projecting their influence as team entertainers.

We face an exploding national debt which threatens our credibility and future growth, we are precariously dependent on oil prices which fund the aggressive policies of Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, and we face a looming healthcare entitlement crisis; but team politics demands that these problems must go unsolved. As Harvard’s Michael Porter has lamented, “Washington is fundamentally broken. There’s literally no strategic thinking. There’s no capacity to take coordinated long-term action.” Politicians are more focused on scoring points for their team than on developing long-term solutions to difficult problems. Team leaders are chosen not based on their expertise in public policy but on their eloquence in articulating team dogma and making voters feel like they are valuable team members.

Partisan, team-centered behavior eliminates the need and ability for critical thinking and enables the Washington dog and pony show to go in circles indefinitely. The US cannot make pragmatic policies unless we break this culture of team politics. Policies and candidates should be judged on their merits instead of supported or rejected based on their supporters’ team identification. Blatant actions of team loyalty which harm America’s interests should be exposed and shamed. Failing to do so reduces the American political process to something as intellectually honest and insightful as cheering at a sporting match.

Ryan is majoring in Economics and Political Science.

Complacent Terrorism
By Jason Frost

Since the beginning of 2008, over 7,000 Mexicans have been brutally murdered in violent acts of terrorism.  Calloused cartels have created a dangerous environment that threatens the stability of the Mexican state.  It is commonplace for children to see bodies strewn in the streets, or to hear gunshots during school.  Burned bodies hang from bridges, serving as a bold warning to those who dare challenge the power of the drug lords.  Sadly, few Americans are aware of Mexico’s drug-related violence. While the US expresses support for the Mexican government, it has become a complacent sponsor of terrorism by continuing to fund both sides of the struggle; unfortunately, the narco-terrorists are winning.

In June 2007, President Bush and President Calderon signed the Merida Initiative, in which the US government promised to grant Mexico over $500 million in equipment, training, and oversight to aid Mexico’s anti-drug campaign.  Regrettably, cartel revenue dwarfs American aid.  Officials estimate that drug consumers within the United States contribute at least $12 billion to cartel coffers.  The drug lords invest in research and development meant to perfect production and smuggling techniques.  Although the Mexican military is the recipient of American funding, the drug cartels remain one step ahead.  Every day 2,000 firearms cross the US border into Mexico.  The cartels do not traffic small arms; rather, they deal anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers, and high-powered machine guns.  The cartels have become better funded, better trained, and more skilled than the Mexican military.  Furthermore, the sagging US economy has encouraged many Mexicans to return to their homeland.  However, with few prospects of prosperity at home, they turn to the prosperous drug trade.  Consequently, while national economies shrink, the black market thrives, continuing to provide ample job opportunities.

Mexico’s cartel violence poses a serious threat to the United States. The Washington Times reports that CIA officials rank Mexico as the third greatest national security threat to the United States, behind Iran and Pakistan.  The cartels would be weakened if they were not allowed to flourish within the US.  Already, there have been cases of cartel-related murders and kidnappings in Houston. The cartels have cells in over 200 US cities, they have developed a trafficking system that is capable of evading our most advanced detection techniques, and they are able to buy and smuggle illegal power-weapons across the border.

There are no straightforward solutions to this complex dilemma. Mexico’s cartel problem is fueled by socio-economic deficiencies, weaknesses in drug policy, and free trade issues.  Some suggest that the cartels’ success requires a complete lock-down of the US-Mexico border.  This is logistically impossible and naive.  Closing the borders or severely restricting passage by implementing strict inspection techniques would cripple free trade and erase NAFTA’s accomplishments, which have benefitted both the US and Mexico over the past fifteen years.  Others suggest that the US should offer more direct military and political assistance.  However, Mexican lawmakers are weary of US involvement and are likely to cite sovereignty concerns as reasons for rejecting such aid.  In addition, Congress is unlikely to approve military aid due to the economic crisis and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Also, some Americans will argue that the US should let Mexico solve its own problem.  This attitude is not only imprudent, but also fails to recognize America’s complicity in the drug war: Mexico may supply the drugs, but without US demand the Mexican drug economy would wither.

Despite the variety of opinions, few seriously consider a more effective–albeit controversial–solution: drug legalization.  Since the Nixon administration, the US government has ineffectively fought the supply side of the drug trade.  Demand side remedies, such as prevention and rehabilitation programs, have proven futile and strict drug laws have clogged our prisons with addicts who resume their drug habits when they return to the streets.  By legalizing certain drugs, the government will be able to suffocate the black market and consequently exercise more control over drug distribution.  Under the current system, any teenager can walk into a dark alley and purchase contaminated drugs.  Eliminating the black market will severely cut into cartel revenues.  The Mexican military will only be able to defeat the narco-terrorists when the cartels are economically weakened.  A legal drug industry would be taxable and subject to strict regulation. Legalization will allow government to treat addiction as a health problem rather than a felony, which could actually result in less dependence.  In the early 20th century the United States suffered a sharp increase in organized crime as a byproduct of prohibition.  America responded by passing the 21st amendment.  Drug legislation will be framed as a moral hazard, but reality is more complex than moralistic arguments.  Hard drugs are vulgar and destructive, but so are the cartels.  Drug consumers can choose to destroy their health, whereas innocent civilians in Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana are involuntarily trapped in a war zone.  Mexicans have suffered from America’s drug addiction for far too long.

As noted in The Economist, “prohibition has failed and legislation is the least bad solution.” If the United States and Mexico continue to concentrate their efforts on the supply side of the drug trade, more lives and money will be lost. Perhaps drug legalization is too progressive to become a reality; yet, the fact remains that Mexico’s drug war will be won north of the border.  Until the US eliminates its demand for illegal drugs, Mexico will continue its struggle against narco-terrorism — a struggle that may soon become ours.

Jason is a senior from East Hartford, Connecticut majoring in Political Science.

Lapdogs and Lashkars: The Pakistani Problem
By Troy Anderson

Eight years after their defeat in Afghanistan following the September 11th attacks, the Taliban have won a crucial victory. Since their removal from Afghanistan, these extremist militants have fought to control the mountainous tribal regions of Pakistan, with violence intensifying in late 2007.  On February 16—after more than a year of hard fighting—the Pakistani government offered the Taliban a truce.  In this compromise, perhaps better termed as surrender, the Pakistani government gave the Taliban control of the Swat Valley. This valley had previously voted in overwhelming support of secular democracy. However, the Pakistani government agreed to a cease-fire that will allow radical Islam rule in the valley

Taliban control is not merely an inconvenience.  It is not an unfavorable result of a democratic election.  Taliban rule is a bloody campaign of terror, intended to suppress the population and provide haven for terrorism.  As part of their tactics, the militants have murdered hundreds in the region; beheading is their favorite method of execution.  Each night, the Taliban announce over the radio the names of those whom they have killed and of those whom they plan to kill.  Flogging, arson, and decapitation are shockingly commonplace.

The residents of Swat Valley can recount thousands of stories of oppression, fear, and cruelty—far more than one article can detail.  Islamist retaliation is not limited to military and government officials, and no innocent residents are safe.  In September 2008, insurgents stormed the estate of Iqbal Ahmed Khan, a brother of a provincial official.  The insurgents forced Mr. Khan at gunpoint to choose which of his two sons they would kill and which they would spare.  After this cruel humiliation, the militants shot both of Mr. Khan’s sons in front of him.  Next they killed his seven servants, and finally executed Mr. Khan himself.

At the moment, the Pakistani government has given up fighting the Taliban.  Peace-loving politicians have conceded the control of Swat, leaving the Taliban free to degrade, torture, and murder whomever they please.

Of course, the Pakistani military has struggled against the Taliban for more than a year.  As insurgents have gained strength in Afghanistan and the mountain regions of Pakistan, the Pakistani government has attempted to suppress militant activity.  Even now, government forces in Swat outnumber the Taliban by nearly four to one.  Despite this, the extremists have proven powerful enough to endure.  Recognizing the failures of government forces to combat the Taliban, the Pakistanis cast their eyes about for help…provided that it isn’t American.

At a time when the Taliban are increasing in strength, the United States is overeager to fight them.  Counter to Pakistanis’ desires, American missiles and unmanned drones continue to bombard suspected Taliban targets. American forces repeatedly offer—or rather, request—to conduct ground raids into Taliban lands.  Surely the Taliban, resilient though they are, could not stand against the full might of American forces.  But the Pakistanis have refused.

After the failure of the eighth largest military in the world, the Pakistani government called upon the Lashkars, or disorganized tribal militias. Armed with weapons from the early 1980s, these untrained, inexperienced Lashkars proved an inferior force to the battle-hardened Taliban.  Resistance has led to the assassinations of hundreds of tribal elders, and these murders have crippled the morale of the militia.

If Pakistan continues to refuse the aid of the world’s most powerful force, their unproven and incapable militia will fail against the Taliban. Hundreds will be executed, thousands beaten, and more than a million repressed.  Terrorism will increase, leading to strikes in neighboring regions such as Afghanistan and India.  So why will the Pakistanis not permit American assistance?

Unfortunately, the involvement of American forces in the Middle East and central Asia has fostered this resistance.  An unfortunate side effect of democracy is that politics interfere with policy: the government must always consider popular Pakistani opinion— and this means avoiding American influence as much as possible.

In August 2008, Asif Ali Zardari replaced Pervez Musharraf as Pakistani President. Musharraf was widely viewed as an American lapdog—a distinction which Zardari is desperate to avoid.  Musharraf’s unpopularity derived from perceived weakness in generally complying with American requests.  In order for Zardari to unify an unstable and divided Pakistani government, he must be a strong leader; in order to be a strong leader he must avoid appearing to be an American lapdog.

This problem is self-perpetuating.  Anti-American sentiments thrive as a result of civilian casualties from American bombs aimed at terrorists. Pakistani officials refuse to allow American ground operations because of anti-American sentiments. Americans fire missiles because Pakistani officials refuse to permit ground operations—and anti-American sentiments grow because of civilian casualties from those missiles.   The United States cannot allow the Taliban to further expand. Even in the absence of Pakistani government clearance, the United States must continue unmanned aerial strikes. However, this will further alienate the Pakistani people and government.

The only way to break this cycle is for Pakistan to accept help from American forces.  Already, the Lashkars and the Pakistani military have proven ineffective.  Either Zardari and the Pakistani people must allow American operations, or the Taliban will increase in strength and continue to oppress, terrorize, and murder Pakistani villagers.

Zardari must choose between lapdogs and Lashkars: either he risks appearing weak by accepting help, or he proves his weakness by refusing it.

Troy is from Colorado Springs, CO.

Utah’s Gay Rights Failure
By Austin Smith

Upon hearing about the recent defeat of a number of bills, known as the Common Ground Initiative, that would have given more rights to gay couples in Utah, many BYU students may have responded with a cursory “Good!,” hastily thinking that the sanctity of marriage has been upheld and not giving the news another thought.  Utahns’ zeal to protect the traditional definition of marriage, however, was not under attack by these bills.  Utah’s Amendment 3 clearly and unequivocably defines marriage as only between a man and a woman; that was not in question.  What fair-minded Utahns are challenging and disputing is the idea that being gay means you can be discriminated against without legal recourse, treated as a second-class citizen, and refused virtually any legal protections for you and your dependents.  This idea is repugnant, and the fact that all of the Common Ground Initiative bills died before getting a real chance to be voted on is an abysmal failure on the part of Utah’s legislature to protect its citizens and promote strong communities.

Before discussing the details of the proposed legislation, it is important to understand the background.  This summer, during its involvement with the successful campaign to pass California’s Proposition 8, the LDS Church repeatedly emphasized that its position was not anti-gay, but rather pro-marriage as traditionally defined.  The church issued a statement saying it “does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”  It was in this context that Equality Utah, a gay-rights group, proposed the Common Ground Initiative: three bills that would have given gays and lesbians in Utah these exact rights, without jeopardizing the integrity of the traditional family or churches’ rights.  It is not easy to strike a balance that is acceptable to the LDS church, a majority of Utahns according to multiple polls, and gay rights groups, but this initiative succeeded in doing so.  Sadly, it took just under a month for Utah legislators to vote down each of the bills in committee.

House Bill 267, introduced by Christine Johnson, was killed in committee.  That means it remains legal in Utah to fire an employee or evict a tenant solely because of his or her sexual orientation.  To be sure, employers are allowed to fire employees, and landlords may evict tenants for many reasons; this bill would have applied only to clear situations of discrimination, when employee performance or tenant behavior is ignored and the layoff or eviction is clearly motivated only by the discovery of the victim’s sexual orientation.  This is not a hypothetical situation: the Utah Department of Labor receives numerous reports of this exact situation ocurring every month; however, a woman who is fired solely because she is a lesbian has no legal opportunities for recompense–her employer has acted completely legally under Utah State law.  Besides the obvious miscarriage of justice, this practice of turning a blind eye to real discrimination hurts families, weakens the economy, and contributes to the conception that gays and lesbians are second-class citizens.

House Bill 160, introduced by Jennifer Seelig, was killed in committee.  That means gay couples will not receive probate, hospitalization, or medical rights for their partner.  Anyone who has had a loved one unexpectedly end up in the hospital understands the need to see and visit them.  Far too often in Utah, hospitals have policies that only allow immediate family to visit patients, which means that committed partners in a homosexual relationship, who have shared their lives together for years, are not be able to see each other in such heart-wrenching moments.  Again, gays and lesbians are relegated to second-class status, and again, the LDS church (among other fair-minded conservative organizations) is not opposed to such rights.  What does society gain by keeping apart people who clearly love each other deeply in their times of greatest anguish?

Senate Bill 32, introduced by Scott McCoy, was killed in committee.  That means that financial dependents of all kinds–whether gay partners or a grandmother who depends on a grandson for her living–face much higher obstacles to obtaining standing in court to sue in the case of a wrongful death.  This bill would have directly helped both gay and straight Utahns who for whatever reason depend on someone other than a spouse, parent, or child for their income but whose breadwinner is killed due to negligence in the workplace or elsewhere.  It makes sense for those whose loved ones are wrongfully killed be given standing to ask courts for redress; it would keep more people off of welfare rolls and endow more families with a greater sense of financial security.

The most common argument agains the Common Ground Initiative was also one of the most fallacious: critics argued that enacting this legislation would lead to a slippery slope ending in gay marriage.  This completely ignores the fact that the Utah constitution not only explicitly defines marriage as only between man and a woman, it also disallows any other arrangement between gay couples that even comes close to granting the same rights as marriage.  There is no way a Utah court can overturn the constitution; this canard is a red-herring meant to distract conservative Utahns from granting gays and lesbians the basic human rights they should be entitled to, such as not having to fear that their employer will find out about their orientation and being able to visit their partner in the hospital.

The fact is that this legislative session, Utah’s state senators and representatives have failed to protect some of the most vulnerable Utahns.  We do not need to agree with every aspect of the lives of our neighbors, but we should care enough to grant everyone in our communities the basic rights to live their lives without fear, to be able to live securely and pursue happiness.  By killing all of the Common Ground Initiative bills, our legislators have let ideology trumps simple human decency.  I hope that we can all work harder to make Utah a better place for all of our family and friends, regardless of sexual orientation.  Passing these bills next year would be a great place to start.

Austin is from Virginia majoring in Computer Science.

East Jerusalem’s Education Crisis
By Mike Brodie

Educators in Palestine have long recognized the role of school textbooks in shaping inter-group relations. After the establishment of Israel in 1948, Arab schools in the West Bank began using Jordanian textbooks. Critics argued that these textbooks contained biased histories and perpetuated anti-Israeli sentiment. Nearly four decades later, Palestinian leaders concluded that they must correct the prejudiced material in their textbooks.

This correction began with the formation of the Palestinian Curriculum Development Center (PCDC) in 1994. The PCDC developed new textbooks for Arab schools under the Palestinian Ministry of Education. The new curriculum contains corrected histories that include viewpoints from both Israeli and Palestinian scholars. In addition, textbooks no longer contain teachings that the state of Israel should not exist. Ultimately, the curriculum seeks to raise a new generation capable of compromise with Israel.

However, these new textbooks will have a limited effect in regions with an inadequate number of classrooms. East Jerusalem, for example, is a Palestinian area with a shortage of nearly 1,400 classrooms. As of 2009, East Jerusalem schools have an average of thirty students per classroom, compared with twenty four in Jewish areas. In addition, more than 9,000 children do not attend any school.

This means that nearly a tenth of the child population in East Jerusalem is not receiving the new, peace-oriented textbook lessons. Unless these children are educated from another point of view, they will simply adopt the existing prejudices of their parents. When these children mature, they may provoke further conflicts and continue the cycle of animosity between Palestine and Israel.

As stated, over 9,000 children are currently not attending school in East Jerusalem. When these students are finally able to attend a proper school, they will be woefully behind in every subject. Many additional teachers and resources will be required to help these students appropriate grade level skills.

Under Israeli law, all children in Israel are required to be registered for school. Most students in East Jerusalem are registered by their families yet have no school to attend. The lucky ones can afford private school—others can find spots in a Palestinian waqf-supported school. Some attend overcrowded, substandard classrooms in rented apartments. The remaining children are unable to attend any school at all.

The Israeli Ministry of Education needs to be called to task for its abject failure to provide education for thousands of Palestinian children. In 2001, the Israeli High Court ruled that the Jerusalem Education Authority must allocate funds and build 245 additional classrooms within four years. Eight years later, only forty eight new classrooms have been built.

According to the state of Israel, every resident has the right to free public education. Yet thousands of children in East Jerusalem are denied this right on a daily basis. I feel that Israel’s lack of quick attention to this problem is extremely short sighted. The uneducated Palestinian children will prove a liability to Israeli attempts to foster greater understanding between Israel and Palestine. An uneducated, unskilled, and ignorant populace can only be a detriment to society at large.

The Israeli Ministry of Education has proved themselves incredibly inept at dealing with the lack of schools in East Jerusalem. Funds have been earmarked, yet no land has been purchased and only forty eight out of two hundred and forty five classrooms have been constructed. I am disappointed that the Israeli government has let this go on for so long. By refusing to give Palestinian children a proper education, they are creating yet another generation that will be protesting by throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails in the streets.

New classrooms in East Jerusalem need to be built as soon as possible. Palestinians have improved their textbooks, yet these efforts cannot yet be effective in changing the perceptions of school children in East Jerusalem. All children, Israeli and Palestinian, must be properly educated in order to create a new generation capable of peace and compromise.

Mike Brodie is a senior majoring in MESA

William Easterly’s Burden
By Tim Layton

In his book The White Man’s Burden William Easterly spends about 384 pages criticizing aid agencies, the structure of aid-giving, and his nemesis Jeffrey Sachs. Throughout the fairly entertaining chapters Easterly provides a rather bleak image of the world of foreign aid distribution. Anyone who has worked in or studied international development should be fully aware that these criticisms and this bleak image are fairly well justified. Most of the efforts of the West to aid the “Rest” have ended in failure.

Easterly puts forth several arguments as to why failure is so prevalent. He argues that the aid agencies are not accountable to those they are supposed to be helping: the poor. He also cites lack of coordination, evaluation, and proper incentives as reasons why aid does not work. He carefully backs up all of these criticisms with examples, evidence, and fairly valid theory. However, his strongest statement about why aid doesn’t seem to work is mentioned and then never returned to. Easterly makes the claim, “Bad growth is due only to bad governance.” This is a very bold claim to make, and yet he never returns to it throughout the rest of the book.

In 2001 a trio of scholars, Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson, published a paper in the American Economic Review in which they attempted to measure the effect of institutional quality (good governance) on economic growth. Their results were striking. They used a somewhat complicated econometric technique to discover that over 50 percent of the variation in income per capita today can be explained by institutional quality. This study was followed by a series of similar studies by scholars like Abhijit Banerjee, Lakshmi Iyer, and Dani Rodrik. All of these studies came to the same conclusion. In the words of Dr. Rodrik, when it comes to international economic development, “Institutions Rule.”

The problem with Easterly’s book is not that he is unaware of the fact that poor growth is due to poor institutional quality, the problem is that he is aware of this fact and completely ignores it.

Forgetting for now the fact that Easterly’s solutions to the problems in the aid world are vague and just as idealistic as those of his nemesis Jeffrey Sachs (although towards the opposite end of the idealistic spectrum), his ideas still ignore the one thing that he claims is the sole problem behind economic growth. How is it that when aid is distributed exclusively following the Easterly Plan of distribution, having “Searchers” give it directly to the people who they think will use it in the most efficient manner, the problem of bad governance is solved? If, as Easterly, Acemoglu, Iyer, and Rodrik claim, bad growth is due only to bad governance, then the Easterly solution is moving aid distribution from one wrong target (the concerns of the donors) and shifting it to another (the concerns of the poor). If the number one explanatory variable for economic development is institutional quality, would it not be more efficient to use the massive aid flows in a way that provides incentives to developing countries to improve their quality of governance rather than bypassing them entirely?

In 2001 Paul Collier and David Dollar published an article in which they put forth a new theory about aid distribution. They used evidence that aid seems to be more effective in states with better institutions to build a new distribution model in which aid is conditional on both the level of poverty and the quality of institutions of the recipient. This model would give recipient countries an incentive to improve their institutions while continuing to keep in mind the plight of the poor. In their article, they predicted that if their model were implemented global poverty could be cut in half by 2015. Most importantly, the implementation of this model would not just lead to the development of new cottage industries or the provision of a few thousand mosquito nets, it would provide the right incentives for developing countries to start to improve the quality of their institutions, the factor which has been proven time and time again to be the most important when it comes to sustainable development.

While some may argue that the projects of these “Searchers” will empower individuals to demand improved institutions from their governments, the evidence for this connection is not strong (see Przeworski 1997). According to his own statement, that bad growth is due only to bad governance, Easterly’s new plan for aid distribution is irrelevant without this connection. This connection may exist and may even be strong, but without some sort of argument from Easterly about how his plan will improve the institutional quality of developing country governments, the entire argument is invalidated.

How will mosquito nets help reduce the incidence of malaria if after they are sold at the price indicated by the market-friendly Easterly Plan the government decides to redistribute the nets to its supporters later? How will a new road demanded by the artisans who would use it to transport their goods to the city help those artisans when the corrupt police officers pull over every truck on that road demanding bribes in exchange for passage? How will any of the “Searcher”-led projects lead to the increases in foreign investment which have spurred the rapid development of so many of the development success stories when poor institutional quality has led to an extremely high level of risk that these foreign investments will be nationalized as soon as they become profitable? Finally, how will a small, but meaningful, increase in income of the poorest families allow children to attend school and obtain a good education when the government has chosen not to provide schools for its citizens?

The bottom line is that poor governance leads to poor provision of public goods, a high level of risk for foreign investors, higher business costs for domestic entrepreneurs due to corruption, and redistribution to the political elite of the same aid the West is trying to provide to the poor. These consequences will prevent economic development whether or not the government is bypassed when it comes to aid distribution. In actuality, the bypassing of governments suggested by Easterly may even lead to a magnification of the negative consequences of poor governance because the governments will want to supplement their shrinking aid flows with more money in bribes, more redistribution of the aid toward the political elite, and more nationalization of industries funded by foreign investors.

A middle ground must be found where aid is used most efficiently. If it really is bad governance that causes bad growth, a greater proportion of the money should be spent on ways to improve governance. First, the distribution of aid to developing countries should follow the model of Collier and Dollar to provide the right incentives to developing country governments. Second, money should be used as an incentive to researchers to come up with innovative ways to help improve governance in the developing world. Third, money should be used to test the innovations of the researchers through large-scale field experiments set up in such a way that generalizable results can be found. Fourth, the successful field experiments should be put into practice around the world. This pattern for improved aid distribution relies on the scientific method and on evidence of where aid money would be most efficiently spent.

As Easterly argues, it is time to dramatically transform the way aid is given. However, the transformation must include as a goal the improvement of governance in the developing world. While Easterly’s transformation is a step in the right direction, toward a more efficient distribution of foreign aid, it is too small of a step. The full step will not just push aid to use markets on the ground, rather it will also push aid to use markets to change the sovereign institutions which still have a legitimate right to govern these countries.

Tim, from Missouri, is majoring in Economics

The DR Congo: Raw, Real, Precious
By Matthew Colling

“Since I have never been forced to know what it is to have nothing; no parents, no food, no shelter, and no clothing, I cannot fully understand the thin blood-red line that divides survival from morality.”

Picking through a Chilis menu as I wait in the JFK airport on the last leg of my Africa tour, I can’t help but feel a little guilty. I can’t see the world in all of its devastating beauty as it appeared only a few days earlier in the Congo. How can anyone make sense of a place like the DR Congo and come home unaffected. I’ve seen poverty before. I’ve seen Calcutta beggars dead in the street. But I’ve never seen a place like Bukavu. It’s poverty mixed with the atrocities of war. Could I ever really explain what roads, and cars, and people are capable of in this place? I am used to paths and sidewalks that connect in predictable ways, simple luxuries of the modern world.

Incredibly, few in the western world are aware of how the violence in the Congo often leads back to our technologically savvy world. At the outset of the 21st century, there seems to be little we can accomplish without the help of technology. Our interconnected global economy could not function without computers, cell phones, GPS devices, digital cameras, and the internet. But few are familiar with or even aware of the materials with which their gadgets are made. Coltan, a metal often used in high-tech equipment, is a principal export of the Eastern region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Our dependence on technology, and our insatiable appetite for diamonds, gold, and other valuable metallic commodities often leads directly back to this same place.

1994 was the year the Dallas Cowboys won the Super Bowl, Olympic favorite figure skater Nancy Kerrigan was attacked by Tonya Harding’s body guard, Kurt Kobain committed suicide, and it wasalso the year a genocide occurred in Rwanda, taking the world by surprise. I only vaguely remember the flashing clips of machetied dead bodies on the news from when I was young. They left a lasting and haunting image on my young and impressionable mind. Not until attending college did I first begin to learn the long lasting impact and history of the conflict. For decades Hutu’s and Tutsi’s had clashed in various conflicts. The culmination of all such suppressed hostility manifested itself in the Rwandan Genocide, a campaign that lasted approximately 100 days, killing between 800,000 and 1 million people. Rwanda borders the Democratic Republic of the Congo. When Rwanda was finally stabilized, hundreds of thousands involved in the mass murder fled to the Eastern region of the DR Congo. Consequently much of the Eastern DR Congo—a region which was already plagued by instability—was further destabilized, not only with the influx of Rwandan refugees fleeing the violence, but also with killers who had been a part of it.

Powerful warlords and armies soon took control of the Eastern Congo, finding in it a region rich in precious commodities to be plundered. Children were forced into mines, women were raped and abused, and whole towns massacred in the process. In the past five years, the brutality exacted by rivaling warlords has reached new and unspeakable levels of depravity. Few places have escaped the effects of this ongoing war that has raged since 2004 and killed over 4 million people. By engaging in such heinous terror tactics as child soldiering and rape, warlords such as General Nkunda and Ignace Murwanashyaka have maintained their stranglehold across one of the most richly endowed regions of the world. Every day, in a small town called Panzi, an average of 5-10 women will walk into the rape unit of the hospital having suffered atrocities beyond description. Stories of machine guns discharged into the vagina of women who have just been raped are not uncommon to Dr. Mukwega, Director of the hospital.

Panzi lies in a haven of safety, and thrives in relative peace. Maintained by the largest deployment of UN troops in the world, the beautiful region of Bukavu sits directly on the border of Rwanda and the shores of Lake Kivu. Over 17,000 troops from Egypt, Pakistan, Belgium, Bolivia, Romania, Nepal, Senegal, Canada and military personnel of other nationalities have made Bukavu their home.

In this difficult setting, and just a few meters down the road from the hospital, two Congolese locals, Emmanuel Mufla and Bernard Balibuno, began a charitable organization committed to offering vulnerable children a chance at life. In 2001, these educated men established a school which, 8 years running, boasts 250 students, 20 percent of whom are street children and orphans. Amidst a desperate situation, this school continues to offer tangible hope where no such thing seems warranted. After such successes, the school has now adopted a model of self-sustainability. Their goal is to be fiscally independent. In order to achieve this goal, the school reinvests the profits it acquires through its ancillary organizations.

A cassava grinding unit was set up in 2008 by the funds donated from the BYU Hunger Banquet, and it has now turned into a profit-generating business. The mill grinds locally harvested plants into a flour-like substance, a dietary staple eaten throughout Africa. This unique approach has both short and long-term benefits. Creating local businesses that support the school has not only helped to make the organization self-sustainable, but it has also solidified the community’s commitment to the cause. The school is helping to transform a broken economy in an impoverished and AIDS ravaged region.

This was the school that I visited in January of 2009. Jennifer McDonald, a BYU accounting student, and I delivered school supplies purchased with money raised by BYU’s annual Hunger Banquet. Sowers of Hope is the name of the organization that connects America and the DR Congo and keeps the school running. The land upon which these students study has been made available without cost for the last eight years. Unfortunately, this same land must now be sold by its owner. Sowers of Hope is searching for sponsors to assist with the construction of a new school on a piece of land that the school can call its own. Thus far, Sowers of Hope represents one of the only functioning and self-sustaining schools in the region. Our school remains the only chance for its 250 children. Those on the ground in the DR Congo have already established the school as a success, but its future now hinges upon our willingness to support them. For more information contact matthew.r.colling@gmail.com.