International Fixation: A Broader Discussion

Daniel Bullard, Student

Vittorio De Sicca's masterpiece "Bicycle Thieves" portrays a tight-knit community in post-World War II Italy that is entrenched in unemployment and financial instability. As was common for the Italian neorealist movement, the film uses both actors and non-actors, and is shot inside an actual community. In the opening of the film, a job is offered with the condition that the worker must own a bike. Antonio, the protagonist, takes the job, even after having pawned his bike years ago. The driving conflict of the story lies in Antonio's need for a bicycle, a predicament he attempts to remedy in an honest way. However, when a situation outside his control deprives him of a bicycle, it is impossible for him to hold his job, and he and his family are left to desperation. The closing scene consists of Antonio and his son Bruno walking off in a crowd of people, any one of whom could be in a similarly dire situation. My immediate emotional response when watching the film was to say, "If only somebody could get this man a bike. Then, all his problems would be solved." After more consideration, however, I realized that getting Antonio a bicycle wouldn't solve anything because there would be countless others who would be potentially susceptible to economic instability. The real difficulty wasn't getting him a bike; it was insuring that anybody who needed a bike had the ability to get one.

Part of the dramatic potency of the film comes in the realization that, although the plight of Antonio seems simple, there are complex historical, cultural, economic and countless other factors at work that are specific to that particular community and country, none of which can ever be traced to a single cause or group of causes. When discussing these issues on college campuses or in the national spotlight, often the first topic that arises is apathy and indifference on the part of wealthier nations. While these are relevant to the discussion, the reasons why some countries are rich and some countries are poor are varied and complex, and have little to do with apathy or indifference. Examining and discussing some of these reasons will no doubt reveal problems and difficulties, or maybe even doubts and limits as to what can be done. Acknowledging these difficulties without self-consciousness is invaluable, and is part of our responsibility as members of a community and a nation to the global community. In this essay I am going to examine a few of the difficulties associated with ensuring that a large portion of the population has a basic standard of living, and how people have faced these challenges.

In 2004 Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners Magazine, delivered an address to Stanford University graduates on the potential of every person to bring about change in the world. He recognized that technology has opened up new possibilities of accessibility, and he spoke out against global indifference, commending those voices that call for immediate action against social injustices. Wallis's call to action is particularly resonant in today's political context, with so much energy and excitement generated by the 2008 presidential elections. Part of that energy is motivated by a growing desire of many to begin thinking from a global perspective, and to work with issues like climate change and extreme global poverty. Even more encouraging is the awareness and concern that young people are exhibiting with respect to global issues. But at the address, Wallis spoke of a different kind of struggle: "I now believe that the real battle, the big struggle of our times, is the fundamental choice between cynicism and hope" (Wallis 2004). Cynicism can be interpreted as internal resignation, giving up, and being unreceptive to change. However, cynicism, in the sense that Wallis uses it, can also be interpreted to encompass doubt, criticism, uncertainty, and even disagreement, all of which are vital elements to acknowledge when faced with a problem. Thus interpreted, the battle against cynicism is in danger of turning toward a self-legitimizing campaign, in which one can ignore or discredit criticism in the name of battling indifference.

Wallis's speech presents two challenges: First, it reveals some of the grim realities that the world faces; second, it appeals to our moral obligation to start doing something. As leaders push for a greater national conscience, and as global concerns occupy the minds of young college students and others, what channels do people have to funnel their new-found sense of moral responsibility? Education and awareness seem to play a large role: concerned students might hold simulations in which people experience what it is like to eat a meal that was purchased on an income of less than a dollar a day, celebrities might hold huge concerts centered around issues of world poverty and hunger, and religious groups might preach a message that emphasizes issues of social justice. What these instances of thinking globally have in common is that they are motivated by genuine compassion and empathy for human suffering, and they emphasize action as an inevitable consequence of awareness. In short, education and awareness are first steps to positive change. One important form of action is international aid. International foreign aid is regarded by most as a glowing beacon of light, a way for ordinary citizens to collectively share a portion of their prosperity with those in need. Both candidates in the 2008 presidential election supported building on American foreign aid programs and the increases that President Bush has been pushing for since 2002.

The largest call for increasing foreign aid came at the turn of the century with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a full-spread attack on some of the world's most devastating problems. The eight goals are as follows: Eradicate extreme poverty, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability, and further a global partnership for development. Each goal has a specific target: for example, the target for eradicating poverty is halving the number of those who live on less than a dollar a day. In September of 2000, 190 United Nations member states agreed to use the eight goals as a framework for improving the lives of the poor, with a deadline of 2015. Two years later, a program for implementing the MDGs was commissioned by the UN Secretary General and headed by American economist Jeffrey Sachs. The team, headed by Sachs, worked to produce Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The report was a massive blueprint for implementation of the MDGs. According to the report, the challenge of implementation has two main aspects: "One is the sheer range of interventions that should be implemented simultaneously to achieve the Goals. The second is the need to reach large parts of the population to have a measurable impact on national outcomes" (UN Millennium Project 2005, 95). It was everything social advocates and concerned citizens could have ever dreamed of: a large plan that fixes everything all at once over a set period of time.

Since the project began, however, there have been a variety of responses. One inevitable response is admiration for such important goals. Another response is to question whether this massive project that offers hope for so many is improving lives, or is simply a way for rich countries to keep a clear conscience. Amir Attaran, Canada Research Chair in Law, Population Health, and Global Development Policy, has voiced his concerns about how measurable the goals are. In an article entitled, " An Immeasurable Crisis? A Criticism of the Millenium Development Goals and Why They Cannot be Measured," he argues that "often the subject matter is so immeasurable, or the measurements are so inadequate, that one cannot know the baseline condition before the MDGs, or know if the desired trend of improvement is actually occurring" (Attaran 2005). Furthermore, he argues that any attempts at modifying or altering the goals are being "held up by political interference" (Attaran 2005). Attaran's article was quickly dismissed by the UN Millennium Project as drawing the "wrong conclusions" and bringing only mild concerns about data collection to the forefront (McArthur et al. 2005). Attaran wanted to begin a discussion about the practicality and limits of a well-intentioned project with admirable goals. Furthermore, he recognized the positive potential of the project, if only the authors and supporters were willing to thoughtfully react to difficulties and limitations.

Attaran's difficulty with the Millennium Development Goals is part of a larger set of debates about the effects of foreign aid on economic development. Developmental economists often look at the same set of data and come up with different conclusions, leaving the majority of people at a loss about what to believe. The difficulties associated with evaluating the effects of foreign are numerous: First, there is no absolute way to know what would have happened had no foreign aid been given. Second, the effects of foreign aid can be influenced by the policies of the recipient government. Third, there are complex internal factors that studies on foreign aid can't possibly take entirely into account. In his book World Poverty Geoffrey Gilbert cites the Burnside-Dollar study, which found that aid does positively influence economic growth if the recipient government has a "good policy environment" (Gilbert 2004, 38). However, Gilbert explains that the study was later replicated and the findings could not be confirmed.

The chief critic of the UN Millennium Project, and the approach of Western aid agencies in general, however, is former World Bank employee William Easterly. He argues that not only is foreign aid often funneled through ineffective channels, it can also inhibit growth if it is used towards fixed unreachable goals. "The setting of utopian goals," writes Easterly, "means aid workers will focus efforts on infeasible tasks, instead of the feasible tasks that will do some good" (Easterly 2006, 20). He believes that people die not only because of indifference to poverty, but also because of "ineffective efforts by those who do care" (Easterly 2006, 7). In The White Man's Burden, Easterly presents readers with snapshots of "gradual piecemeal solutions" that are implemented by specialists at the ground level. Efforts must begin with insiders, who understand the "economic and political complexity of society" (Easterly 2006, 15). For him, foreign aid should be focused on specific tasks that help the individual, like getting medicine to those who desperately need it, and charging them small amounts so that organizations get feedback and are accountable for each task. These tasks are much more specific, and leave social advocates almost entirely out of the loop. As Heather Stewart points out, "You can't fit 'a new international charter on post-civil war reconstruction' or 'tariff-free access to rich-country markets' on a plastic wristband."

The questions and difficulties associated with trying to ensure that a large part of the global community has a basic standard of living are not only moral but logistical. Even if Americans decide that it is our responsibility as a nation to end global poverty and hunger, it is important that we are realistic and understand the limits to what we can effectively do. Easterly's strength is that he encourages citizens to, at the very least, recognize that there are processes going on behind the scenes. Questions will inevitably arise: How could such complex internal problems be solved by outsiders? Will foreign aid really be effective if the country that receives it has bad government? With such high ideals and so many variables involved with economic growth, how can there be any accountability if things do not go well?

Knowing which actions will be practical and beneficial, both in the short and the long term, is equally as challenging as battling indifference. The complexities and statistical difficulties that have been discussed are just a tiny fraction of the number available. The question becomes: just because college students and ordinary citizens don't completely understand all of the factors that affect economic growth and poverty, does that mean that they shouldn't wear wrist bands, chant slogans, and raise awareness? Certainly not. As long as they do so without participating in a one-sided conversation. There are not just those who care and those who don't. A small amount of skepticism seems perfectly healthy, considering just how complex some of these issues are.

References

Attaran, Amir. 2005. "An Immeasurable Crisis? A Criticism of the Millennium Development Goals and Why They Cannot be Measured." PLoS Med 2(10): e318.
Easterly,William. 2006. The White Man's Burden. New York: The Penguin Press.
Geoffrey Gilbert. 200e. World Poverty: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara ABC-CLIO.
McArthur JW, Sachs JD, Schmidt-Traub G (2005) "Response to Amir Attaran." PLoS Med 2(11): e379
Perry, Alex. 8/06/2008. "Why Africa is Still Starving." Time.
Ratner, Megan. "Italian Neo-Realism." 2005. http://www.greencine.com/static/contact.jsp (accessed 07/16/08).
Sachs, Jeffrey D. 2005. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York: Penguin Books.
Tarnoff, Curt, and Nowells, Larry. "Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S Programs and Policy." CRS Report for Congress. (Updated April 15, 2004).
UN Millennium Project. 2005. Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. New York.
Wallis, Jim. June 12, 2004. Stanford Stanford Baccalaureate Address "Building Global Justice: We are the ones we have been waiting for."