by Priya Bapat, Humanitas Global
Last week, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation released their annual letter, a missive that economist and blogger Chris Blattman called as “fast becoming one of the more important aid statements each year.” Since Bill Gates joined the Foundation full-time, he has released an annual letter discussing his thoughts on development and aid with a particular focus on health and poverty.
This year’s note is a joint letter from both Bill and Melinda Gates, challenging the idea that aid is not working. The debate around whether or not aid is causing more harm than good is popular among economists and this is not the first year the Gates Foundation has taken on this discussion in their annual letter.
The letter is overall very positive about the state of aid and seeks to dispel three “myths” about the success and impact of poverty alleviation and development:
- Poor countries are doomed to stay poor
- Foreign aid is a big waste
- Saving lives leads to overpopulation
It is clear that this letter is not aimed at people working in the development community, but instead those who have a general knowledge or interest in learning more about poverty alleviation and development. This makes sense as the Gates Foundation has a strong name brand recognition and is an appropriate and visible spokesorganization for the development community.
The points made in the letter are important ones, and discussions that we’ve all heard before. For example, the belief that the US spends too much on aid. It is a commonly repeated story that people think we’re spending 25% of the US budget on aid and that we should instead be spending 10%, which would be a huge jump from the 1% that the US is actually spending. This is an important message to spread and could turn foreign assistance detractors into advocates.
However valid the points of the letter, there are a few oversimplifications or exaggerations that would have been better left out. For example, the claim that there would be “almost no more” poor countries left in the world as of 2035 is misleading. If every country becomes middle-income, then the term becomes meaningless and the current income-based classification system will have outlived its usefulness. It also does not take into account income distribution – for example, India is currently classified as “lower-middle income” yet nearly a quarter of the population is below the poverty line.
Additionally, while photos are a compelling way to tell stories of the impact of aid, the before and after photos for the transformation of Mexico City, Nairobi, and Shanghai were a little heavy-handed, with the “before” photos taken in dimly lit, overcast conditions and the after on sunny, beautiful, clear-skied days. The differences in the cities can be clearly seen, even without the lighting differences.
All things being said, the letter is an important advocacy platform to bring conversations on aid and development to a wider audience. Without communicating the facts and successes, it is hard to showcase the impact that development efforts have made thus far.
