This is a fascinating and compelling book. I really want it to be true, though I can't really bring myself to believe it all.

The core target of this book is development economics: how to lift nations out of grinding poverty and bring them up to a non-horrendous standard of living. His core thesis (once you get past the self-congratulatory couple of introductory chapters) is that nations will lift themselves out of poverty, if only we can get them into a position where they can really trade and participate in the world market. As a fundamental proposition, that sounds reasonable to me, though I wonder whether, say, geographic barriers will block certain nations from ever really participating. Still, the basic idea seems plausible: if people are in a position where their effort turns into reward, then they will act so as to improve their lives.

His proposal is outlined in at a fairly high level here, but it boils down to: invest in lowering physical trade barriers (e.g., invest in roads, ports, airports, communications); invest in keeping people healthy and educated; and thereafter people will mostly take care of the rest themselves. And it will only cost 0.7% of the GDP of the first world. For twenty or thirty years.

Wooo. Big number. Still, not unattainable. Far less than we're paying to, say, try to stabilize Iraq.

Edit

So Susan called me on this statistic. So I checked. It turns out that we are currently spending almost exactly 0.7% of US GDP on the Iraq war. In fact, we're spending about 0.2% of the entire world's product (GWP) on the Iraq war. (Iraq is costing roughly $100 billion/year, gross world product is about $45 trillion/year.) Think about that. A measurable fraction of the product of the entire world. On one war in one country.

On one hand, it seems far, far better to spend that money on development (assuming it works, or even partially works) than on war. On the other, the amount we're spending on the Iraq war is coming uncomfortably close to bankrupting the US. Could we sustain that kind of financial outlay for the third world for twenty or thirty years? I doubt it. Not without a lot of agony that we're probably not prepared to suck up.

One could ask if it would be pure money down the drain, the way that the Iraq war is. Potentially, you'd get a lot out of the domestic side of the spending (domestic manufacture and workers for export to third world development programs and such). But that's like arguing that wars are good for the economy because of the business they create. Alternatively, it's possible that rising tides raise all ships and that helping the third world would pay off in turn for us. I certainly believe that reducing poverty and disease in the third world would pay off in terms of international stability and increased trade, in enough time. But the actual economic feedback (which is what will ultimately sell any plan of this scale, I think), is debatable.

But as long as I'm ranting anyway (in this entirely inappropriate venue), I should add a final statistic. The US currently spends about 4% of GPD on defense (not counting Iraq, which is by special appropriation, or black budget, which is not publicly accounted). That's more than the entire rest of the world combined (yes, including big scary nations like China). Our lowest military spending since WWII was at the end of Clinton's term, where it dropped to ~3% GDP. In my book, it would be entirely reasonable to drop the Iraq war, reduce military spending back to Clinton-era levels, spend the 0.7% on Sach's plan (assuming we believe it, or partially believe it), and still save money.

End Edit/Rant

Anyway, I can't fully buy into his plans, because I am skeptical about all "this will fix everything" plans. And because I think he is drastically underaccounting for the effects of, say, bad government, racial and tribal tensions, corruption, general cultural attitudes toward property and trade, societal view of the role of government, etc. Some of those will naturally be ameliorated under his plan. (It's amazing how much starvation seems to exacerbate people's tendency to kill each other.) But many are fairly core, and I am skeptical that better roads will magically make them vanish. Attitudes change very slowly, they do have big, measurable impacts on micro- and macro-economic evolution, and we have been way too stung way too often by neglecting them. (Oh, but of course this nation that has not been democratic in thousands of years of recorded history will instantly adopt democracy once we come in and show them the path of glory. I mean, it's an obvious idea, right? And they're crying out for it, right? Yeah.)

Still, I think that the points he makes are good and (partially) compelling. And there's evidence that they'll succeed to some degree -- e.g., I saw some convincing data that Africa was, by and large, doing a great job of growing and improving its general quality of life... Right up until the AIDS epidemic obliterated a huge fraction of its productive populace.

Anyway, even if his plan does not, in fact, eliminate poverty, simply reducing it would be a vast improvement in the state of the world. And I think that it has the potential for such a reduction. A lot of the ideas he proposes are things that I would advocate anyway (e.g., invest in health and reducing/controlling disease). So I would, overall, back his plan I think. How much good it will do, and how much we should really invest in it, are up for debate. But I think that his plans are clearer, more common sense, and generally seem more reasonable than a lot of the development non-plans we've seen over the past few decades.

So, while I have some reservations, I think that this book is definitely worth reading. It's thought-provoking, at the very least.

For an alternate point of view, I also recommend  William Easterly's  The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. It also discusses the morass of international development fiscal policy. A fascinating read in its own right. More on that later, when I have more time...

The End of Poverty
The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for our Time.-Jeffrey D. Sachs.

Jeffrey Sachs, an economist with a passion and experienced global view, makes a compelling call to action to bring an end to extreme poverty worldwide by the year 2025. He makes a strong case that not only is this goal within our reach, but that Americans have a vested interest in seeing the rest of the world in a stable economic situation.
tBased on years of experience in impoverished countries and his work as the director of the Columbia Earth Institute at Columbia University, Sachs makes a direct comparison between poverty, government instability, and an ongoing threat to the safety of the United States. He points out that any time a country is impoverished and its population lacking in education, the citizenry is more likely to be susceptible to the radical ideas and actions of terrorists groups. Giving the necessary support to begin the process of becoming self-sufficient will do more to alleviate the danger of further threat to our country than can be accomplished through military means alone.
Throughout the book, Sachs illustrates the importance of education for the successful development of a nation. John Dewey, in his pedagogic creed, states, “Education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction”. Sachs clearly defines primary education as a basic necessity for all peoples of the world. In numerous examples he points out the need for education as critical to successful development. For most societies in extreme poverty, there is a self-defeating cycle of high rates of population growth. Sachs reports cases of countries where Planned Parenthood education has been applied in conjunction with health services and the cycle has been dramatically curbed in even a single generation.
tSachs calls for targeted education in places like Africa where the majority of the people live in remote, unconnected villages. He believes that it would be possible to give rudimentary education to members of the village at very low cost to serve as their own interventionists. For example, one village member might be trained to provide basic health care while another member might be trained to disseminate information about agricultural practices. By investing in the targeted education of village members, it would be possible to have a significant impact nationwide without large numbers of relief workers. Education is indeed one of the keys to freeing
societies from poverty. As Dewey states, “Education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform”
tWhile Sachs specifically concentrates on poverty at the global level, the approach he uses for analyzing the needs of a country could apply equally well to poverty on the family level. He likens his approach to clinical medicine and details the concept in five lessons. The first lesson is that situations of poverty, like the human body, are complex systems. A failure in one of the systems may cause a chain reaction of failures in other systems. Lesson two states that this complexity calls for a differential diagnosis. Although two families of poverty might appear to have similar needs, without an understanding of underlying causes, an intervention could fail to achieve the desired outcome. Lesson three is that all interventions are family interventions. This lesson encourages social workers to look at the family as a whole rather than as isolated members. The fourth lesson is that monitoring and evaluation are essential. Even after careful analysis, well-intentioned interventions may have unintended side affects. The final lesson cautions that all interventions into the lives of others need to be done with the utmost professionalism. Without these precautions, interventions have the ability to damage as easily as help.
tA few small adjustments to Sachs’s argument may improve his chances for support in the current political setting. First, while he clearly focuses on a global view of poverty, detailing his experiences in Bolivia, Poland, Russia, China, India, and Africa, he makes his argument to his home country of the United States. While poverty in the United States is in no way on the scale of that in Africa, there are still many Americans who do not have adequate food and shelter. Jonathan Kozol documents the challenges of inner city citizens. Many American children are being raised in conditions that rival the condition of those in developing countries: no access to appropriate health care, unsafe living environments, rampant HIV/AIDS, and dilapidated schools. Sachs’s case would be stronger to the American public with an acknowledgement that there is poverty right here at home. Sachs points out that the government is spending billions on the war in Afghanistan, but he misses an opportunity to build an alliance with others to work toward getting money currently going to the military to be spent in other ways. If successful, there would be ample money to support social services not only within the United States, but globally as well. Finally, when appealing to the American public, especially in the current political atmosphere, it is unwise to dismiss the Christian population. Rather than take a condescending tone to those who believe in “irrational biblical prophecy”, Sachs could have called on those with Christian beliefs to exercise generosity, compassion, and concern for their fellow man. Here is another missed opportunity to build alliances with the very people he is calling to action. With these few suggestions, an excellent book has the potential to be even more compelling.
tOverall, Sachs’s work demonstrates a practical and impassioned application of the field of economics.
Sachs talks about global poverty issues and their miseries in poor countries. Moreover, he provides statistics with examples of the many problems related to economic, educational, population, cultural, health and environmental issues. He narrates in detail the poverty of Malawi, Bangladesh, Kenya, India and Bolivia. The book compares and contrasts the economic histories of China, Russia and India. The book also narrates the current Chinese and Indian economic booms in the global context. The book contains economic histories of many countries; it has many suggestions for economic policy reforms and cooperation among rich and poor countries. It contains suggestions for improving donor funding plans, and strategies for ending poverty in poor countries. The book mainly focuses on reforming international agencies and the international development policies of G-8 countries, as well as their international funding strategies and actions. Although Jeffrey Sachs is from the U.S., he is critical of the U.S. role
In International Development and the realization of funding to developing countries. The book mainly focuses on the poverty of developing countries. However, poverty also exists in rich countries, and misses the opportunity to narrate poverty situations and the means for poverty eradication in rich countries.

Jeffrey Sachs is a world-renowned economist. Harvard-educated, he now teaches at Columbia University and has worked with or for the United Nations, IMF, and World Bank. This book, now well over a decade old, collects his observations, insights, and recommendations from many years as a development economist. The End of Poverty is considered a classic by many and is now used as textbook in college courses.

Despite his numerous degrees, awards, and fancy pedigree, Sachs's basic assertions prove easy to understand. First, he feels that due to circumstances beyond their control (e.g. geography) a number of countries have not made it on to the first rung of the economic development ladder. Until they reach a place of minimum sustainability, the alleviation of poverty will remain out of the question. These nations will fall further and further into what Sachs describes as a "poverty trap." Second, development in different nations requires an awareness of the situation on the ground and a willingness to use unique solutions that respond to those conditions. In other words, outsiders cannot assume a one-size-fits-all set of programs. Sachs calls this approach the use of a "differential diagnosis" for development solutions. Third, Sachs argues that wealthy nations must do more for developing countries, especially ones that have not made it on to the first rungs of economic progress, and are slowly losing per capita income, either due to bad governance, disease, or other factors. Sachs believes that the levels of foreign aid and foreign direct investment both need to be significantly higher, and that making such investments is actually in the best interests of wealthier countries.

I read this in repertoire with another book on global development, William Easterly's White Man's Burden, which directly contradicts and critiques Sachs's points. It was a strange juxtaposition. I would read something from Sachs and think, "Yeah, that's a good idea. Right on!" Then I would turn to a chapter of Easterly and go, "Oh, no. Terrible idea. Sachs is an idiot." At the end of the day, I think Sachs and Easterly agree on more than their two books might suggest . . . but I'll save that commentary for another review.

Sachs uses case studies from his own work with the governments of Bolivia and Poland, as well as observations on Russia, China, and India, and field notes from trips to numerous African countries too. His on-the-ground stories make for the most interesting reading in the book. The question of whether the higher level ideas he extrapolates from his observations are valid remains open for debate. Despite having witnessed a lot of misguided development work, Sachs is clearly an optimist, believing that with the right strategies, sufficient resources, and political will, extreme poverty can be eliminated in our time. He makes a compelling case and as a bystander, one might feel compelled to cheer him on.

Of course, in the intervening years since this book was published, we have seen less progress than Sachs would have hoped, I am certain. A global pandemic has also reversed some promising trends and left some nations even more isolated and poor. Still, Sachs' basic premise - that humans have the ability to end the worst of poverty, if we put our minds to it - seems like a message that still needs to be broadcast.

it was really detailed and was the sum of working for so many years.
you definitely need an accounting, economic, background to actually understand everything. it was tiresome for me to continue at some points but interesting at others.
I really loved how he offered a brief history to see how the problem developed for some countries, it really made me see how everything is linked together.
he tackled a big problem and offered big solutions. I was more interested on how individuals and small enterprises could help , and not big countries.
for me he complicated it more than he offered a solution.
his language was very formal and he mentioned too many officials which made me be put off by it....
overall he did worked so hard and he did offered data and all but unless you're willing to take time and really understand what he's discussing it will be very difficult for you to finish it. it is an advanced book.

So, I bought this book without reading the description, and thus was unaware that this book covers economics. Although written in the past with a future outlook, the author profiles different countries and how they improved poverty. The author provides a brief history lesson, and details fiscal policy decisions that led to those changes. The author does not shy away from pointing out how colonization played a role in modern poverty, and how national security and poverty are linked. Something that irked me is how the author spoke about Africa as though it were one country, rather than a continent with different cultures and histories within.

Very powerful book, Sach's is very passionate on the topic of world poverty and how billions of the world's population is living on less than $1 a day. He details policies and ideas that have been tried and those that he believes can work to end world poverty. It is amazing to me that an book by an economist can come across as more christian and how do we help the poor and disadvantaged than a lot of christians that I come in contact with on the same subject. Well written book and it gave me a new perspective on globalization and working together.

Spoiler alert: he wanted to end extreme poverty by 2025. It hasn't happened and we're still a long ways off. This book is 20 years old, but still really interesting. The history of economies and the development of the market economy is interesting. The author was on the front lines of helping countries adopt market economies after the fall of the Soviet Union, which is kind of fascinating. He was also there for the development of many tremendously effective aid programs like The Global Fund, GAVI, and PEPFAR - I advocate for all of these programs in volunteer work I do, so this was near and dear to my heart!

I must admit that this book did surprise me. I was expecting a full blown neo liberal let the market do everything propaganda piece, now a propaganda work it still was but not quite the message I had expected and it did leave me bewildered in how to appreciate this book.

What came as a huge surprise was the condemnation of western states, IMF and world bank practices of the last half a century. Not just mentioned on the side, the failures of these institutions and states to live up to the rhetoric they espouse and stubborn misplaced dedication to tried and failed programs was often central in the argumentation used by Sachs. As was the harsh refutation of common false assumption on Africa, Asia, the former communist bloc and Latin America, claims of cultural determination that supposedly would keep all poor nations poor. Diligently does Sachs dispel such notions with concrete evidence on the contrary, birthrates are dropping, governance is relatively good considering their income, corruption exists but is not the most important factor and every poor nation that did escape from extreme poverty once was claimed to be culturally determined to remain poor.

But the man is a devout liberal, one would call him a social liberal and through is book he reconstructs how he started out as what would call a neo classicist liberal only interested in fiscal matters with little attention to context and history to a liberal with (according to him) a more original liberal point of view inspired by less well known writings of Adam Smith (his work on trust, cooperation and necessity of a public funded education system). And there we come to one of my issues with the book. It is a personal narrative disguised as an objective observation. We follow Sachs from Bolivia to Poland, Russia, China, India, Africa and the bureaus of the UN and Multilateral organisations (the IMF and World bank). His contributions, arguments and hard work to end poverty and bring about the wealth of nations are analysed and detailed for all the world to know and when his plans failed (Russia) off course he was not to blame but the rest of the world who failed to see his genius.

For all his worldly experience Jefferey Sachs comes across as naive from time to time, he genuinely does not understand how so many people fail to see the rationality of his ideas and the irrationality of theirs (be they IMF neo liberals, Marxists, anarchist antiglobalisation, neo conservative US politicians or anyone else for that matter). Why cant people believe in capitalism with a human face he proclaims near the end. Even if he is considerate for concerns and skepticism from politicians, academics and citizens from the developing world as long as they want to achieve his dream for the world. He never acknowledges that there might be people/states and compagnies profiting from the current status. His obsession with upholding the legacy of western enlightenment thinking and proving their superiority is the propaganda aspect of this book, in combination with promoting the UN (considering his involvement with the former UN secretary general and the Millennium goals not surprising) as the arbiter to launch the true age of peace, prosperity and globalization.

So does that mean the book is false or wrong? No for even if 1/3 of the book is a biography (to inspire fellow economists to join him), 1/3 enlightenment UN ideals propaganda, the last part is fact backed up with considerate amount of evidence. Sachs shows us how malaria has a dramatic impact on every aspect of African society and how it hampers their efforts. As he puts it: some countries can't even get to the first part of the ladder to keep on climbing. His book is aimed at highlighting what is preventing some nations to climb the ladder of prosperity and what the rest of the world can do to help a lot it seems; financial aid, debt cancellation, fair trade, disease control, infrastructure, context specific developed technology, specialists (with open minds) and how foolish it is why we don't ( a state security message on failed states and potential to harbor terrorists or be cradles for epidemic diseases) despite having the means to do.

So what to make of this book? Well on the one hand it was refreshing to read it. For his often brutal honesty concerning failure of the west and misguided attempts made by the developing world.
But on the other hand it is a ideological book that fails to admit it. Sachs insistence on his status of exploring man that comes to realize what needs to be done is a literature classic and even has a salvation tone to it. His nitpicking of history to back him up is as unsubtle liberal as can be ( the end of slavery and colonialism as by peaceful lobbyist and Gandhi with no mention of revolts and wars for Independence), to suit his agenda of (a selection off) enlightenment thinking, scientific rationality and can do mentality. The most shocking line I found was his commentary on the 19th century; "technology has been the main force behind the long term increase in income in the rich world, not exploitation of the poor, to be revolting and true only on the most insane technicality." This kind of apologetic thinking only serves a let bygones be bygones message and seems to me an extremely insensitive and arrogant statement to make and is a key line to understand the ideological nature of this book that comes back every time another way of looking at the world other than his is presented.

While he castigates all those who claim only one way and one solution for all countries will work (be it marxist or neo liberal) and advocates attention to factors such a geography and diseases to be included in economic analysis as well as low key crucial investments such as community based basic experts along side global multi billion dollar programs, his endpoint is universal. All states must become modern and the traditional must be destroyed for the world to be ideal. His accounts off successes and ways forward are often as nitpicking as his history accounts to make his liberal (with influence of Keynes) views are the sole way forward. his admiration for Indian IT companies hides the truth of their limited impact on Indian society or on the fight for indigenous peoples resisting the encroaching bureaucratic liberal nation states only mentioned briefly as a need to end discrimination to maximize human capital. But after all that I must admit that the man is genuinely dedicated to ending poverty and spreading prosperity and even if I do not agree with the details or point out the cracks in his vision (limited attention was given to ecological costs or potential deglobalization) a discussion with him would be more of a friendly debate then a battle of words I would have with some economists and politicians out there.

So a must read if you want to know more on the way of thinking common among UN officials and and third world politicians who follow it's line of thinking. The book does have a strong message (even if at times if you read between the line you find some contradictions) but do not be fooled to believe this to be a purely objective book on the other hand can anyone expect that from a book with the foreword written by Bono?

"The End of Poverty" by Jeffrey D. Sachs is a thought-provoking book that presents a comprehensive plan to eradicate extreme poverty around the world.

Sachs, an economist and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, argues that with the right strategies and international cooperation, it is possible to end poverty. Two hundred years ago the idea that we could potentially achieve the end of extreme poverty would have been unimaginable. Just about everybody was poor, with the exception of a very small minority of rulers and large landowners. Life was as difficult in much of Europe as it was in India or China.

The first wave of the Industrial Revolution was the development of the steam engine and related technologies, including the organization of large-scale factory production, new machinery in the textile and apparel sector, and new techniques to produce steel. A second wave of technological breakthroughs came in the middle of the nineteenth century with the rail, and even more notably the telegraph, which offered the first instantaneous telecommunications around the world, a phenomenal breakthrough in the ability to diffuse information on a large scale.

The second technological wave also included ocean steamers, global-scale trade, and two huge infrastructure projects: the Suez Canal, completed in 1869, which significantly shortened the trade time between Europe and Asia, and the Panama Canal, completed in 1914, which dramatically reduced the trade time between the U.S. eastern seaboard and destinations in the western United States, much of Latin America, and East Asia.

The book delves into the economic, social, and political factors that contribute to poverty and proposes practical solutions to address these issues. Bolivia, Poland, Russia, China, India, Africa, US. Sachs emphasizes the importance of targeted investments in health, education, infrastructure, and technology to uplift the world's poorest populations. His work has sparked discussions and debates on global poverty alleviation and has influenced international development policies.

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.

Read this book the summer before starting college, excited about Sachs' Millenium Villages project, and it really influenced my course decisions and direction during my first years in college. However, after enrolling in Sachs' class on sustainable development, it became clearer how shallow some of these ideas about geographic determinism, and a set point of foreign aid to overcome a poverty trap -- really is, given the political context of postcolonial turmoil and graft that are not solvable by throwing more money or clever technological hacks at the problems. I also came to better understand the criticism of his "shock therapy" policy choices in Bolivia, and the critique of neoliberal economic development frameworks (globalization) overall. While I really respect the earnest efforts of the Earth Institute, and believe that institutions in wealthy countries have a responsibility to invest in this kind of research, we now live in such different times than those cheery 2005 assumptions of a liberal world order backed by U.S. hegemonic power. Sachs has also moved more leftward in his thinking in this last decade, and it's interesting to see his thinking evolve during the Trump administration in "A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism" (2018).

This is a good book and it shares with us Sach's wealth of experience in international economics. The problem for me is that I read Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty first, and that book changed the whole way I look at politics and international development- it was mind-blowing. Sachs suffers from the comparison with kind of run-of-the-mill recommendations.