‘The End of Poverty’ — and AIDS?

I’ve been reading The End of Poverty by economist Jeffrey Sachs. OK, I’m on page 29. I’ve also been interviewing doctors assigned to the world’s first pediatric AIDS corps who are training in Houston before moving to Africa to treat children with HIV.

To many people, the whole AIDS-in-Africa thing seems like a bottomless pit of misery for which there’s no solution. But look closer and you see progress. In Gaborone, Botswana, for instance, one clinic has 1,500 children on antiretroviral drugs and has largely stabilized the HIV crisis in children. How can you tell? The children’s ward at the hospital is no longer overflowing with kids severely ill with AIDS. Even so, that’s a drop in the bucket, right?

Maybe not.

One point Sachs makes is how a situation we take for granted — ie, some countries are wealthy while others are impoverished — is a relatively new phenomenon. “A few centuries ago, vast divides in wealth and poverty around the world did not exist,” he writes. “Until the mid-1700s, the world was extremely poor by any of today’s standards …Children died in vast numbers in the now-rich countries as well as the poor countries.”

In 1890, the biggest gap between rich and poor — the U.K. and Africa — was a four to one ratio in per capita income. By 1998, the gap between the richest economy, the United States, and the poorest region, Africa, had widened 20 to one.

Today’s vast income inequalities illuminate two centuries of highly uneven patterns of economic growth…. Technology has been the main force behind the longterm increases in the rich world, not exploitation of the poor …

Economics is not a zero-sum game in which the winnings of some are inevitably mirrored by the losses of others. This game is one that everybody can win.

Many believe Sachs is right. And if poverty can be brought to an end, doesn’t it follow that a team of 52 pediatricians, fanned out across Africa, can begin bringing HIV/AIDS under control, one region at a time?

Categories: Uncategorized

7 Responses

  1. Rorschach says:

    the biggest barriers that Africa has in attaining the kinds of economic potential that the US and Europe enjoy are political and social. Too much socialism/communism. too many corrupt leaders, too much tribal warfare. The economies of Africa have within thier grasp the ability to become economic powerhouses, all they must do is reform their society and their culture to get away from the tribal culture which forces all members of the tribe to give everything they have to the tribal chieftan who then turns around and buys himself a gold plated mercedes or buys guns to attack the neighboring tribe. When Africa chooses to throw off the chains of it’s own culture and join the rest of the world’s economies, we can help them, but until they chose to be prosperous they will not be.

  2. Leigh says:

    Jeepers, Rorschach! That’s a sweeping generalization there. It’s a big continent.

  3. Kenneth Stanley, MD says:


    I think that it took Western Europe 1000-1200 years to get any semblance of democracy and good government (I am referring to the Middle Ages). Roman rule ended in England around 400 AD. The Magna Carta was signed in 1215. England had a useful Parliament around 1650-ish. Meanwhile France didn’t democratize until 1789- then they ended up with Napoleon. For Russia, absolute monarchy until 1917. It’ll take a few generations for Africa to get things going.

  4. Bethany Joy says:

    I think the end of AIDS may come before the end of poverty. I have some hope when I remember how feared Polio once was here. Of course, according to the WHO, we really haven’t even seen the end of Polio.

  5. Rorschach says:

    Leigh, yes it is, but can anyone refute it? Lets look at the kinds of governments they have, many are marxist/socialist, many others are dictatorial or monarchies. most still have high tribal influences. NONE of those are condusive to economic wellbeing.

    the fundamental foundation of economic prosperity is the individual. the individual is selfish, he works for himself to improve his status. he spends his hard earned money to buy things he wants and/or needs. those monies go into the pockets of other individuals that are also out to improve their own status. Greed is the motivating factor. Greed, in moderation is good. it is the engine that fires ambition. If the government can waltz in and take everything you have at any given moment, or tax you into poverty, then you are generally not that predisposed to bust your hump to make much money, why should you? it’ll just go to the local chieftan or government flunky. If the populace is unarmed and cannot fight off such parasites, then the parasites take over. they have taken over in Africa in many, nay most of the countries there.

    There is a reason for our bill of rights, they do not spell out what you or I can do, they spell out what the government cannot. Ultimately, Africa’s economies must arrive at a constitutional republican government or they will remain in the cycle of poverty, disease and famine that they have remained in for thousands of years.

  6. Leigh says:

    Botswana has the distinction of being virtually “corruption-free.” Check out its profile on the CIA World Fact Book — it’s practically a love note! That’s only one, relatively sparsely populated country on the continent. For contrast, check out Zimbabwe — what a mess.

    My point is, if you care about people in Africa — and not everyone does — but if you do, there are plenty of countries that can benefit from a helping hand, particularly when it comes to improving health.


  7. subodh chauhan says:

    I agree the political stability is vital to have long term progress in africa. Stablity brings the fruits of economic progress and access to health care and technology. By giving one time loans during crisis is unlikely to solve the underlying problems of africa or any developing country.