I think it’s important for those interested in the question of whether developing world aid is effective to look to those who can point to formal studies about the effectiveness of African aid rather than basing their judgments on quotes from individuals whose opinions may very well have been heavily skewed by selection bias and/or driven by ideological considerations which have nothing to do with the available evidence.
Do you think that people who believe aid harms are more likely to be driven by ideological considerations? I’d expect the opposite, because ideologies that say aid is good are very popular.
Engaging with the evidence in detail is a very time-consuming task and one beyond the scope of this blog entry. I will however quote various experts with links to useful references.
But… you just said… Wait—you mean you believe there are humans whose opinions are not heavily skewed by selection bias and/or driven by ideological considerations which have nothing to do with the available evidence?
I presently believe that while it’s possible that saving lives in the developing world does more harm than good on account of Malthusian problem, this is fairly unlikely
The demographics of Africa are currently crazy skewed towards kids.
Look at what the CIA Factbook says about median age. For almost every country in Africa except Libya, Angola, and Egypt, the median age is 15-20. For other countries, it’s 30-40. The countries outside Africa with Africa-like median ages are: Afghanistan, Bolivia, the Gaza strip, Guatemala, Pakistan, the West Bank, and Yemen.
The evidence is overwhelming not really, see below that having lots of kids is strongly correlated with poverty, civil unrest, and war. Causation probably runs in both direction. But imagine trying to run a country when most of your citizens are in their teens. Is it a coincidence that the countries that are a nexus for terrorism, like Somalia, Afghanistan, the Gaza strip, the West Bank, Yemen, and Pakistan, have very low median ages? I don’t think so. These countries have too many children for the adults to control. And lots of them have AK-47s.
In short: A sudden decrease in child mortality usually causes terrorism and civil war.
This brings to mind the chapter in Freakonomics arguing that the introduction of abortion to the US caused the rapid decline in violent crime about 20 years later.
Look at this graph on the demographics of suicide bombers. 82% were under age 25. 98.7% were under age 35. (Suicide bombers are much more likely to be single than married; so there is probably an age x chance of being married variable to factor out—assuming “being single” has causal power.)
(I also note that 77% of those with known educational histories went to college—while about 20% of all men in the West Bank go to college, based on population and enrollment figures and the assumption that zero women attend college in the West Bank.)
The evidence is overwhelming that having lots of kids is strongly correlated with poverty, civil unrest, and war.
I repent of this statement!
The sample size is large, but the countries in Africa, and those in the Middle East, are too highly-correlated within their respective groups in many other ways, including climate, culture, and genetics, to count as independent datapoints.
It would take detailed research to check on it—if parents die, babies and small children are less likely to survive.
Now that I’m thinking about it, I’ve got some skepticism about the census figures. I’m not saying they’re wildly off, but they’ve got to be less accurate than censuses in first world countries.
Do you believe that experts who think developing world aid is not effective, are more likely to be driven by ideological considerations?
No, not necessarily. I think that my remark applies equally to the quote by Shiktawi and the quote by Jeffrey Sachs.
But… you just said… Wait—you mean you believe there are humans whose opinions are not heavily skewed by selection bias and/or driven by ideological considerations which have nothing to do with the available evidence?
No, although on a given topic some people are more even-handed than others. I would recur to the “A Note on Overcorrecting Bias” section at the end of my top level post.
In short: A sudden decrease in child mortality reliably causes terrorism and civil war.
The links that you provide do not corroborate your above statement (which seems to me to be quite sweeping). Are there more relevant references that you would point to?
The links that you provide do not corroborate your above statement. Are there more relevant references that you would draw attention to?
I believe that they corroborate my statement. Most countries that have a sudden decrease in child mortality, have frequent terrorism and/or civil war. Few countries today that did not have that sudden decrease, have frequent terrorism and/or civil war. Find me another variable that correlates as strongly with terrorism and war, or an argument that causation runs the other way, if you want to refute that. I find it hard to believe that terrorism and civil war cause a sudden decrease in child mortality.
I slightly edited my comment while you were replying to the parenthetical “(which seems to me to be quite sweeping)”.
You raise a question which I will have to think about and may eventually have more to say something about.
My first reaction is that the collection of examples that you cite is too small to support the claim that in general to support the claim that there’s even reliable correlation between decrease in child mortality to result in frequent terrorism and/or civil war.
The collection I cited is all the countries in the world today. I don’t think you can get a bigger sample.
I haven’t done a statistical test; I haven’t searched for alternate hypotheses. The word “reliably” is too strong, since there are exceptions—I’ll change it to “usually”.
The collection I cited is all the countries in the world today. I don’t think you can get a bigger sample.
What about historically? The set of nations that exists now is a subset of all the nations and empires that ever existed. What was the median age in France in 1700?
Do you think that people who believe aid harms are more likely to be driven by ideological considerations? I’d expect the opposite, because ideologies that say aid is good are very popular.
But… you just said… Wait—you mean you believe there are humans whose opinions are not heavily skewed by selection bias and/or driven by ideological considerations which have nothing to do with the available evidence?
The demographics of Africa are currently crazy skewed towards kids. Look at what the CIA Factbook says about median age. For almost every country in Africa except Libya, Angola, and Egypt, the median age is 15-20. For other countries, it’s 30-40. The countries outside Africa with Africa-like median ages are: Afghanistan, Bolivia, the Gaza strip, Guatemala, Pakistan, the West Bank, and Yemen.
The evidence is overwhelming not really, see below that having lots of kids is strongly correlated with poverty, civil unrest, and war. Causation probably runs in both direction. But imagine trying to run a country when most of your citizens are in their teens. Is it a coincidence that the countries that are a nexus for terrorism, like Somalia, Afghanistan, the Gaza strip, the West Bank, Yemen, and Pakistan, have very low median ages? I don’t think so. These countries have too many children for the adults to control. And lots of them have AK-47s.
In short: A sudden decrease in child mortality usually causes terrorism and civil war.
This brings to mind the chapter in Freakonomics arguing that the introduction of abortion to the US caused the rapid decline in violent crime about 20 years later.
Look at this graph on the demographics of suicide bombers. 82% were under age 25. 98.7% were under age 35. (Suicide bombers are much more likely to be single than married; so there is probably an age x chance of being married variable to factor out—assuming “being single” has causal power.)
(I also note that 77% of those with known educational histories went to college—while about 20% of all men in the West Bank go to college, based on population and enrollment figures and the assumption that zero women attend college in the West Bank.)
I repent of this statement!
The sample size is large, but the countries in Africa, and those in the Middle East, are too highly-correlated within their respective groups in many other ways, including climate, culture, and genetics, to count as independent datapoints.
What about the hypothesis that terrorism, civil war, and poverty lower the median age by increasing the adult death rate?
It would take detailed research to check on it—if parents die, babies and small children are less likely to survive.
Now that I’m thinking about it, I’ve got some skepticism about the census figures. I’m not saying they’re wildly off, but they’ve got to be less accurate than censuses in first world countries.
No, not necessarily. I think that my remark applies equally to the quote by Shiktawi and the quote by Jeffrey Sachs.
No, although on a given topic some people are more even-handed than others. I would recur to the “A Note on Overcorrecting Bias” section at the end of my top level post.
The links that you provide do not corroborate your above statement (which seems to me to be quite sweeping). Are there more relevant references that you would point to?
I believe that they corroborate my statement. Most countries that have a sudden decrease in child mortality, have frequent terrorism and/or civil war. Few countries today that did not have that sudden decrease, have frequent terrorism and/or civil war. Find me another variable that correlates as strongly with terrorism and war, or an argument that causation runs the other way, if you want to refute that. I find it hard to believe that terrorism and civil war cause a sudden decrease in child mortality.
I slightly edited my comment while you were replying to the parenthetical “(which seems to me to be quite sweeping)”.
You raise a question which I will have to think about and may eventually have more to say something about.
My first reaction is that the collection of examples that you cite is too small to support the claim that in general to support the claim that there’s even reliable correlation between decrease in child mortality to result in frequent terrorism and/or civil war.
The collection I cited is all the countries in the world today. I don’t think you can get a bigger sample.
I haven’t done a statistical test; I haven’t searched for alternate hypotheses. The word “reliably” is too strong, since there are exceptions—I’ll change it to “usually”.
What about historically? The set of nations that exists now is a subset of all the nations and empires that ever existed. What was the median age in France in 1700?