The Human Development Report

The United Nations has released its annual Human Development Report, showing that New Zealand is the fifth most developed country in the world. This is dramatically at odds of the perception our business class tells us, of a country of economic losers in need of NeoLiberal "reform" to get us back to the top of the ranking tables, so what's up? Simple: The HDR takes into account not just living standards, but also life expectency and education, things NeoLiberals do not care about. And on those measures, we do very well indeed. The result is that we rank a full 30 places above our GDP ranking, just behind the United States.

Which just goes to show that these rankings are a matter of what you care about. If all you care about is money, then you hide our real achievements as a nation. And if you impose austerity and neoLiberlaism, then those achievements stand a good chance of being destroyed.

Guest Column: The Case Against The Case Against Aid

Why common counter arguments against giving aid are mistaken.

By Terence Wood

In my previous post on New Zealand's need to give more aid I argued for increasing overseas development assistance both on moral grounds and with respect to our own enlightened self-interest.

These are, I think, persuasive arguments for increased aid. So it is unsurprising that critics of aid generally don't argue against them directly. Instead, they usually make one of three claims: (1) that aid doesn't work; (2) that trade not aid is what is needed; and/or (3) that corruption is the main problem in developing countries and that aid will do nothing to help this.

In this post I will examine each of these arguments in turn.

Aid Doesn't Work

The first and probably most common argument against aid is that it simply doesn't work.

Australian academic Helen Hughes (not to be confused with the New Zealander of the same name) made this argument forcefully in her polemic Aid Has Failed the Pacific [PDF]¹. Appealing at one point to research on the matter:

Aid appears to be inversely related to growth. Recent research shows that worldwide aid has not even been effective in countries that have adopted pro-growth policies.

Which sounds convincing until you realise that Hughes has engaged in a rather selective reading of the evidence at hand. It is true that there are some cross country regression analyses that show that aid has little impact on economic growth². However - and you won't read this in Hughes' polemic - the majority of recent empirical evidence actually shows the opposite: that aid does have a positive impact on growth (I've written more about this here, there's a good discussion of recent research here, a summary of much of the positive research here [PDF]³). I've noted elsewhere my scepticism of cross country regression analyses and I think they are a particularly problematic tool in assessing aid effectiveness. So my intent here is not so much to use the positive studies of aid effectiveness to make the case for aid, but rather to simply point out that people such as Hughes who cite "empirical research" in their arguments are telling less than half the story.

Another strategy employed by people who claim that aid doesn't work is to point to a failed aid project and then use this as an illustration of aid's inevitable worthlessness. Once again, at first glance, this can appear persuasive: the history of aid, it is true, is strewn with white elephants.

Yet people who point to aid failures as evidence that aid doesn't work are doing the exact same thing as those who selectively mine empirical research: they are engaging in a one-sided reading of the evidence.

In the long and winding history of development, accompanying the failures are numerous examples of aid success stories. Aid money was involved in the eradication of small pox and the near eradication of polio worldwide, and aid contributed to the control of river blindness in Africa. Aid money also funded oral rehydration therapy in Egypt which saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and aid appears to have played a role in the economic takeoff of Botswana, South Korea, Bolivia and Vietnam⁴.

If there's one lesson to be learnt from the history of aid giving, it is not that aid doesn't work. Rather, it is the simple point that aid given well is more likely to work, while aid given poorly is likely to fail. And, in New Zealand we are lucky in that we have a very good aid agency and so can be confident that much of the aid we give will actually help people.

Trade Not Aid

Another argument often employed in the case against aid is that, compared to the benefits of international trade, aid's impact is trivial. And because New Zealand has very low trade barriers we are already "doing our bit for development".

To me the central premise of this argument is flawed. Why does the fact that we are doing one thing right mean that we shouldn't do another? (And, while we're at it, exactly how again is trade going to stop that HIV epidemic in Papua New Guinea?) Worse than this though is the fact that the trade not aid argument is based on a misunderstanding of the role that trade plays in fostering development.

On the surface the case for trade as tool of development is persuasive. Theories of specialisation, and comparative and competitive advantage have a distinguished pedigree in economics, and one needs only to look at the impact of sanctions on countries such as Iraq and Cuba (not to mention self-imposed autarky on North Korea) to see the importance of international trade in building affluent societies.

The trouble is, however, that trading one's way to wealth isn't as simple as opening your borders, hoping everyone else will do the same, and then watching your GDP rise. In reality, the relationship between trade and development is more complicated⁵, with the countries that have done the best from international trade typically engaging strategically and often shielding their "infant industries" from competition. Perhaps the most important point though, is that the countries that benefit most form international trade are those that have the capacity to do so. And our low trade tariffs are of no benefit to countries that lack this capacity. At present capacity constraints can be found in many of the countries that we give aid to. Hopefully, aid and domestic reform may mean that these nations will one day be able to benefit fully from international trade. But, until that time, it is wrong to use the argument that our own near absence of tariffs means that we are doing enough⁶.

Corrupt, Corrupt, Corrupt

The final argument made by opponents of aid is corruption is the main obstacle to development and that until it is tackled in developing countries other efforts such as aid giving are going to be of little use.

Once again this argument has prima facie appeal: it can hardly be denied that corruption poses a challenge to development. And some of the world's most corrupt countries are also some of its poorest. However, a closer look shows that things aren't as simple as they appear at first glance. For a start, the relationship between poverty and corruption probably runs both ways: while corruption slows development, many poor countries are also more corrupt simply because they are poor and cannot pay their civil servants well. On top of this, corruption, while a challenge, isn't an insurmountable obstacle to development. Countries such as China, Indonesia and Vietnam are undeniably corrupt yet in recent years (outside a dip associated with the Asian crisis) these countries have all grown rapidly, and done a good job in reducing poverty [press play].

Corruption isn't the only hurdle for development, either. In his book The End of Poverty (see my footnotes for a full reference) Jeffrey Sachs shows that, after corruption is controlled for, African countries have still performed worse than other parts of the developing world. Something that he attributes to geographical constraints and disease burden (having neo-liberalism rammed down their throats by multi-lateral institutions can’t have helped either).

When it comes to the problems of overcoming disease and geography, the role of aid is obvious. Yet, aid can also play an important role in tackling corruption. Aid can be used to fund civil society organisations to act as watchdogs on their own governments. Aid also gives us leverage when working with governments and can be used as an incentive for reform⁷.

Finally, it is worth noting that poor governance is sometimes merely the result of inability rather than dishonesty on behalf of government officials. Aid can, by funding capacity building, be an important tool in overcoming this.

Conclusion and What You Can Do

Over the week that has elapsed since I wrote my first post on aid more than 200,000 children have died from diseases associated with poverty. Many more have been born into lives of extreme hardship and limited opportunity; likely to be denied even the ability to perform the simple task of reading that you are currently engaged in.

As I said in my first post, surely this is an intolerable state of affairs.

What's more the common critiques of aid are unconvincing. Aid can work. And the potential of trade and problems of corruption are no excuse for not giving more aid. While aid won't solve all of the issues of under-development it will help.

So the question remains: why do we continue to fail to meet our obligations in this area?

If you feel inclined to take action on aid giving there are currently two campaigns running in New Zealand around the issue of aid and development.

The first of these is specifically related to meeting our aid targets. This is the Point Seven Campaign.

The second campaign is Make Poverty History, which campaigns on aid alongside other development platforms.

Footnotes:

1. For a good critique of Hughes' paper refer to the conference paper by Ewan Morris on page 27 of this PDF.

2. Two credible, recent papers that purport to cast doubt on aid's impact on growth are "New Data, New Doubts: Revisiting 'Aid, Policies, and Growth'" (Easterly, Levine and Roodman) and “Aid and Growth: What Does the Cross-Country Evidence Really Show?” by Raghuram Rajan and Arvind Subramanian.

3. And for the enthusiast: a meta-study of aid studies that shows that a significant proportion of the positive research is robust and resilient to expanded data sets and changed specifications can be read here. Also worth noting is the point that GDP growth is not the only reason for giving aid. This paper [PDF] by Otago University academic David Fielding (and others) regresses aid levels vs other indicators of human wellbeing such as health and education and finds positive results.

4. My references for these claims are:

• Sachs, Jeffrey. 2005. The End of Poverty: how we can make it happen in our lifetime, Penguin, London
• Levine, R. & Kinder, M. 2004. Millions Saved: proven successes in global health. Centre for Global Development, Washington
• World Bank, 1998. Assessing Aid: What Works, What Doesn't and Why, Oxford University Press, New York

5. And one which is too complicated to discuss in any depth in this post. A very good introduction to the reasons why carte blanche trade liberalisation isn't a good strategy for the Pacific is can be found here [PDF]

6. It is also worth noting that New Zealand's involvement in the arena of international trade is not wholly benevolent. In the case of recent Pacific trade agreements (and the accessions of Pacific Island countries to the WTO) our negotiators have often pushed for rapid and comprehensive liberalisation of Pacific countries without due concern for the costs associated with this.

7. This I should note is not as easy in practice as it sounds and may only work in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, with all but the worst governments, some form of engagement is usually better than none. In the case of the worst governments the dilemma then becomes whether pulling aid out will harm the country's most vulnerable people.

Guest Column: Still Failing the Poor: why New Zealand needs to give more aid

By Terence Wood

We live in a time of unprecedented material wealth: our planet is home to almost 800 billionaires; while there are over 8 million millionaires living in the United States alone. The Sultan of Brunei spent nearly US$30 million on his 50^th birthday party, while a single pen was bought at Harrods for US$265,000. Annually the world spends $US40 Billion on pet food [PDF] and the people of Europe spend $US 11 Billion on Ice Cream each year.

At the same time, according to the best available evidence, almost half the world's population lives in utter poverty, surviving on less each day than US$2.56 would have bought you in the United States in the year 2000¹ - in other words, almost nothing.

This is the sort of grinding poverty that dramatically reduces life expectancy and opportunities. This is the sort of poverty that leads to the deaths of 10 million children every year and which confines hundreds of millions of people to illiteracy.

This is the sort of poverty that is clearly intolerable in a world as wealthy as ours.

The question, then, is what is to be done? And, most importantly, what can we do?

The solutions to global poverty are complex and there is no one magic bullet that will rid the planet of the problem. A fairer global trading regime would help, as would debt reduction for some countries, as would reduced corruption. On top of this, however, more aid is needed. And this, sadly, is one area where – as Idiot/Savant noted – New Zealand continues to fail shamefully in the task of tackling global poverty.

In 1970 the United Nations adopted General Resolution 2626, through which the nations of the developed world committed to devoting 0.7% of their Gross National Product (GNP – now commonly referred to as Gross National Income or GNI) to Overseas Development Assistance (ODA, or aid). This commitment has been reaffirmed several times since but it has never been met. At present, collectively, the OECD donor nations don't even manage to give half this target – in 2006 a paltry 0.3% of GNI was given as official development assistance.

In New Zealand's case the news is even worse: in 2006 we managed to give just 0.27%. Or, to put it another way, our official development assistance amounted to a miserly 27 cents for every $100 dollars we earned.

Over the rest of this blog post I am going to outline 3 reasons why, as a country, we need to do better than this.

The Moral Argument

The moral case for meeting the 0.7% target is straightforward. The amount of money that is being asked of us is very modest – 70 cents from every hundred dollars of national income. Yet, given well, this money can make a huge difference to the lives of people whose needs are acute. Compared to other endeavours such as the invasion of Iraq, estimates as to what would be required to provide primary education, water and sanitation, and improved health care to everyone on Earth are remarkably small. Annually, US$55 billion alone would be enough to meet the Millennium Development Goals' health targets, as well as extend primary education, improved sanitation and safe drinking water to everyone on Earth who currently lacks it. If the OECD donor nations were to meet the 0.7% target almost US$140 Billion dollars of extra aid would be given every year - easily enough to provide sanitation, clean water, education and better health to everyone on Earth. This is something that would save the lives of literally hundreds of millions of people.

In short, the sacrifice being asked of us is so small, and the benefits associated with giving more so great that it is very hard not to see the current situation as being immoral.

Even more so when you consider that colonialism, with its arbitrary map drawing and establishment of extractive institutions [PDF], played a considerable role in the problems that confront the developing world today.

Enlightened Self Interest

No doubt, out there in the New Zealand blogosphere, there will be people to whom the idea that the wealthy are morally obliged to give money to the poor is heresy most dire. But even these people may want to consider supporting increased aid giving. After all giving more aid is in our own self interest.

While living in an increasingly integrated world brings with it many benefits it also brings risks – globalisation means that developed countries ignore the developing world at their own peril. To give you but one example, at present Papua New Guinea is in the early stages of a generalised HIV epidemic; if no action is taken it is highly likely that, within a decade, the economic and social damage wrought by the disease will be similar to that witnessed in Sub-Saharan Africa². It is also probable – given the region's high risk indicators – that if HIV goes unchecked in PNG it will spread outwards across the Pacific. And if this happens it is highly unlikely that New Zealand, with its strong ties to the region, will escape the impact. This need not take place though: countries such as Thailand have shown that well-planned health programmes can arrest the spread of HIV. Increased ODA could be spent on such programmes in the Pacific – preventing future problems before they arrive on our doorstep.

On a more positive note, ultimately, aiding the developing world ought to aid our own economy. Today's aid recipients can become tomorrow's export markets. This has been the case with South Korea whose economic lift off was assisted by aid and which was, as of 2004, New Zealand's sixth largest export destination.

International Standing

As a small country New Zealand relies on multilateral institutions and agreements to advance our interests. Yet when we fail to meet our own international commitments we undermine our own ability to argue that other countries should meet theirs.

Until recently, New Zealand's low ODA levels were afforded some cover by the fact that many other OECD nations were poor givers. This is no longer the case: New Zealand's ODA as a proportion of GNI is now the 6^th lowest of the OECD donor nations, and we are well below the OECD donor country average of 0.46% [PDF].

If we don't rectify this situation, if we continue to fail to meet our commitments, how can we argue that other countries should meet theirs?

Giving more would be the morally right thing to do, what's more it is in our own interest, the question then is why on Earth don't we do so?

One possible answer, and one which is trotted out regularly by aid's critics, is that aid doesn't work. Another is that it is trade, not aid, that is needed. A third response is that the developing world is poor because it is corrupt and that aid can't do anything to help this.

In my next post in this series, I'll have a look at these counter arguments and explain why they are mistaken.

Footnotes:

1. These numbers come from the World Bank's global poverty measurement project and are reproduced in Peter Singer's book One World. With regards to the World Bank's poverty lines several things should be noted: first, they are not exactly US$1 and US$2, they are US$1.08 and US$2.15; second, they are purchasing power parity dollars, this means that they take into account the fact that US$1 will buy you more in a developing country than it will in the US; third, they are inflation adjusted 1992 dollars – Singer provides an updated line for 2000 which is the basis for my $2.56 figure; fourth, they are arbitrary constructs taken by averaging the poverty lines of a bunch of poor countries (for more discussion see here [PDF]) - they are not constructed around any meaningful needs set and the US$1 a day line is so low as to be almost meaningless – as detailed in one of the articles here [PDF] the two dollar a day line is probably closer to a minimal set of health needs); fifth, World Bank figures most probably understate the level of global poverty (see Sanjay Reddy's article here [PDF]).

2. I have found no better illustration of the impact of HIV than this moving chart (click on the play button) plotting the fate of one of Africa's onetime success stories, Botswana.

The G8 have betrayed the world's poor

Two years ago at the G8 summit in Gleneagles, the G8 nations supposedly took a historic step towards helping the developing world. In the face of unprecedented public protests demanding that they make poverty history, they promised to boost aid by US$50 billion. So, what have they done to keep that promise?

Nothing.

Actually, worse than nothing. According to figures from the OECD, aid spending fell in real terms by 5.1% - the first fall since 1997. A lot has been done on debt relief, but this has come at the expense of real aid spending. So much for the G8's promises...

The Annual No Right Turn Christmas Appeal

Christmas is supposed to be the season for giving, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to remind people that they can give to people besides retailers. Below are a couple of links to worthy causes. If you've enjoyed reading No Right Turn this year, or are simply naturally generous, and you have money to spare, please consider flicking them a few dollars to help them in the year ahead.

If you support human rights, then please consider donating to the New Zealand branch of Amnesty International (online form here). They are a strong, consistent and impartial voice for human rights worldwide: for the release of prisoners of conscience, for fair trials, for an end to torture, disappearances and extrajudicial killings, and for the abolition of the death penalty. They do good work, and while the constant flood of stories about human rights abuses may make it seem like they're getting nowhere, they do get results. Amnesty's ability to focus international attention on individual cases has saved thousands of people from torture, imprisonment, and death.

If you think supporting human rights is "too political", or if you're an animal-lover, then I suggest the Auckland SPCA (online form here, or you can call 0900 99 SPCA (0900 997722) to make a one-off $25 donation). They have a tough time around christmas, and they need all the help they can get to deal with the flood of abandoned pets they get in January.

Finally, if you'd like to directly help poor people in the developing world, Oxfam has a number of interesting ideas at Oxfam Unwrapped, including water, farming and educational projects. This stuff is cheap - $10 for a pair of chickens, $20 for trees, $35 to help someone start a business through a microcredit scheme - and there's plenty of options to choose from.

The causes I've highlighted above are those that appeal to me, and there are countless other ones which are equally deserving. I have no way of knowing if any of you will donate or not, but please do so anyway. It's christmas, after all.

Time to Make Poverty History

Tuesday is White Band Day, and the Sunday Star Times is highlighting the fact with a series of articles on the Make Poverty History Campaign overseas and in New Zealand, and the challenge of poverty in the Pacific. It also has a strongly worded editorial calling for New Zealand to boost its aid levels and do more in the fight against global poverty:

It is time for New Zealand to help make poverty history. The MPH campaign scored spectacular international successes last year - successes that throw an ugly light on New Zealand's efforts. Our overseas aid spending, as Bob Geldof told the government in July, is disgraceful and pathetic, among the worst in the OECD. We have not pressed hard for debt relief for the most wretched countries. And our stance on trade issues has been brainlessly purist, an unbending free-market approach that damages the interests of the Third World. New Zealand needs to do much better

We should all know the statistics. New Zealand spends a mere 0.27% of GDP on foreign aid - the 18th lowest in the OECD and a truly pathetic amount. We've been steadily falling in the annual Commitment to Development Index since it was introduced (the only consolation is that other countries have been falling faster). Despite having a left-wing government with an internationalist outlook and large budget surpluses, aid spending has trickled along at the same level it was under National in the mid 90's when they were slashing spending to give tax cuts to the rich, and when it comes to solving the world's problems, it seems that we now prefer to contribute soldiers rather than doctors, and bullets rather than medicine. This is not a record any of us should be proud of, and we can do a lot better. The problem is convincing the government to act, to eschew its "grim day-to-day managerialism" in favour of the basic decency of ordinary New Zealanders - and that ultimately is what the Make Poverty History campaign is all about.

If you'd like to help, then the best thing you can contribute is your voice. Join Make Poverty History. Email or write to the Prime Minister. Sign the petition [PDF]. Or wear a white band to show your support. Show the government you care, and maybe they'll start caring too. Otherwise, people will be condemned to suffer by our silence.

Make Poverty History

This month is the Make Poverty History campaign's Month of Mobilisation, culminating in White Band Day (more formally known as the International Day for the Eradication of World Poverty) on October 17th. The aim is to show our governments that we care, that we want them to help make poverty history, that we want them to act. In New Zealand, this means increasing our pathetic level of foreign aid, as well as committing to support trade justice and development at the WTO (meaning demanding that the US and EU open their markets, while acknowledging that poorer nations' development needs should take priority over trade in services). There is also a domestic aspect: Make Poverty History wants to see the government establish a timetable to end child poverty in New Zealand.

If you support these goals, then please take the opportunity to speak out about them. Join make Poverty History. Email or write to the Prime Minister. Sign the petition [PDF]. Or just wear a white band to show your support, and tell people what it means if they ask. Our government will act, if they see that there is public support. So let's show them that its there, and help Make Poverty History.

Failing to deliver

Last year, the worldwide Make Poverty History campaign put the leaders of the rich G8 nations on the spot, and forced them to pledge to do more to help poorer nations. The final communique, while disappointing in many ways, at least promised something: an increase in aid spending (though far lower than claimed), better access to HIV drugs, and debt relief for the poorest nations, So, a year on, has the west lived up to those promises?

In a word, no. According to a report [PDF] from Action Aid, the rich countries have failed to deliver on their promises - betraying both their own citizens, and the world's poor. In Germany and the UK, foreign aid spending has actually fallen, once debt relief is excluded. A major fund to provide universal access to HIV treatments is in danger of failing, because donors simply haven't put their money where their mouth is. Economic "conditionalities" such as open markets and asset sales are still being attached to debt relief. And there has been absolutely no progress on the real solution to third-world poverty: opening first-world markets and ending first-world farm subsidies.

Basically, our governments have lied to us, spun us a line of bullshit in the hope that we'd go away, and then continued business as usual. They cannot be allowed to get away with this.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair is making excuses in The Independent, saying that "We could never make poverty history overnight". But the issue here isn't the failure to solve the problem overnight; it's the failure of his government and others to do what they had agreed to. But rather than admit that, it seems that Blair would rather tilt at strawmen...

Dunne on foreign aid

It's not just the Greens who are in favour of New Zealand boosting its foreign aid. While Helen Clark is talking about action against global poverty at CHOGM, back home Peter Dunne is suggesting that we should put our money where our mouth is:

New Zealand's foreign aid in the last financial year was 0.27 per cent of GDP. Mr Dunne wants it increased to 0.5 per cent, moving towards the international goal of 0.7 per cent.

And he'll be seeking a cross-party agreement in order to get there. Hopefully this means we'll see some progress towards it in the next budget.

Dunne may be fairly conservative on social issues (though not as conservative as the rest of his party), but he's generally a liberal internationalist on foreign policy - and would be a far better foreign minister than Winston Peters (mainly because he is at least reliable).

(Hat tip: Frogblog)

White Band Day 2

Today is White Band Day 2, organised by Make Poverty History to remind world leaders in the leadup to the UN Summit in New York that the world is still watching, and expects to see serious progress towards making poverty history. In Wellington they're marking this with a Make Poverty History concert and speeches outside the Beehive. Why? Because despite liking to think of ourselves as good international citizens who do our bit, the fact is that we don't. The New Zealand government contributes only 0.27% of GNI (gross national income) in development aid - far below the accepted international target of 0.7%. That simply isn't good enough. We need to triple our contribution if we are to properly do our bit and help the UN achieve its eight Millenium Development Goals on time.

G8: Disappointing

The G8 has produced its final communique, promising to boost aid to Africa by US$50 billion and forgive some third world debt. But while this will make a real difference, overall it is disappointing. According to Make Poverty History, only 40% of that aid boost is actually new funding, the rest having already been announced. It also will not arrive until 2010. In the intervening five years, millions will die who could have been saved if the boost had been immediate.

The G8 will continue to attach "conditionalities" to both aid and debt forgiveness. This is good when it comes to governance - there is no point in giving aid if it simply goes to an official's Swiss bank account rather than people in need - but the West continues to demand economic liberalisation and privatisation as a condition for receiving assistance. In New Zealand, this economic programme resulted in widespread hardship for many, and skyrocketing wealth for a few. In Africa, it kills people. User charges for basic healthcare result in reduced access and hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths every year. User charges for water have resulted in epidemics. Privatisations have resulted in basic services such as water being denied to millions, and in some cases even stopped completely, as the owners shut down and pull out. The result is yet more deaths. And yet donor nations and institutions continue to demand these policies.

However, the biggest failure is on trade. By focusing on aid and debt relief, the G8 have fundamentally missed the point. While increased aid is both welcome and necessary, the long-term solution to Africa's problems lies in internal economic development and being able to "trade their way out of poverty". This in turn requires access to western markets - something currently denied to them. The G8 has simply failed to address this problem. Rather than taking a historic opportunity to commit to ending subsidies and trade barriers which ruin poor countries, the G8 have chosen to work through the WTO - which means the same old one-sided game of the rich countries extracting further concessions from the poor to do what they'd promised to do years ago, and then reneging on the deal (while using their economic clout to force the poor to keep their end anyway). The unfairness of this system is obvious to all, and yet the G8 have chosen to perpetuate it. And the reason is clear: they profit from this inequality, and want to do so for as long as possible - even if it means condemning the poor to further poverty.

(As for climate change, given Bush's intransigence on the issue, the G7 should simply have worked around him, and produced an agreement for those that could agree, rather than wasting their time pandering to his delusions. Yes, America needs to be brought on board - but it is crystal clear that that will not happen so long as Bush is President, and so the rest of the world should simply move on without him).

Again, what the G8 has offered will make a real difference to the fight against poverty. Lives will be saved and made less miserable; some countries will be able to escape the burden of unpayable debt and have a real chance at development; fewer people will die of HIV/AIDS. But they could have - and should have - done more. And we will simply have to keep on pressuring them until they do.