The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good

From the outset of the book Easterly explains development in terms of pitted binaries: the two tragedies of foreign aid, the West versus the Rest, the international bureaucrats versus the locals, the Planners versus the Searchers, the rich versus the poor, and so forth. His critique includes no gray areas, allowing his position to be clearly defined. (This could also be a potential pitfall of his review.) It becomes evident where his fondness lies, and that he is against antipoverty establishments, suspicious of Western intervention, and disappointed in the lack of feedback and accountability systems in foreign aid.

The main premise of his argument lies in the concept of Planners versus Searchers, where he shows a disdain for the Planners and an affinity for the Searchers. One assumes to know the answers, the other seeks the answers through experiments; one believes outsiders have the solutions, the other depends on insider knowledge to come up with the solutions; one has a top-down approach led by institutions, the other has a bottom-up approach led by real individual concerns and feedback mechanisms. The “Snapshots” or anecdotes of Searchers’ effectiveness after each chapter, provides evidence to Easterly’s claims and advocates for Planners to change their approach to that of the Searchers.

At the same time, the binaries are closely associated with each other. The Planners are usually a part of the West, the international bureaucrats, and the rich. They are therefore also a part of the initiatives and global institutions that have failed or contributed to the downfall of many a country. The Searchers are often a part of the Rest, or developing countries, those with local knowledge, who may be poor. The solutions are successful because they are related to a specific problem or customer they wish to satisfy.

Throughout The White Man’s Burden, understanding international aid and its effectiveness comes from the blatant juxtaposition of these two perspectives. When outlining the AIDS crisis, for instance, Easterly incorporates another binary by placing solutions in the categories of treatment or prevention. The former tends to come from an enthusiastic Planner’s approach and is not only ineffective but costly. The latter is a Searcher’s method and is much easier, efficient, and resourceful. Though providing such black-and-white arguments might overlook important areas of gray, the division illustrates what does and does not work.