By Invitation | By invitation

What’s good for the poor is good for America

Jeffrey Sachs on where Uncle Sam should be more generous, and why

|

ALTHOUGH its prosperity depends on a worldwide network of trade, finance and technology, the United States currently treats the rest of the world, and especially the developing world, as if it barely exists. Much of the poorer world is in turmoil, caught in a vicious circle of disease, poverty and political instability. Large-scale financial and scientific help from the rich nations is an investment worth making, not only for humanitarian reasons, but also because even remote countries in turmoil become outposts of disorder for the rest of the world. The biggest priority of next week's Genoa Summit should be for the rich countries, above all the United States, to get serious about contributing to global economic development.

This article appeared in the By Invitation section of the print edition under the headline “What’s good for the poor is good for America”

Keeping the customer satisfied

From the July 14th 2001 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

More from By Invitation

Reihan Salam

Trumpism is becoming more pragmatic, argues Reihan Salam

But not all of the incoming president’s backers buy it

Time is not on Russia’s side, argues Finland’s foreign minister

Elina Valtonen calls for a lower oil-price cap and tougher measures against Russia’s shadow fleet


Oriana Skylar Mastro makes a case for paring America’s nukes

The political scientist explains why beefing up is bad China strategy


A new Iranian approach to regional security and prosperity, by M. Javad Zarif

Iran’s vice-president on how his country can make the region more secure and prosperous

America’s debt cannot keep stacking up, says Jeffrey Gundlach

The “King of Bonds” sees the risk of a debt restructuring with global repercussions

South Korea’s crisis highlights both fragility and resilience, writes Wi Sung-lac

The country is deeply polarised, but its living memory of military rule strengthens its commitment to democracy