Advertising Age calculates that around $100million has been spent blanketing billboards and magazines with images of Bono and other “celebrities”, while the total sum raised for Africa is $18million.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Trade Diversion 
Somehow I’m not surprised. As a William Easterly adherent, I doubt if the Red project would have resulted in much long-term help even if it raised more than it spent on advertising and promotion. As China and even Vietnam are demonstrating, homegrown solutions and not vast fundraising exercises featuring bleeding-heart celebrities are more likely to promote development.
Come on, people, grow up. First of all, the story linked to in the post contains essentially its own refutation – the $100mn cost would have been spent anyway, just without the Africa angle. More importantly, Emmanuel and the poster who did the original story both mix up disapproving of aid with sneering at celebrity campaigning. Isn’t this, really, a bit lazy? The case for and against aid is complex and undecided, but it’s increasingly looking like, among economists devoted to development, there’s a recognition that some degree of aid – with modifications, conditions, and so on – is needed in support of trade measures. Even Easterley himself, when he he’s finished his tirading, admits he’s not against all aid, just concerned the current plans don’t include enough safeguards. Fine. The point is, this is a debate, with talented, intelligent, informed experts on both sides. The fact that the assembled ranks of celebrity campaigners are pro-aid doesn’t mean they’re the only ones who are. You can dislike celebrity activism if you like, and I agree that some of the supermodel-laughing-with-tribesman imagery of the Red campaign has been a bit bizarre, to say the least. But accept that, in fact, Bono and co have read a couple of books. They’ve spoken to economists, notably old Sachs, of course, and been won over on the case for aid – along with several world leaders. And, of course, the celebrity-led campaigns also support reductions in Western agricultural subsidies and a host of other measures more exciting to mainstream economists. To continue portraying this as a battle between rational, compassionate economists in favour of “trade” versus feeble-minded, do-gooding celebrities in favour of pouring good money after bad, is to dangerously misstate the case.
Ray–to be fair, the original article may have overstated the amount spent on the RED campaign according to this article in the UK Independent.