SACRAMENTO, CA - At the behest of the prestigious Economist, Jeffrey Sachs of the Center for International Development shows in his recent article, “What’s Good for the Poor is Good for America,” that paternalism and neo-colonialism are alive and well.

Sachs, a professor of economics at Harvard, believes that the United States scorns the developing world and must start forking over massive amounts of cash, through the “Powell Plan,” a follow-up to the Marshall Plan, otherwise the U.S. will pay a heavy price.

America’s skinflint attitude causes instability, the reasoning goes, and Sachs’s piece even blames turmoil in the Balkans on American failure to service Yugoslavian debt. Instability, in turn, causes poverty. We must, therefore, stop feuding with the United Nations and start handing out billions. All this Kiplingesque piece lacks is the zero-sum notion that American prosperity causes Third World poverty. But it does imply, in the style of the “North-South Economic Dialogue” from Cold War days, that American policy is responsible for maintaining that poverty.

This neo-colonial view sees no way for people to improve their lot aside from American aid. This both inflates American importance and demeans those on the receiving end. Instead of assigning blame, Sachs should ask the right question.

For most of human history, poverty has been the natural condition of mankind. The more vital question, therefore, is not what causes or perpetuates poverty, but what causes wealth. It is not related to size or natural resources.

Brazil is rich in natural resources but relatively poor. Japan has practically no resources but is prosperous. For the most part, those nations that have risen from poverty have done so through a market economy, a democratic political system, and a pluralistic culture, coupled with an individualistic spirit and a work ethic developed over centuries. Those conditions are lacking in much of the world.

The record of foreign aid as a builder of wealth is a shaky one for a number of reasons. Once American funds leave these shores, those who provided them lose all control. As the Mobutu regime confirmed, billions in American foreign aid often disappear into the pockets of corrupt autocrats, who use it to suppress opposition as well as to enrich themselves. And where it does not, it sends the message that help is always available from Uncle Sam. This will not help cultivate the entrepreneurial spirit in sub-Saharan Africa, South America, or anywhere else. Calling handouts “investments,” as Sachs does, changes none of these realities.

Free trade would also help, but Sachs nowhere calls for the expansion of free trade. The conditions that prompted the Marshall plan no longer exist. As for the United Nations, this wasteful bureaucracy remains part of the problem, not the solution.

Sachs does allow for private contributions, which can help because they are often more focused than state handouts. And voluntary contributions of money, technology, or expertise do not entail increased levies on Americans.

It is indeed in America’s interest that other countries prosper. But it is disheartening to see shopworn and failed ideas advanced in that cause. What made America wealthy can also make other nations wealthy, but only if capitalism is allowed to flourish. Massive infusions of American dollars won’t accomplish that goal.

- By K. Lloyd Billingsley