The Choice Between Booze and Bed Nets

New York Times columnist Nick Kristof knew he was getting into some "sanctimonious, haughty and callous" waters with his Sunday column — but none of that stopped him from plowing forward anyway. The upshot of his piece, in case you missed it, is that poor people sometimes spend their money on stupid things (just like rich people do): cigarettes, booze, prostitution. The consequence being, naturally, that their children suffer.

This, says Kristof, is the so-called "ugly secret" of global poverty. But his brief "exposé" has aroused some considerable ire among his critics, and not surprisingly, either.

In his column, Kristof introduces us to the "Obamzas" — a Congolese family that apparently told Kristof they couldn't afford the $2.50 a month it would take to keep their kids in school, or a malaria net (cost: $6) to protect said children from disease. However, as Kristof writes, mom and pop do "use cell phones, which cost them $10 per month, and Mr. Obamza admits to frequenting the local bars, spending around $12 every month on liquor." Tsk, tsk.

Kristof then goes on to cite an MIT study that found the world's poor generally spend about 2% of their income to educate their children — but larger percentages on purchases like alcohol and tobacco, as well as soda, prostitutes and "extravagant festivals." The moral equation as Kristof frames it is unambiguous, and the columnist is angered by such "shortsighted" behavior.

First of all, it's always nice to see someone challenging conventional wisdom. So, yes, seeing a major columnist refuse to endorse the "noble," "virtuous" stereotypes associated with poverty (cousins to that other stereotype, the "entrepeneur myth,") is a refreshing thing. But Kristof's effort to break away from the politically correct doesn't actually say all that much. Yes, it's true, people often tend to make poor choices — whether they live in D.C. or Dakar. But the conversation shouldn't end there.

Fortunately today, Bill Easterly and Laura Freschi offer a welcome counterbalance to Kristof's column. As they write, it's quite possible that Mr. Obamza's choice to liquor up in lieu of educating his kids isn't as necessarily irrational or indicative of moral squalor, etc. as it seems. For example, they write — citing Michael Kremer and Alaka Holla — that perhaps what's really at work is parents' lack of belief in the power of bed nets or drugs (or education, for that matter). Which might explain why, as economist Esther Duflo has noted, surprisingly, one of the most powerful educational interventions out there isn't more books or teachers, but simply telling parents why education is important.

"Rich people believe in scientific medicine not only based on their education, but also because they see it working for themselves and everyone around them," Easterly and Freschi write. "Scientific medicine is a harder sell in a society that has never had a well-functioning health system to demonstrate its benefits."

Yes, people are often inclined to spend money in less-than-rational ways (though not all of them are unfortunate enough to become the object of Kristof's moralizing lens). I'm glad to see Kristof trying to talk about the "uncomfortable truths" out there. Unfortunately, the more uncomfortable fact at play is the shallow extent to which we actually understand these forces.

Photo Credit: John Steven Fernandez