Nature vs. Nurture: Why Homegrown Development and External Aid Are Not Mutually Exclusive

The psychological debate of nature versus nurture is one that has plagued society for many years. It asks the following question: Is human behavior inherited or acquired? Those who argue the former believe that behavior is influenced by one’s biological make-up, whereas those who argue the latter state that biology has no affect at all, and rather it is one’s environment that determines his or her behavior. The most probable conclusion is that the two theories are not mutually exclusive – I present this same logic in regards to the highly debated topic of international development.

Image by Katt Yukawa via Unsplash.

Economists Jeffrey Sachs and William Easterly have two different takes on foreign aid implementation. Sachs claims that developing countries are stuck in “poverty traps,” never-ending cycles in which the effects of poverty become the causes of poverty. To mitigate these traps, Sachs suggests that wealthy countries must increase the amount of money given to these developing states through an initiative called the “Big Push,” and that this aid should be allocated toward his suggested programs: the Millennium Development Goals and the Millennium Village Projects. Sachs’ suggestion of external aid will play the “nurture” role in this debate.

Easterly, on the other hand, advocates for homegrown development, defined as development occurring within the local community itself, unreliant on significant external aid so that dependency may simmer and self-sufficiency may prosper. This theory assumes that the poor know what they need because they were born into this world of poverty. They know better than anyone what means are necessary to improve their conditions. However, Easterly is not promoting an absence of aid, instead cautioning that aid without feedback or accountability is counterproductive. Therefore, homegrown development will take on the “nature” role in the debate.  

Throughout history, scholars have shown that neither nature nor nurture are correct standing alone. While height is determined in large part by genetics, our environment also has influence. This explains the variance in human height across geographical regions. Scientifically, the concept of heritability is used to determine the degree to which nature and nurture can be attributed to a particular behavior. It measures the amount of variation between nature and nurture by looking at the variation between individuals in a given population. If the heritability of a trait is found to be 0.2, then about 20 percent of that trait can be attributed to genetics and about 80 percent to the environment. This theory is useful because it does not isolate nature from nurture, rather it takes a scientific approach to understanding their interconnectedness.

Image by Social Income via Unsplash.

Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, authors of Poor Economics, inadvertently set us up for examining how heritability can be applied to international development. Sachs frequently focuses on the health-based poverty trap, specifically in malaria-infested countries. For example, if someone in Zambia is infected with malaria, then it is hard for them to work; if their children are infected, then they will not be able to attend school. These families are already poor, and being poverty-stricken inhibits them from taking preventative measures to disease (44). Sachs argues that this can be addressed if the West finances malaria eradication. Banerjee and Duflo acknowledge the skeptical side of this argument and point out that to some “it is not clear whether malaria-infested countries are poor because of malaria, or perhaps their inability to eradicate malaria is an indicator of the fact that they are poorly governed” (44).

Through heritability, we know that factors of poverty are attributed to both nature and nurture. Once we determine the variation between inherited and acquired influence among issues like malaria and poor governance, we can better decide which approach to international development will be the most effective in addressing the issue. In the case examined in Poor Economics, it may be best to take Sachs’ Big Push toward malaria eradication, but we must also consider Easterly’s notion of homegrown development to enhance the community despite poor governance.  

Image by Kyle Glenn via Unsplash.

Some may question whether Sachs’ argument truly plays the nurture role in this debate. The creation of poverty traps is not due to the environment; they develop, it is argued, due to poor geography and heavy disease burden, which fall in line with the nature side of the debate. I contest this notion, not because I do not believe in poverty traps, but because the poverty trap is irrelevant to the parallel. The focus is on the approaches to international development, not on the contributions to poverty.

Citizens, policymakers, and specifically Sachs and Easterly must shift their focus from finding the right answer to simply making progress. The blinders must be removed and the eyes of those with influence must be opened, for a mix of these policies can work. Heritability may not be the answer, but it certainly has potential to implement aid in a more effective way.