So, I clearly agree with you that cutting PEPFAR is an atrocity and that saving lives is good even if it doesn’t result in structural changes to society.
However, I think the arguments in this essay are resorting almost to a strawman position of “root causes”, and it might result in actual good objections being dismissed. You should absolutely sometimes address root causes!
For an example, imagine a cholera outbreak caused by a contaminated well. In order to help, Person A might say “I’m going to hire new doctors and order new supplies to help the cholera victims”. Person B then says “that isn’t addressing the root causes of the problem, we should instead use that money to try and find and replace the contaminated well”.
Person B could easily have a point here: If they succeed, they end the cholera output entirely, whereas person A would have to keep pumping money in indefinitely, which would probably cost way more over time.
When people talk about “structural change”, they are implictly making this sort of argument: that the non-structural people will have to keep pouring money at the problem, whereas with structural reform the problem could be ended or severely curtailed on a much more permanent basis, so the latter is a better use of our time and resources than the former.
Often this argument is wrong, or deployed in bad faith. Often there is no clear path to structural reform, and the effectiveness might be overstated. However sometimes it is correct, and the structural reform really is the correct solution. For example, the abolitionism of slavery. I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
So, I clearly agree with you that cutting PEPFAR is an atrocity and that saving lives is good even if it doesn’t result in structural changes to society.
However, I think the arguments in this essay are resorting almost to a strawman position of “root causes”, and it might result in actual good objections being dismissed. You should absolutely sometimes address root causes!
For an example, imagine a cholera outbreak caused by a contaminated well. In order to help, Person A might say “I’m going to hire new doctors and order new supplies to help the cholera victims”. Person B then says “that isn’t addressing the root causes of the problem, we should instead use that money to try and find and replace the contaminated well”.
Person B could easily have a point here: If they succeed, they end the cholera output entirely, whereas person A would have to keep pumping money in indefinitely, which would probably cost way more over time.
When people talk about “structural change”, they are implictly making this sort of argument: that the non-structural people will have to keep pouring money at the problem, whereas with structural reform the problem could be ended or severely curtailed on a much more permanent basis, so the latter is a better use of our time and resources than the former.
Often this argument is wrong, or deployed in bad faith. Often there is no clear path to structural reform, and the effectiveness might be overstated. However sometimes it is correct, and the structural reform really is the correct solution. For example, the abolitionism of slavery. I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.