Sachs documents the end of poverty scenario with passion and conviction. It is a universal dream, much like the dreams encapsulated in rock music, from the Beatles to U2. Sachs makes three major points in defense of the dream that now is the time poverty can be ended. First, that the aid provided by donor countries in the past was inadequate; second, that the way the aid was channeled was inappropriate for the “end of poverty”; and third, that “new” policies, detailed in the book, are necessary.

In essence, time for a "new" order, and, more money. Sachs asserts that today only 0.6 percent of the rich world's GDP is needed to eradicate poverty. Since for decades the rich have agreed, in principle, to give aid equal to 0.7 percent of GDP, the end of poverty can happen on our beat.

Sachs recognizes that aid has not been fruitful in the past. But his answer: we need more aid! How much more: roughly double the present $ 60 billion. But this time, we are assured, if directed towards infrastructure, education, health, governance, the result will be different. But that is precisely what the World Bank etc. have been doing since inception 60 years ago. So what does the present (and past) $ 60 billion a year not achieve that the new $ 120 billion will achieve? Sachs does not have the answer, but he has the faith.

One has come to expect significant value addition with Sachs - this book is mostly a case of value subtraction. Why this harsh conclusion? Let's look at Sachs's analysis, diagnoses, and policy conclusions - the clues are the heavy recycling of old, old ideas. Analysis: "Even though life-saving solutions exist...these families and their governments simply lack the financial means to make these crucial investments". Diagnosis: "The chronic lack of donor financing robs poor countries of their poverty- fighting zeal." Solution: "When we get practical, and speak of investments in specific areas - roads, power, transport, soils, water and sanitation, disease control - the task is suddenly a lot less daunting... As I have stressed repeatedly, the actual transfer of funds must be based on rigorous, country - specific plans that are developed through open and consultative processes, backed by good governance in the recipient countries, as well as careful monitoring and evaluation". (emphasis added).

Since Sachs quotes fellow travelers of the poverty industry, PI (e.g. World Bank, United Nations Development Programme) so approvingly, he should know that "rigorous analysis, consultative process, good governance, country-specific plans, mothers' milk" etc. are precisely what the PI has done for the last forty years, and claims it will do for the next fifty. [Ending poverty is a never-ending process]. But is that reason enough for the rich countries, or anyone for that matter, to double the aid money (from $ 60 to $120 billion a year)? And along the way, to increase allocations to international agencies by fifty percent, to $ 15 billion a year? No, but Sachs says yes. (Presumably, more aid for the wolf will ensure better teeth for better treatment of poor, poor, Snowblack).

Question remains: how successful has aid actually been in reducing poverty? In 1987, world poverty was 28 percent of the world's population. After 14 years of robust growth, both in developing country GDP (especially Asia) and in aid, poverty has been brought down to only 24 percent i.e. a cumulative pace that did not even exceed population growth! Now I believe (see Imagine… for details) these numbers vastly understate the decline in poverty, and that growth worked rather well in reducing poverty. Considerable evidence also exists to at least hint at the possibility that aid was not effective. So what's the case for more of the same?

The poverty industry advocates a virtuous circle for themselves and a vicious cycle for the poor. The PI claims that but for them, the poverty problem would be even greater. That they have spent money only to help - so what if large amounts went to create jobs, and rich incomes, and rich pensions in the West. At least, the goal of the anointed, by the anointed, and of the anointed, was noble. Success was not possible because there wasn't enough money. Double the money, and follow the same policies as the past, and Sachs assures us, the performance will also be doubled. Which emerging from a low base of past performance, will not be enough to reduce poverty by much; and then the industry experts will argue for yet more money. Keeps everyone in business, and happy to be doing something, anything, to help the poor.

This book is about the end of nightmares. The difference between Sachs and others who share his vision (difficult not to share it - how can one be opposed to waking up each morning to a "beautiful day", or asking for "peace on earth") is that it is indeed okay, even desirable, for super rock star Bono (who writes the foreword) to set the pace for our dreams. Rock stars are allowed, even expected, to be idealistic. And Bono deserves all the accolades for his music, and for his fight for the downtrodden. Alas, the same cannot be said of Sachs. Economists are trained to be realists. The advocacy of dreamonomics or Bononomics is not something expected of an economist, let alone a star economist. Bhalla is the author of Imagine there's no country: Poverty, inequality and growth in the era of globalization, IIE, Washington, 2002.