---

slug: jeffrey-sachs name: Jeffrey Sachs role: Development Economist type: person

Jeffrey Sachs

Biography

Jeffrey David Sachs (b. 1954) is an American economist and one of the most influential — and most debated — practitioners of economic reform in the post-Cold War world. A prodigy of Harvard (tenured professor at 28), he first made his name in 1985 by designing the stabilization program that ended Bolivia's hyperinflation, then became the leading Western architect of "shock therapy" for post-communist economies: rapid price liberalization, stabilization, and privatization, backed by Western financial support.

In 1989–1990 Sachs advised Poland's first post-communist government on its celebrated leap to a market economy — the most successful transition of the era. In 1991–1993 he advised Russia's reformers under Yeltsin and Gaidar, an experience that ended in bitterness: the Western aid he judged essential — a modern Marshall Plan — never came, and he resigned his advisory role in 1994, blaming Western governments for abandoning Russia to chaos and oligarchy.

Sachs later directed the Harvard Institute for International Development, then moved to Columbia University, where he directs the Center for Sustainable Development. His later career turned to global poverty and development: the UN Millennium Project, the Millennium Villages Project, and advocacy for the Sustainable Development Goals, set out in books including The End of Poverty (2005) and Common Wealth (2008).

The Soros connection runs through the transition years. Soros's foundations and Sachs's advisory work pursued the same end — salvaging the post-communist transition — and Soros funded economic reform initiatives in the region that aligned with Sachs's prescriptions. Both men were early, loud critics of the West's refusal to put real money behind reform in Russia, and both spent the 1990s arguing, from inside the process, that the opportunity was being squandered.

Key Stories

The Shatalin Plan episode (1990). In Who Lost Russia? Soros recounts arranging for the authors of the leading Russian reform program — Grigory Yavlinsky's Shatalin Plan — to attend the 1990 IMF/World Bank meetings in Washington. It was the same circle of Western transition economists in which Sachs worked; the plan died when Gorbachev wavered, and with it, in Soros's and Sachs's shared view, the best chance of an orderly transition.

Poland vs. Russia. Sachs's Polish program worked because the West backed it: a $1 billion stabilization fund and debt relief. The Russian program failed, Sachs has always argued, because no comparable support was offered. Soros reaches the identical conclusion from the opposite end of the telescope: "if the Western democracies had really engaged themselves, Russia could have been firmly established on the road toward a market economy and an open society" (Who Lost Russia?, 2000).

The disagreement in emphasis. The two men diverged on method: Soros criticized the IMF-style approach — conditionality through letters of intent — as "institutionally ill-suited" to a state that could not collect taxes, and favored direct, intrusive delivery of aid (his own International Science Foundation distributed $100+ million to Russian scientists at under 10% overhead). Sachs worked through governments and the IFIs. The episode remains a live argument about how aid should work — one Soros cites as proof that "foreign aid could be made to work" when designed around local realities.

Parallel reckonings. Both wrote their accounts of the lost decade: Sachs in academic papers and The End of Poverty, Soros in Who Lost Russia? and A Cold-Cash Winter Proposal for Russia. Read together they are the two fullest insider indictments of the West's post-1991 Russia policy.

Impact on Soros's Work

1. The transition agenda. Sachs's shock-therapy framework — and its partial success in Poland — shaped the policy environment in which Soros's foundations operated across Eastern Europe and the former USSR in the 1990s; OSF programs (reform education, civil society, institution building) were the civil-society complement to the Sachs-style macroeconomic program.

2. The critique of Western disengagement. The shared conclusion that the West "lost" Russia by failing to engage became a permanent pillar of Soros's worldview — feeding his later arguments for international burden-sharing, for EU solidarity with Ukraine (A New Policy to Rescue Ukraine, Europe's Ukrainian Lifeline), and against the market fundamentalist belief that markets alone could complete the transition.

3. Aid design. The Soros–Sachs contrast — direct delivery vs. institutional conditionality — sharpened Soros's own thinking on effective philanthropy: hands-on, locally staffed, results-measured programs, the method he defends in My Philanthropy and The Soros Foundations Network (see political philanthropy).

Key Passages