Linda McQuaig writes that "a lot of commentators" are pointing to the ineffectiveness of aid in Africa, which she views as a convenient excuse for the slogan "trade, not aid" (June 30). It is unclear exactly to whom she is referring, but she cannot tar the IMF with this brush. She and Professor Stiglitz do not have a monopoly on compassion, as she seems to suggest, and it is becoming increasingly well understood that Stiglitz is an unreliable source of information on the IMF. In fact, the IMF has always been clear that both trade and aid are needed.

On aid, there is a growing consensus, responding to many advocates including IMF Managing Director Horst Köhler and his predecessors, on the need to boost global aid flows. The campaign seems to be having some effect, as some countries have been edging up their aid commitments—though much more is needed.

But increased aid alone is not sufficient. Proponents of trade as an engine of economic growth and poverty reduction are not just asking for greater efforts by Africa and other poor countries, as McQuaig insinuates. They are also calling—more loudly—on industrial countries to open their markets to the products of poor countries, notably agriculture and textiles. This will require politically difficult cutbacks in subsidies to farmers in the industrial countries, but it is a very effective way to help poor nations. What is more, people in the industrial countries themselves stand to benefit from cheaper imports and lower government spending.

To further set the story straight, contrary to Professor Stiglitz's imaginative views quoted by McQuaig, a major part of IMF policy advice and technical assistance is aimed at strengthening governments' capabilities in economic management. But there are limits to what governments can and should do, and the IMF recommends that governments enable and promote productive private sector activity, within an environment of appropriate regulations. This is far removed from the "weak-government" model referred to by McQuaig.