Gone are the ‘glory days’ of the 1990s when people rejoiced at the triumph of liberal democracy, when globalisation flourished, and when it seemed like an era of immutable peace and prosperity was upon humanity. History seems to follow a similar path to the familiar boom and bust character embodied in the economic cycle, and this is what we observe with a looming period of increased protectionism and interstate scepticism that mirrors the same phenomena from the 1930s. But what can policymakers do with this foresight? This was the question that Baroness Dambisa Moyo sought to unpack during her talk at The Oxford Union on Wednesday 5 March. 

Both Moyo’s education and career have been nothing short of illustrious thus far. From her time at both Harvard and Oxford, to her positions at Goldman Sachs and Barclays, it is safe to say that her feature on the Time 100 list of the most influential people in 2009 was very well-founded. Indeed, in her introduction, the full list of institutions that Moyo has been involved with was left incomplete, attesting to the fact that she really does have extensive experience in her field. Moyo was also appointed as a life peer to the House of Lords in 2022, a role she made clear that she loves when asked for her views on the institution, in a time when the chamber’s role is coming under increasing scrutiny. She urged every member of the audience to visit the House of Lords, arguing that it was “cynical to call it a bad thing”, reflecting on her own experience at an immigration debate which she referred to as a “masterclass”. 

After addressing the three challenges of “soaring inequality”, “economic de-globalisation”, and “geopolitical fragmentation” that she argued we face today, Moyo proceeded to employ poignant anecdotes that illustrate the approach she believes policymakers should take to mitigate the issues. Within the anecdotes, Moyo reflected on her rejection from Princeton earlier in her life. An icy rejection letter from the institution that had been her lifelong dream, followed by an acceptance from Harvard taught her that “the world is full of letdowns”, but that “no does not mean never”. This optimistic outlook on hardship was a theme knitted into her advice for future policymakers: in a world where periods of struggle seem to ebb and flow, she advised that “history is not ordained”. Moyo’s guidance to future policymakers centred around a notion of thinking laterally and looking for the solutions to these macro issues. 

Moyo’s experience as a public speaker was abundantly clear, something demonstrated by her ability to balance sincerity and humour. When asked about her “book” (Dead Aid being the book in question), Moyo bounced back, clarifying that she has indeed written five books, not just one. She was quizzed about how the argument in Dead Aid about reducing international aid is applicable to the contemporary context of aid cuts in both the US and the UK. Primarily, Moyo clarified that she never believed aid was “bad” per se. Instead, her point was that aid should be “phased out”, a process that would have given recipient countries time to restructure and adjust to the current reality of donor countries being increasingly fiscally constrained. 

Following a series of questions from the floor, the interviewer began to close the talk, before Moyo interjected, asking for a question from a woman before closing. The final question concerned how balance can be achieved in a world of constantly evolving modernity. Profoundly, Moyo’s parting sentiment to the audience was that the “kernels of humanity” are timeless. She contended that the “wishes and needs of human beings are the same”, so whilst technological progress may generate new challenges for governments, the fundamental desires of people are unchanging.