I think Blattman’s question is interesting and not an easy one to resolve. I’d recommend looking at the generally very perceptive comments that his blog post produced.

It’s not quite the same, for me, as what in Britain is called champagne socialism. There’s no reason why wealthy people shouldn’t be in favor of greater social equality, perhaps through redistribution of wealth. That may be against their “class interest”, but people are often in favor of policies that run against their narrowly defined economic interest. There’s nothing hypocritical to me in a highly paid executive supporting progressive political policies. There are limits: there were periods when the PCF was more Stalinist than Eurocommunist, and that would be ridiculous. And I do think progressive values should be offended by the multi-hundred multiple of average workers’ salaries that CEOs pull down these days (to say nothing of wildly overpaid financiers).

The issue with development agencies is more nuanced. They are, in one way or another, publicly funded. They are not for profit organizations. As Blattman points out, the money for business class airfares (and, as you well know, Philippe, first class airfares) comes at the expense of development programs themselves. I think an economy-only policy, or some kind of restriction, would be a salutary tonic that would help better align the efforts of development agencies with the desperately poor nations they are designed to help.