I take it bargl is saying this: That Bolivia was positive, because the interventions there actually worked. (E.g., developing local education to a point at whi

I take it bargl is saying this: That Bolivia was positive, because the interventions there actually worked. (E.g., developing local education to a point at which American volunteers are no longer needed.) Haiti wasn't because they didn't. That the underlying reason why the interventions in Bolivia worked better than the ones in Haiti was because in Bolivia they treated the people they were helping with more respect -- working for and with rather than on them, and providing them with things they actually want rather than (e.g.) compressed-board houses that feel like temporary stopgaps.