For years, politicians and commentators have said that their policies are just like the Marshall Plan, officially called the European Recovery Program (E.R.P.), in order to tout their polices as positive.
Just a few examples: Al Gore called for a “global Marshall Plan” to combat global warming in 1993; writers for the Worldwatch Institute called a “Marshall Plan” to advance human security and control terrorism; history professor Charles Maier called for a “Marshall Plan” for Germany; and UNCTAD having a 62 page report describing how a “Marshall Plan” could be developed for the world’s poorest countries. Even Jeffrey Sachs, the economist who is known by environmentalists for opposing the Keystone XL pipeline, touted his vision for “shock therapy” in Russia, which hurt many Russians after it was implemented in 1995, as based on the Marshall Plan . Another great example of this is Naomi Klein’s argument that George W. Bush’s Iraq reconstruction plan was the “anti-Marshall plan.”  This article aims to set the record straight about the Marshall Plan and to assess if it is right to invoke it today.
The view expressed by Jeffrey Sachs is a clear example of the common view of the Marshall Plan. This plan, which was simply the allocation of $2.6 billion for Europe “to reconstruct its infrastructure and industry after the Second World War” was described by Sachs as showing “how a modest amount of monetary infusion created a base for [Europe’s] economic recovery to take hold.” 
Learning the whole story and truth about the Marshall Plan is important. This article aims to contribute to that story and open up new ways of understanding what the Plan was really about.