Archive for the ‘aid industry’Category

Ebola and health workers

It starts with familiar flu-like symptoms: a mild fever, headache, muscle and joint pains.

But within days this can quickly descend into something more exotic and frightening: vomiting and diarrhoea, followed by bleeding from the gums, the nose and gastrointestinal tract.

Death comes in the form of either organ failure or low blood pressure caused by the extreme loss of fluids.

Such fear-inducing descriptions have been doing the rounds in the media lately.

However, this is not Ebola but rather Dengue Shock Syndrome, an extreme form of dengue fever, a mosquito-borne disease that struggles to make the news.

That’s Seth Berkley, CEO of the GAVI Alliance, writing an opinion piece for the BBC. Berkley argues that Ebola grabs headlines not because it is particularly infectious or deadly, but because those of us from wealthy countries have otherwise forgotten what it’s like to be confronted with a disease we do not know how to or cannot afford to treat.

However, in wealthy countries, thanks to the availability of modern medicines, many of these diseases can now usually be treated or cured, and thanks to vaccines they rarely have to be. Because of this blessing we have simply forgotten what it is like to live under threat of such infectious and deadly diseases, and forgotten what it means to fear them.

Ebola does combine infectiousness and rapid lethality, even with treatment, in a way that few diseases do, and it’s been uniquely exoticized by books like the Hot Zone. But as Berkley and many others have pointed out, the fear isn’t really justified in wealthy countries. They have health systems that can effectively contain Ebola cases if they arrive — which I’d guess is more likely than not. So please ignore the sensationalism on CNN and elsewhere. (See for example Tara Smith on other cases when hemorraghic fevers were imported into the US and contained.)

But one way that Ebola is different — in degree if not in kind — to the other diseases Berkley cites (dengue, measles, childhood diseases) is that its outbreaks are both symptomatic of weak health systems and then extremely destructive to the fragile health systems that were least able to cope with it in the first place.

Like the proverbial canary in the coal mine, an Ebola outbreak reveals underlying weaknesses in health systems. Shelby Grossman highlights this article from Africa Confidential:

MSF set up an emergency clinic in Kailahun [Sierra Leone] in June but several nurses had already died in Kenema. By early July, over a dozen health workers, nurses and drivers in Kenema had contracted Ebola and five nurses had died. They had not been properly equipped with biohazard gear of whole-body suit, a hood with an opening for the eyes, safety goggles, a breathing mask over the mouth and nose, nitrile gloves and rubber boots.

On 21 July, the remaining nurses went on strike. They had been working twelve-hour days, in biohazard suits at high temperatures in a hospital mostly without air conditioning. The government had promised them an extra US$30 a week in danger money but despite complaints, no payment was made. Worse yet, on 17 June, the inexperienced Health and Sanitation Minister, Miatta Kargbo, told Parliament that some of the nurses who had died in Kenema had contracted Ebola through promiscuous sexual activity.

Only one nurse showed up for work on 22 July, we hear, with more than 30 Ebola patients in the hospital. Visitors to the ward reported finding a mess of vomit, splattered blood and urine. Two days later, Khan, who was leading the Ebola fight at the hospital and now with very few nurses, tested positive. The 43-year-old was credited with treating more than 100 patients. He died in Kailahun at the MSF clinic on 29 July…

In addition to the tragic loss of life, there’s also the matter of distrust of health facilities that will last long after the epidemic is contained. Here’s Adam Nossiter, writing for the NYT on the state of that same hospital in Kenema as of two days ago:

The surviving hospital workers feel the stigma of the hospital acutely.

“Unfortunately, people are not coming, because they are afraid,” said Halimatu Vangahun, the head matron at the hospital and a survivor of the deadly wave that decimated her nursing staff. She knew, all throughout the preceding months, that one of her nurses had died whenever a crowd gathered around her office in the mornings.

There’s much to read on the current outbreak — see also this article by Denise Grady and Sheri Fink (one of my favorite authors) on tracing the index patient (first case) back to a child who died in December 2013. One of the saddest things I’ve read about previous Ebola outbreaks is this profile of Dr. Matthew Lukwiya, a physician who died fighting Ebola in Uganda.

The current outbreak is different in terms of scale and its having reached urban areas, but if you read through these brief descriptions of past Ebola outbreaks (via Wikipedia) you’ll quickly see that the transmission to health workers at hospitals is far too typical. Early transmission seems to be amplified by health facilities that weren’t properly equipped to handle the disease. (See also this article article (PDF) on a 1976 outbreak.) The community and the brave health workers responding to the epidemic then pay the price.

Ebola’s toll on health workers is particularly harsh given that the affected countries are starting with an incredible deficit. I was recently looking up WHO statistics on health worker density, and it struck me that the three countries at the center of the current Ebola outbreak are all close to the very bottom of rankings by health worker density. Here’s the most recent figures for the ratio of physicians and nurses to the population of each country:* 

Liberia has already lost three physicians to Ebola, which is especially tragic given that there are so few Liberian physicians to begin with: somewhere around 60 (in 2008). The equivalent health systems impact in the United States would be something like losing 40,000 physicians in a single outbreak.

After the initial emergency response subsides — which will now be on an unprecedented scale and for an unprecedented length of time — I hope donors will make the massive investments in health worker training and systems strengthening that these countries needed prior to the epidemic. More and better trained and equipped health workers will save lives otherwise lost to all the other infectious diseases Berkley mentioned in the article linked above, but they will also stave off future outbreaks of Ebola or new diseases yet unknown. And greater investments in health systems years ago would have been a much less costly way — in terms of money and lives — to limit the damage of the current outbreak.  

(*Note on data: this is quick-and-dirty, just to illustrate the scale of the problem. Ie, ideally you’d use more recent data, compare health worker numbers with population numbers from the same year, and note data quality issues surrounding counts of health workers)

(Disclaimer: I’ve remotely supported some of CHAI’s work on health systems in Liberia, but these are my personal views.)

A more useful aid debate

Ken Opalo highlights recent entries on the great aid debate from Bill Gates, Jeff Sachs, Bill Easterly, and Chris Blattman.

Much has been said on this debate, and sometimes it feels like it’s hard to add anything new. But since having a monosyllabic first name seem sufficient qualification to weigh in, I will. First, this part of Ken’s post resonates with me:

I think most reasonable people would agree that Sachs kind of oversold his big push idea in The End of Poverty. Or may be this was just a result of his attempt to shock the donor world into reaching the 0.7 percent mark in contributions. In any event it is unfortunate that the debate on the relative efficacy of aid left the pages of journal articles in its current form. It would have been more helpful if the debate spilled into the public in a policy-relevant form, with questions like: under what conditions does aid make a difference? What can we do to increase the efficacy of aid? What kinds of aid should we continue and what kinds should we abolish all together? (emphasis added)

Lee Crawfurd wrote something along these lines too: “Does Policy Work?”  Lee wrote that on Jan 10, 2013, and I jokingly said it was the best aid blog post of the year (so far). Now that 2013 has wrapped up, I’ll extend that evaluation to ‘best aid blog post of 2013’. It’s worth sharing again:

The question “does policy work” is jarring, because we immediately realise that it makes little sense. Governments have about 20-30 different Ministries, which immediately implies at least 20-30 different areas of policy. Does which one work? We have health and education policy, infrastructure policy (roads, water, energy), trade policy, monetary policy, public financial management, employment policy, disaster response, financial sector policy, climate and environment policy, to name just a few. It makes very little sense to ask if they all collectively “work” or are “effective”. Foreign aid is similar. Aid supports all of these different areas of policy….

A common concern is about the impact of aid on growth… Some aid is specifically targeted at growth – such as financing infrastructure or private sector development. But much of it is not. One of the few papers which looks at the macroeconomic impact of aid and actually bothers to disaggregate even a little the different types of aid, finds that the aid that could be considered to have growth as a target, does increase growth. It’s the aid that was never intended to impact growth at all, such as humanitarian assistance, which doesn’t have any impact on growth.

I like to think that most smart folks working on these issues — and that includes both Sachs and Easterly — would agree with the following summaries of our collective state of knowledge:

  •  A lot of aid projects don’t work, and some of them do harm.
  • Some aid, especially certain types of health projects, works extremely well.

The disagreement is on the balance of good and bad, so I wish — as Ken wrote — the debate spilled into the public sphere along those lines (which is good? which is bad? how can we get a better mix?) rather than the blanket statements both sides are driven to by the very publicness of the debate. It reminds me a bit of debates in theology: if you put a fundamentalist and Einstein in the same room, they’ll both be talking about “God” but meaning very different things with the same words. (This is not a direct analogy, so don’t ask who is who…)

When Sachs and Easterly talk about whether aid “works”, it would be nice if we could get everyone to first agree on a definition of “aid” and “works”. But much of this seems to be driven by personal animosity between Easterly and Sachs, or more broadly, by personal animosity of a lot of aid experts vs. Sachs. Why’s that? I think part of the answer is that it’s hard to tell when Sachs is trying to be a scientist, and when he’s trying to be an advocate. He benefits from being perceived as the former, but in reality is much more the latter. Nina Munk’s The Idealist — an excellent profile of Sachs I’ve been meaning to review — explores this tension at some length. The more scientifically-minded get riled up by this confusion — rightfully, I think. At the same time, public health folks tend to love Sachs precisely because he’s been a powerful advocate for some types of health aid that demonstrably work — also rightfully, I think. There’s a tension there, and it’s hard to completely dismiss one side as wrong, because the world is complicated and there are many overlapping debates and conversations; academic and lay, public and private, science and advocacy.

So, back to Ken’s questions that would be answered by a more useful aid debate:

  • Under what conditions does aid make a difference?
  • What can we do to increase the efficacy of aid?
  • What kinds of aid should we continue and what kinds should we abolish all together?

Wouldn’t it be amazing if the public debate were focused on these questions? Actually, something like that was done: Boston Review had a forum a while back on “Making Aid Work” with responses by Abhijit Banerjee, Angus Deaton, Howard White, Ruth Levine, and others. I think that series of questions is much more informative than another un-moderated round of Sachs vs Easterly.

22

01 2014

Rearranging the malarial deck chairs?

A friend sent this link to me, highlighting a critical comment about the future of the World Health Organization, in the context of the World Malaria Report 2012. Here’s an excerpt of the comment by William Jobin:

Their 2012 Annual Report is a very disturbing report from WHO, for at least two reasons:

1. Their program is gradually falling apart, and they offer no way to refocus, no strategy for dealing with the loss in funding, nor the brick wall of drug and biocide resistance which is just down the road. There is a label for people who keep doing the same thing, but expect different results. Do you remember what it is?

2. Because the entire top management of WHO consists of physicians, they have no idea of the opportunities they are missing for additional funding and for additional methods to add to their chemically-oriented strategy…

Concluding with:

I am not sure WHO has much of a future, nor does the UN system itself, after their failure to prevent the wars in Libya and Syria. But as long as the UN and WHO continue to operate, they must refocus their approach to face the reality of a rapidly declining budget from UN sources. Instead, I see them just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

My friend said, “I wish these comments (and issues with the WHO and UN) were more publicised! This is not the first time I am hearing of such issues with the WHO and its demise.” I’ve certainly heard similar sentiments about the WHO from classmates and professors, but it seems there’s much less open discussion than you might expect. I’d welcome discussion in the comments…

28

03 2013

Growth and stagnation in global health funding

Amanda Glassman of CGD shares the graph below from the latest IHME “Financing Global Health” report, which tells the top-line story from the report in one neat picture:

This year’s report is subtitled, “The End of the Golden Age?” Maybe. I’d start with Amanda’s analysis here, then dive into the report overview [PDF].

18

02 2013

"As it had to fail"

My favorite line from the Anti-Politics Machine is a throwaway. The author, James Ferguson, an anthropologist, describes a World Bank agricultural development program in Lesotho, and also — through that lens — ends up describing development programs more generally. At one point he notes that the program failed “as it had to fail” — not really due to bad intentions, or to lack of technical expertise, or lack of funds — but because failure was written into the program from the beginning. Depressing? Yes, but valuable.

I read in part because Chris Blattman keeps plugging it, and then shortly before leaving for Ethiopia I saw that a friend had a copy I could borrow. Somehow it didn’t make it onto reading lists for any of my classes for either of my degrees, though it should be required for pretty much anyone wanting to work in another culture (or, for that matter, trying to foment change in your own). Here’s Blattman’s description:

People’s main assets [in Lesotho] — cattle — were dying in downturns for lack of a market to sell them on. Households on hard times couldn’t turn their cattle into cash for school fees and food. Unfortunately, the cure turned out to be worse than the disease.

It turns out that cattle were attractive investments precisely because they were hard to liquidate. With most men working away from home in South Africa, buying cattle was the best way to keep the family saving rather than spending. They were a means for men to wield power over their families from afar.

Ferguson’s point was that development organizations attempt to be apolitical at their own risk. What’s more, he argued that they are structured to remain ignorant of the historical, political and cultural context in which they operate.

And here’s a brief note from Foreign Affairs:

 The book comes to two main conclusions. First is that the distinctive discourse and conceptual apparatus of development experts, although good for keeping development agencies in business, screen out and ignore most of the political and historical facts that actually explain Third World poverty-since these realities suggest that little can be accomplished by apolitical “development” interventions. Second, although enormous schemes like Thaba-Tseka generally fail to achieve their planned goals, they do have the major unplanned effect of strengthening and expanding the power of politically self-serving state bureaucracies. Particularly good is the discussion of the “bovine mystique,” in which the author contrasts development experts’ misinterpretation of “traditional” attitudes toward uneconomic livestock with the complex calculus of gender, cash and power in the rural Lesotho family.

The reality was that Lesotho was not really an idyllically-rural-but-poor agricultural economy, but rather a labor reserve more or less set up by and controlled by apartheid South Africa. The gulf between the actual political situation and the situation as envisioned by the World Bank — where the main problems were lack of markets and technical solutions — at the time was enormous. This lets Ferguson have a lot of fun showing the absurdities of Bank reports from the era, and once you realize what’s going on it’s quite frustrating to read how the programs turned out, and to wonder how no one saw it coming.

This contrast between rhetoric and reality is the book’s greatest strength: because the situation is absurd, it illustrates Ferguson’s points very well, that aid is inherently political, and that projects that ignore that reality have their future failure baked in from the start. But that contrast is a weakness too, as because the situation is extreme you’re left wondering just how representative the case of Lesotho really was (or is). The 1970s-80s era World Bank certainly makes a great buffoon (if not quite a villain) in the story, and one wonders if things aren’t at least a bit better today.

Either way, this is one of the best books on development I’ve read, as I find myself mentally referring to it on a regular basis. Is the rhetoric I’m reading (or writing) really how it is? Is that technical, apolitical sounding intervention really going to work? It’s made me think more critically about the role outside groups — even seemingly benevolent, apolitical ones — have on local politics. On the other hand, the Anti-Politics Machine does read a bit like it was adapted from an anthropology dissertation (it was); I wish it could get a new edition with more editing to make it more presentable. And a less ugly cover. But that’s no excuse — if you want to work in development or international health or any related field, it should be high on your reading list.

Sentimental narratives

In his contribution to the book Humanitarianism and Suffering, historian Thomas Laqueur charts the birth of “the sentimental narrative” and its role in changing hearts and inspiring action. “In the late eighteenth century,” he writes, “the ethical subject was democratized; more and more people came to believe it was their obligation to ameliorate and prevent wrongdoing to others.”

The sentimental narrative Lacquer identifies is a sneaky one. Superficially, it seems humane, a good-hearted response to the impoverished and their plight. But it also objectifies the sufferers it nominally empowers—people with pain to ameliorate, against whom wrongdoings are to be prevented, on whose behalf this compassion is to be invested. However many noble or real or useful things that investment may bring, it also flatters us, by affirming our own righteousness.

That’s from Jina Moore’s essay in the Boston Review on telling stories about Africa as a foreigner. It’s definitely worth a read, as is her follow-up blog post, “Good News from Africa,” (in the sense that the news is well-done, not that the news is always “good”) which highlights several examples of the extraordinary writing she’d like to see more of. And follow @itsjina on Twitter.

07

08 2012

Aid, paternalism, and skepticism

Bill Easterly, the ex-blogger who just can’t stop, writes about a conversation he had with GiveWell, a charity reviewer/giving guide that relies heavily on rigorous evidence to pick programs to invest in. I’ve been meaning to write about GiveWell’s approach — which I generally think is excellent. Easterly, of course, is an aid skeptic in general and a critic of planned, technocratic solutions in particular. Here’s an excerpt from his notes on his conversation with GiveWell:

…a lot of things that people think will benefit poor people (such as improved cookstoves to reduce indoor smoke, deworming drugs, bed nets and water purification tablets) {are things} that poor people are unwilling to buy for even a few pennies. The philanthropy community’s answer to this is “we have to give them away for free because otherwise the take-up rates will drop.” The philosophy behind this is that poor people are irrational. That could be the right answer, but I think that we should do more research on the topic. Another explanation is that the people do know what they’re doing and that they rationally do not want what aid givers are offering. This is a message that people in the aid world are not getting.

Later, in the full transcript, he adds this:

We should try harder to figure out why people don’t buy health goods, instead of jumping to the conclusion that they are irrational.

Also:

It’s easy to catch people doing irrational things. But it’s remarkable how fast and unconsciously people get things right, solving really complex problems at lightning speed.

I’m with Easterly, up to a point: aid and development institutions need much better feedback loops, but are unlikely to develop them for reasons rooted in their nature and funding. The examples of bad aid he cites are often horrendous. But I think this critique is limited, especially on health, where the RCTs and all other sorts of evidence really do show that we can have massive impact — reducing suffering and death on an epic scale — with known interventions. [Also, a caution: the notes above are just notes and may have been worded differently if they were a polished, final product — but I think they’re still revealing.]

Elsewhere Easterly has been more positive about the likelihood of benefits from health aid/programs in particular, so I find it quite curious that his examples above of things that poor people don’t always price rationally are all health-related. Instead, in the excerpts above he falls back on that great foundational argument of economists: if people are rational, why have all this top-down institutional interference? Well, I couldn’t help contrasting that argument with this quote highlighted by another economist, Tyler Cowen, at Marginal Revolution:

Just half of those given a prescription to prevent heart disease actually adhere to refilling their medications, researchers find in the Journal of American Medicine. That lack of compliance, they estimate, results in 113,00 deaths annually.

Let that sink in for a moment. Residents of a wealthy country, the United States, do something very, very stupid. All of the RCTs show that taking these medicines will make them live longer, but people fail to overcome the barriers at hand to take something that is proven to make them live longer. As a consequence they die by the hundreds of thousands every single year. Humans may make remarkably fast unconscious decisions correctly in some spheres, sure, but it’s hard to look at this result and see any way in which it makes much sense.

Now think about inserting Easterly’s argument against paternalism (he doesn’t specifically call it that here, but has done so elsewhere) in philanthropy here: if people in the US really want to live, why don’t they take these medicines? Who are we to say they’re irrational? That’s one answer, but maybe we don’t understand their preferences and should avoid top-down solutions until we have more research.

reductio ad absurdum? Maybe. On the one hand, we do need more research on many things, including medication up-take in high- and low-income countries. On the other hand, aid skepticism that goes far enough to be against proven health interventions just because people don’t always value those interventions rationally seems to line up a good deal with the sort of anti-paternalism-above-all streak in conservatism that opposes government intervention in pretty much every area. Maybe it’s a good policy to try out some nudge-y (libertarian paternalism, if you will) policies to encourage people to take their medicine, or require people to have health insurance they would not choose to buy on their own.

Do you want to live longer? I bet you do, and it’s safe to assume that people in low-income countries do as well. Do you always do exactly what will help you do so? Of course not: observe the obesity pandemic. Do poor people really want to suffer from worms or have their children die from diarrhea? Again, of course not. While poor people in low-income countries aren’t always willing to invest a lot of time or pay a lot of money for things that would clearly help them stay alive for longer, that shouldn’t be surprising to us. Why? Because the exact same thing is true of rich people in wealthy countries.

People everywhere — rich and poor — make dumb decisions all the time, often because those decisions are easier in the moment due to our many irrational cognitive and behavioral tics. Those seemingly dumb decisions usually reveal the non-optimal decision-making environments in which we live, but you still think we could overcome those things to choose interventions that are very clearly beneficial. But we don’t always. The result is that sometimes people in low-income countries might not pay out of pocket for deworming medicine or bednets, and sometimes people in high-income countries don’t take their medicine — these are different sides of the same coin.

Now, to a more general discussion of aid skepticism: I agree with Easterly (in the same post) that aid skeptics are a “feature of the system” that ultimately make it more robust. But it’s an iterative process that is often frustrating in the moment for those who are implementing or advocating for specific programs (in my case, health) because we see the skeptics as going too far. I’m probably one of the more skeptical implementers out there — I think the majority of aid programs probably do more harm than good, and chose to work in health in part because I think that is less true in this sector than in others. I like to think that I apply just the right dose of skepticism to aid skepticism itself, wringing out a bit of cynicism to leave the practical core.

I also think that there are clear wins, supported by the evidence, especially in health, and thus that Easterly goes too far here. Why does he? Because his aid skepticism isn’t simply pragmatic, but also rooted in an ideological opposition to all top-down programs. That’s a nice way to put it, one that I think he might even agree with. But ultimately that leads to a place where you end up lumping things together that are not the same, and I’ll argue that that does some harm. Here are two examples of aid, both more or less from Easterly’s post:

  • Giving away medicines or bednets free, because otherwise people don’t choose to invest in them; and,
  • A World Bank project in Uganda that “ended up burning down farmers’ homes and crops and driving the farmers off the land.”

These are a both, in one sense, paternalistic, top-down programs, because they are based on the assumption that sometimes people don’t choose to do what is best for themselves. But are they the same otherwise? I’d argue no. One might argue that they come from the same place, and an institution that funds the first will inevitably mess up and do the latter — but I don’t buy that strong form of aid skepticism. And being able to lump the apparently good program and the obviously bad together is what makes Easterly’s rhetorical stance powerful.

If you so desire, you could label these two approaches as weak coercion and strong coercion. They are both coercive in the sense that they reshape the situations in which people live to help achieve an outcome that someone — a planner, if you will — has decided is better. All philanthropy and much public policy is coercive in this sense, and those who are ideologically opposed to it have a hard time seeing the difference. But to many of us, it’s really only the latter, obvious harm that we dislike, whereas free medicines don’t seem all that bad. I think that’s why aid skeptics like Easterly group these two together, because they know we’ll be repulsed by the strong form. But when they argue that all these policies are ultimately the same because they ignore people’s preferences (as demonstrated by their willingness to pay for health goods, for example), the argument doesn’t sit right with a broader audience. And then ultimately it gets ignored, because these things only really look the same if you look at them through certain ideological lenses.

That’s why I wish Easterly would take a more pragmatic approach to aid skepticism; such a form might harp on the truly coercive aspects without lumping them in with the mildly paternalistic. Condemning the truly bad things is very necessary, and folks “on the inside’ of the aid-industrial complex aren’t generally well-positioned to make those arguments publicly. However, I think people sometimes need a bit of the latter policies, the mildly paternalistic ones like giving away medicines and nudging people’s behavior — in high- and low-income countries alike. Why? Because we’re generally the same everywhere, doing what’s easiest in a given situation rather than what we might choose were the circumstances different. Having skeptics on the outside where they can rail against wrongs is incredibly important, but they must also be careful to yell at the right things lest they be ignored altogether by those who don’t share their ideological priors.

Where are the programs?

An excerpt from Bill Gates’ interview with Katherine Boo, author of Behind the Beautiful Forevers (about a slum in Mumbai):

Bill Gates: Your peek into the operations of some non-profits was concerning. Are there non-profits that have been doing work which actually contributes to the improvement of these environments?
Katherine Boo: There are many nonprofits doing work that betters lives and prospects in India, from SEWA to Deworm the World, but in the airport slums, the closer I looked at NGOs, the more disheartened I felt. WorldVision, the prominent Christian charity, had made major improvements to sanitation some years back, but mismanagement and petty corruption in the organization’s local office had hampered more recent efforts to distribute aid. Other NGOs were supposedly running infant-health programs and schools for child laborers, but that desperately needed aid existed only on paper. Microfinance groups were reconfigured to exploit the very poor. Annawadi residents dying of untreated TB, malaria and dengue fever were nominally served by many charitable organizations, but in reality encountered only a single strain of health advocate—from the polio mop-up campaign. (To Annawadians, the constant appearance of polio teams in slum lanes being eviscerated by other illnesses has  become a local joke.) I tend to be realistic about occasional failures and “leakages” in organizations that do ambitious work in difficult contexts, but the discrepancy between what many NGOs were claiming in fundraising materials and what they were actually doing was significant.

In general, I suspect that the reading public overestimates the penetration of effective NGOs in low-income communities–a misapprehension that we journalists help create. When writing about nonprofits, we tend to focus either on scandals or on thinly reported “success stories” that, en masse, create the impression that most of the world’s poor are being guided through life by nigh-heroic charitable assistance. It’d be cool to see that misperception become more of a reality in the lives of low-income families.

21

06 2012

The ABBAs

Aid blogger Tom Murphy is hosting the (third?) annual Aid Blogger’s Best Awards (ABBAs). My series of posts on “Machine Gun Preacher” Sam Childers is up for the “Best Series” ABBA.

If you missed my writing on Mr Childers the first time around there’s a shorter version at Foreign Policy, a longer version here, and the latest updates on the whole sad story here.

Vote for that and the other awards at Tom’s blog, a View From the Cave.

06

02 2012

The Ghost of 0.7%

One thing about being new to a field is that you not only have to keep up with the latest developments, but also have to explore the voluminous literature that built up before your time. A lot of it is no longer relevant, but there’s a lot of good stuff that isn’t appearing on social media or in the news.

Case in point: this working paper by Michael Clemens and Todd Moss of CGD, “Ghost of 0.7%: Origins and Relevance of the International Aid Target” (PDF). The abstract:

The international goal for rich countries to devote 0.7% of their national income to development assistance has become a cause célèbre for aid activists and has been accepted in many official quarters as the legitimate target for aid budgets. The origins of the target, however, raise serious questions about its relevance.

First, the 0.7% target was calculated using a series of assumptions that are no longer true, and justified by a model that is no longer considered credible. When we use essentially the same method used to arrive at 0.7% in the early 1960s and apply today’s conditions, it yields an aid goal of just 0.01% of rich-country GDP for the poorest countries and negative aid flows to the developing world as a whole. We do not claim in any way that this is the ‘right’ amount of aid, but only that this exercise lays bare the folly of the initial method and the subsequent unreflective commitment to the 0.7% aid goal.

Second, we document the fact that, despite frequent misinterpretation of UN documents, no government ever agreed in a UN forum to actually reach 0.7%—though many pledged to move toward it.

Third, we argue that aid as a fraction of rich country income does not constitute a meaningful metric for the adequacy of aid flows. It would be far better to estimate aid needs by starting on the recipient side with a meaningful model of how aid affects development. Although aid certainly has positive impacts in many circumstances, our quantitative understanding of this relationship is too poor to accurately conduct such a tally. The 0.7% target began life as a lobbying tool, and stretching it to become a functional target for real aid budgets across all donors is to exalt it beyond reason. That no longer makes any sense, if it ever did.

What if you start from an estimate of recipient ‘need’ rather than from the donor end?

One recent estimate that does try to start from the recipient ‘need’ and add up the costs is the Millennium Project.69 Even if one were to accept their methodology and their long list of recommended interventions (many of which are problematic), they nonetheless only arrive at 0.54% of rich country GNI as the total aid requirement. That is, even the most ambitious estimates suggest that 0.7% is vastly overstated.

But from a purely political point of view, aren’t these goals helpful? (As they ask it, “Is there any harm in promoting nonsensical goals?”) Their answer to this is more cursory, but basically they hypothesize that the 0.7% goal may be politically useful in European countries, while it may be counterproductive in the United States where it represents a drastic — and politically unlikely — increase in aid.

31

10 2011