Ellen and Nicky Chime in

Here is an amazing article from the IHT. Amazing because you'll notice that it's written by Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the President of Liberia, and Nicky Oppenheimer, the Chairman of DeBeers (HT: Chris Blattman)

I subscribe - mostly - to the views expressed in this piece. The caveat is that for all the lofty rhetoric, the empirical evidence points to the fact that attempts at promoting private sector initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa are met with a lot of resistance, both in-country and by the development industry.

The opinions put forward in the IHT article rest on the assumption that capitalism = good. I'm not going to challenge this notion, first of all because I think that debate has been taken up a few too many times, but mostly because whether or not we like or agree with this idea, it is the defining paradigm of the way the world works.

Of course, the way the world works is not always the way it should be working. But haven't we learned that this is a useless point to make in this day and age? Enough futile attempts to dethrone capitalism as the dominant operating paradigm of our time - let's work within it, make it work for those who need to be lifted out of poverty.

The problem is that if we are going to be functioning with this mindset, the way in which the entire aid/development industry operates needs to be reconsidered. And as my current hero, Elizabeth Pisani, has expressed, this type of industry is not reactive to changes and evolutions in the real world. A mere look at the Millenium Development Goals gives us a pretty good understanding of how aid agencies construe their work. As Andrew Natsios famously pointed out, arguing against the MDGs is like arguing against "motherhood and apple pie" - you simply can't, because in and of themselves, these goals are desirable and ultimately good. But they do nothing to make developing nations - and particularly the LDCs of this world - become self-sustainable.

Natsios says:

The MDGs are also heavily weighted towards social services… In overemphasising these particular goals, we risk underemphasising the importance of equitable economic growth, good governance, and democracy, without which, we cannot produce the tax revenue to sustain the social services that the MDGs embrace. What is needed is a proper emphasis on economic growth as a necessary condition for social services, instead of vice versa.

One of my biggest issues with the MDGs is the emphasis placed on universal primary education. It did not take countries, schools, and NGOs very long to realize that this goal is essentially pointless if no proposition concerning the quality of education is associated with it. Furthermore, which countries have been able to raise its population out of absolute poverty by having its citizens educated at the 5th grade level? None. And the MDGs make no provision for university education - something which could really spur development.

This is Goal 2:

Goal 2 of the Millennium Development Goals sets out by the year 2015 to:

• Ensure that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling

I'd like to use this opportunity to invite you to think about a completely different way of approaching aid - one of my favorite topics these days is bottom of the pyramid social entrepreneurship. That's not the panacea either, but it certainly challenges a lot of dusty misconceptions about what development should be.

Edit:

Just read this relevant piece from The Washington Post:

Shikwati and others cautiously suggest that the current situation is different. Enormous gaps between rich and poor persist in most sub-Saharan African countries, but there has been a slow trickle-down effect from the growing private sector, as jobs have been created in the cellphone industry, for instance, or tourism or banking.

Maggie Kigozi, executive director of the Uganda Investment Authority, attributes about 63,000 new jobs created in that country this year to growth in the private sector. Uganda has cut extreme poverty in half over the past decade -- down to 30 percent of the population living on less than $1 a day -- a fact that Kigozi also chalks up to private sector activity.

"We owe our success to that," she said. "Not to the World Bank, and not to nongovernmental organizations," she said, referring to aid groups.

The "Thinking Brains" of Foreign Policy, continued

Does anybody else find slightly odd that Senator Biden wants the US to give Georgia $1 billion? What for?

Biden said the $1 billion would "help the people of Georgia to rebuild their country and preserve its democratic institutions."

Ah yes, we all know that vast injections of foreign money have always helped "preserve democratic institutions".

That said, I'd love to hear how he expects to do this - are we going to give them actual cash, like we did in Iraq (brilliant article)? Or perhaps in the form of military aid ? Or humanitarian aid? Or...?

There is definitely a situation of great need in Georgia (150,000 displaced, on top of the 1/4 million already displaced in the region) but promising $1 billion (just before the democratic convention?) is a bit fishy to me.

I have no idea where that figure came from... It seems disproportionate. He's not really filling me with confidence, ahead of his possible nomination as VP in the coming days.

The "Thinking Brains" of Foreign Policy

On my right, we have the military-industrial complex. If you haven't (yet) watched "Why We Fight", the excellent documentary by Jarecki, I recommend you do. Particularly during election time, it's always good to be reminded about the threat to checks and balances in the government.

McCain is interviewed in this documentary - quite interesting position he lays out (I hope this arouses your curiosity - seriously - watch this documentary!)

On my left, "top foreign policy experts". I love this graph:What this says is that "experts" completely changed their predictions within 11 months - does this suggest that asking for their opinion is probably rather useless, as it is bound to change with the ebb and flow of realities on the ground?

Is there any predictive value to this? I really doubt it: this poll, if it does anything at all, only re-affirms what everyone already knows. I hope we are not using these "expert opinions" to inform our foreign policy strategy (oh wait. we are.)

Ah yes

Yesterday, I mentioned the explosion in immigrant arrivals in Italy, but couldn't remember where I read it - I don't think I read it there for the first time, but here is a BBC link. It looks like almost one third of prisoners in Italy are foreigners - that's how we treat illegal immigrants, we throw them in jail. Mmm... I do wonder if there would be a more efficient use of taxpayers' money? I'd love to know what the jailed immigrants end up doing when they are released and/or deported - I know that a lot will attempt the trip again if they've been deported, while others will disappear into the masses of immigrants living in dire poverty all across Western Europe.

Frightening.

I also finished reading "The Wisdom of Whores" (I know, finally, but I read more than one book at a time, so this happens often). Elizabeth Pisani is my hero. She has managed to write a book that is both extremely informative and offers a candid, real view into the inner workings of the AIDS industry. A lot of the dynamics that animate the field of development are at work in the AIDS business - but the twist, with this incurable disease, is that people are dying literally every minute, and the sense of urgency is not the same as in, say, micro finance. But I was chuckling throughout, specifically in the chapter entitled "Ants in the Sugar Bowl", which so accurately describes the crazy ways in which taxpayers' money is thrown out the window.

Thankfully, as she mentions, a lot of people in "development" function with this sort of consciousness, with a critical and honest approach to their work. I will definitely write more about her book, which I think should be required reading for any young idealist who believes in "changing the world" (i.e. me)

Lastly, I found this nifty little gadget which counts down until the end of the Bush presidency. Seriously, are you not counting the days??

Some lynx

I thought I was being witty by saying "lynx" as opposed to "links". Don't mind me. It's been a long week.

Someone left a comment this week asking for some Rony Brauman resources. You can easily type his name in Google, and peruse your heart out - he has said and written a lot. Here are a couple of "lynx" to get you started (he has a lot of academic papers that are published in various journals - if you have access to that type of publication through your university or research institution, and have interest in reading about controversial positions on humanitarian aid, I highly recommend Brauman)

Politics and Humanitarianism: http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/4961.html

On the "Zoe's Ark" debacle: http://www.causeur.fr/rony-brauman,153

Gated paper: From Philanthropy to Humanitarianism: Remarks and an Interview
The South Atlantic Quarterly - Volume 103, Number 2/3, Spring/Summer 2004

I've been reading a lot about "BoP Business" (Base of Pyramid business), which is absolutely fascinating - both in terms of the intellectual/philosophical perspective that informs the thinking on it, but also the amount of literature and activity surrounding the topic. One of my favorite reads these days is "The Next Billion" blog - highly recommended.

In other news, migrants from Africa are still having a really hard time reaching their promised land. I read somewhere this week that Italy has seen a doubling of immigrant arrivals in the country in the last 6 months - I can't remember where for the life of me, though. In any case, no wonder European politicians can so easily appeal to people's xenophobic sentiments, given the way immigration is playing out on Europe's coasts these days...

Reconciling economic and social goals in development

If you boil it down to its most basic propositions, sustainability can be achieved by reconciling economic and broad social goals. However, striking a good balance between the - often - conflicting goals is a lot easier said than done. The World Bank is acting a little schizophrenic in South Asia:

The World Bank Group's board appears to be operating under a severe case of cognitive dissonance, supporting efforts to save tigers - threatened in India and Bangladesh by habitat loss due to climate change - while helping build coal-fired power plants that will only speed up this process.

I think the term "cognitive dissonance" is very appropriate. The Center for Global Development calls the IFC's plan to help finance the power plant is an "ultra mega mistake". The latter article indirectly contributes to the debate concerning the rights of developing nations to consume as much energy in their development as richer nations did. This situation has lead to complicated negotiations over climate change strategy at a transnational level (a "social" goal), because of the economic implications - the relative impact of reducing carbon emissions matters hugely when it comes to economic development.

We have to acknowledge at least the a priori validity of the claim that developing nations should not have to be "unfairly" constrained in their economic development. One of the commenters on the CGD blog says this: "I worry about folks perched in fancy offices in DC, enjoying all the comforts that life can offer, trying to deprive other countries the opportunity to grow and prosper." The issue, however, is not about "depriving" countries of "opportunities", but to push for investment in clean energy everywhere, not just in developed countries. It seems to me that investing in monumental coal-fired power plants is likely to be a good short term solution: indeed, it will increase the energy production capacity in the region, which is a desirable goal.

However, the long term consequences are being ignored... Eventually, this power plant will really be obsolete, as new, cleaner, more efficient technologies are developed. The whole project costs $4 billion - I can't help but wonder why these billions can't be invested in research and development, instead of "old fashioned" power plants? I suppose that for now the answer is that the economic and financial returns on investing in R&D are not as attractive as what can be expected from the power plant investment.

So it goes - we continue to pursue short term solutions, even though we have acknowledged the need to reconcile social and economic goals, long term and short ones (in my mind, there is a correlation between short/long term and economic/social goals).

Random sunday night thoughts

Per usual, I am multi-tasking - reading, blogging, watching TV, doing laundry, etc. I normally wouldn't bring up what I'm watching on TV here (because, seriously, who cares?), but Christiane Amanpour is on CNN right now, talking about Christianity in an investigative documentary called "God's Warriors". Anyway, she just said the following things: 53% of Americans believe in creationism, and 1/3 of Americans would like to see evolution replaced by creationism in schools.

Really?

I would like to find comparative survey results for say, France. But I'm pretty sure no one is bothering asking this question there - while I'm sure plenty of people believe in creationism, it's unfathomable to imagine 30% of french people wanting to see this belief taught in school. I know the US is a very religious country (if you have not yet watched Jesus Camp, you must), but come on...

Now this guy, Ron Luce, is telling us that women should wear skirts below the knee because, well, you know, you don't want to tempt the guys. That reminds me of women having to wear burqas so as not incite men - where do you draw the line?!

The New Black

IRIN, the UN news wire, put out a piece called "Humanitarian work - it's the new black" today. It starts off with this joke:

At an open-air concert somewhere, Bono is called to the stage to speak to the crowd.

At first, he says nothing, only claps his hands every few seconds. After about five claps, he says to the audience: “Every time I clap, a child in Africa dies.”

An audience member yells back: “Well stop sodding clapping then!”

Pretty funny stuff, eh?

But the rest of the piece, much to my dismay, doesn't really attempt to answer any questions concerning celebrity endorsement of humanitarian causes. This is the bottom line, according to the author:

The bottom line, however, is that whatever their motives, big names do get publicity for the charities and causes they champion. Many people in the West know about the impacts of HIV in Africa because of Bono, they know about the crisis in Darfur because of George Clooney and Mia Farrow, and they know about orphans in Malawi because of Madonna.

I emphasized the verb "know", because that is my main qualm with celebrity activism. What do people actually know about these issues? Very little. Raising awareness is great, but when complicated issues are boiled down too far, it creates a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding, which, ultimately does not serve the cause. And unless the "knowing" is accompanied by the "doing", what's the real value?

The other issue, that my prof Rony Brauman had raised, is that the crises or issues that are chosen by celebrities to be covered do not necessarily reflect the highest level of need. For instance, not a lot of celebrity activists are standing up for the distribution of rehydration salts which help children with diarrhea survive (2 million children per year die of diarrhea - that's 6,000 children every day - if I were a huge cynic, I would point out that that represents a sh*t load more victims than the Darfur conflict.)

Mainstream media already does a pretty poor job of coverage - so many issues that are crucial in terms of human security (diarrhea), or regional security (the ongoing conflict in Somalia) for example, are sometimes brought up but never given the kind of attention that other "pet" issues have received. When you add another layer that determines coverage worthiness (is someone beautiful talking about this in large public gatherings?), then the reasons for which a crisis is covered in the media become increasingly less objective.

That being said, we should definitely differentiate between Jessica Simpson's trip to Kenya and the real commitments made by the likes of Bono. Clearly, the two operate at very different levels of engagement, and their actions have different motives and consequences. Still though, to come back to the IRIN piece, how much more do people really know thanks to celebrity endorsements?

The Girl Effect

Great video, don't you think?

Trusty MS alerted me about the existence of The Girl Effect and this video - I find this film to be really powerful, and, even though I'm tempted to say that it tends to oversimply/dramatize issues surrounding the empowerment of women, if I've learned anything in the past couple years about attracting the general public's attention to these types of issues, it's that you NEED to present facts simply and dramatically. So, the development practitioner in me says " oversimplified", takes away from seriousness and complexity of the issue....etc. The non profit manager in me says "Fabulous! what a powerful video!".

To me, it seems that NGOs always have to toe the line between getting attention for their cause and keeping the integrity of their message, as well as of their work. It's definitely a debate when it comes to celebrity endorsement of humanitarian causes - sure, you mobilize public opinion a lot easier and faster that way, but are you educating the public, or merely bringing the issue into the spotlight in a unidimensional fashion? Doctors without Borders (again) rejects celebrity endorsements, while others, like the Red Cross embrace it. Check out the (ridiculous??) video below...