Yummy Goose

With the rise of development economics has also come a rise in a microeconomic focus towards development. Whereas tradition institutions such as the World Bank and IMF have been hotly contested for their macroeconomic policies – especially in regards to the 80s and 90s structural adjustment period (SAP) – there is much more consensus for microeconomic policies. Macroeconomic policy is much greyer, and is not helped by the fact that the structural adjustment period was on average marked by negative economic growth for Sub-Saharan Africa. For instance, one big question is whether it is ethically correct to place conditions on loans to developing countries. There are arguments on both sides. Others could argue that the incentive structures within the Bretton Woods Institutions are set up to encourage movement of money, rather than spending money well. From here we could slip into the messy crossfire of the big debate between Sachs and Easterly as to whether there even is a place for foreign aid in international development. And we have not even touched on the influence of political institutions on the implementation of macro policy. With the million different variables involved in the theory and implementation of macroeconomic development, it is no wonder that many economists have turned to a micro approach towards development. Today, institutions such as Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) at MIT, Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA), Center of Evaluation for Global Action (CEGA), and the Institute for Financial Management and Research (IFMR) all focus on various micro level development initiatives.

Because micro level development initiatives are much more easily testable (can often account for OVB and endogeneity), there has been a surge in interest for impact evaluations. The idea is that development initiatives should only be undertaken (with some exceptions) when there is rigorous research to support the claim that it is an effective and useful development initiative. Indeed, much of the development economics community, regardless of their particular beliefs, are united by a common rally against evidence-free development. This sounds fair enough, and until recently I too believed in only supporting well-evaluated initiatives. However, while discussing product strategy with a staff member of an appropriate technology company based out of Bangalore, I realized that my approach towards development might have been naïve. The employee stated that while it was important to the company to build a safe and effective product, the extent to which there would be product impact evaluation is primarily based upon the desires of various stakeholders such as hospitals and governments. He said that his company was confident (for various reasons I won’t go into here) that the product works. While it would be possible to run a number of impact evaluations to figure out exactly how effective the product was and maybe even make specific calculations regarding the returns to investing in the product, he saw this as overkill. If we know that a product is good, then why spend the enormous amount of time and money to conduct rigorous evaluations just so we can quantifiably measure the effectiveness of the product? Essentially, what is the opportunity cost of conducting rigorous evaluations? This is the question that I have been trying to grapple with.

Let’s take an example. My development economics professor at Cal, Dr. Ted Miguel, is has a famous deworming project. He was able to conduct unique evaluations to measure the effectiveness of deworming on children’s health and educational outcomes. Additionally, he was able to make some estimation as to the returns on investment that governments would receive for spending money on deworming tablets. While this is all very important and certainly fascinating work, was such analysis really necessary? If you ask any layman whether deworming tablets would be useful in settings where worms are rampant, the common sense answer is yes such tablets would be useful. Thus, to what extent is it necessary to quantify the usefulness when even an ordinary person could see that deworming tablets are important and what is the opportunity cost of doing such rigorous evaluation?

After discussing with several economists, the most common rationale I get for quantifiable results is based on the concept that resources are scarce. We only have a limited amount of time and money. Therefore, if a government only has enough money to enact one policy, should it be to provide deworming tablets or classroom textbooks? Such rigorous evaluations help answer this question.

Maybe through evaluation we are able to figure out that deworming tablets are better than textbooks, but what about scholarship programs, anti-retroviral, and hygiene campaigns? These are three more initiatives that we did not have the chance to evaluate. In this case, do we say that we cannot go ahead and roll out a program supporting deworming until we have also evaluated all of these other initiatives and definitively proven that deworming is the best use of resources? At the limit, this process of evaluation would go on forever because there is no end to the number of initiatives we could suggest. And at the limit, the resources it would take to conduct such evaluations would be infinite and no actual policy would ever come out of initiative debate. Perhaps, at some point we should just accept that what we are doing is good enough.

This seems to be the logic of the appropriate technology company I discussed earlier, and to me the logic seems pretty sound. Maybe it’s not always necessary to make sure that there is a ton of evidence. Maybe sometimes you just have to accept that while you have compelling evidence, it would not be enough for a publication, and that’s okay! And perhaps it’s these kinds of risks that move us from theory to action: the point where we actually get something done.

Tags: No Comments.

In regards to my own field experience in India working with a local development-focused organization called Central Himalayan Rural Action Group (Chirag): I understand my work for the most part is in opposition to the stream of logic I indicated in my previous post that Western initiated development work should be focused on providing expertise that cannot already be supplied by constituents of the developing country. I was a field worker who acted in a similar capacity to the twenty other field workers Chirag already employed. What value did I bring, what could I provide that these other field workers could not? Maybe I could claim that I provided a semi-valuable outsider perspective, or that my English speaking skills were somewhat useful, but for the most part I admit that I was not providing a particularly unique set of skills.

However, as is rightly espoused as the theme of the Global Poverty Minor at UC Berkeley (which I am currently a part of), field experiences at the beginning of development practitioner’s career is vitally important as an intellectual exercise. I came away from Chirag knowing that the benefit I received from the field experience via what it taught me about nuances of development practice far exceeded any sort of marginal benefit I was able to provide for the local people. I would argue that this is not exploitive, but necessary: a development practitioner has no credibility without ground level field experience. I firmly believe that providing students the opportunity to spend time actually doing fieldwork is the most valuable element of the Global Poverty Minor. I would make one caveat: such field experiences should be undertaken in non-emergency situations. For instance, going to Haiti right now just for the sake of learning would be a burden to NGOs who need to stay focused on the mission of assisting Haitians.

Tags: 2 Comments

In order to feed my highly narcissistic nature while at the same time soothing my crushing inferiority complex it seems only appropriate that I myself start writing about things relevant to me with the assumption that my thoughts are interesting enough that everyone deserves a window into them. Without further ado, let’s begin.

Perhaps a good starting point would be to discuss the overarching concept of international development. There is no clear definition for the concept, leading to a vast breadth of interpretations – some more appropriate than others. Perhaps the most common understanding of development is one of improving the quality of human life. It is the idea that we are not passive observers of our existence, but rather activists who can consciously shape the world for the better. In theory, it sounds pretty beautiful, but underlying these noble pursuits lie certain disturbing and dubious assumptions.

The most potentially pernicious of these assumptions is the idea that the Global North can actually shape and improve the lives of others (in international development, “others’ most often refers to the poor in developing countries). How is the concept of international development not just another form of neocolonialist domination? Is there actually a space for the socio-economically privileged to come to improve the lives of those with less? Headlines from CNN after the earthquake in Haiti read “Saving Haiti,” but what does it mean to “save” Haiti? Does Haiti even want to be “saved”?  And what gives us the audacity to believe that we hold the keys to another society’s social upliftment? Moreover, can we engage in development in meaningful ways that do not exacerbate the kind of dominating power relations between the Global North and South that have been the hallmark of the 70s’ and 80s’ public policies? Or, is it better to allow the indigenous populations to organically come up with solutions to their own social problems?

In my limited exposure to the field, it seems that there is a space for international development, but we must be careful in the ways that we engage the practice. More generally, I feel there are two important questions worth considering when approaching any development initiative.

1. What can we (as the West) provide that developing countries cannot provide for themselves?
2. Is the development initiative something the intended beneficiaries actually want enacted?

A number of well intentioned but misguided development projects could be avoided if we just consider these two questions. For instance, a number of Americans are wanting to rush over to Haiti after the earthquake to work as laborers, extra hands to help with reconstruction. As eloquently explained by Ms. Schimmelpfenning, local Haitians are just as capable (perhaps more so) of acting as such laborers. The idea that Westerners must rush to lend a helping hand because locals are for whatever reason incapable of doing so themselves is inaccurate. Plus, such labor could potentially also potentially act as a revenue-making source. The larger story here is that such labor is work that indigenous peoples can do for themselves, so there is no need in Westerners to fill a gap that does not exist.

In regards to the second point about how development initiatives should be desired by the intended beneficiaries, Ms. Shaikh’s most recent posting captures this idea pretty well. Too often it seems the primary stakeholders are not consulted about their opinions on development initiatives. Most recently, there is the case of the peepoo bags, which are meant to be odorless and hygienic ways for people without access to proper sanitation to dispose of waste. Once again, Ms. Schimmelpfenning nailed the problem with this particular style of initiative in that there has not been enough discussion about whether such an initiative would actually be socially and culturally acceptable means of improving sanitation. The invention itself may be highly effective, but is this something that the people actually want? Is this something that will actually be used?

Moreover, it seems that there is a space for us to engage with international development, but it’s critically important to analyze in what ways we are engaging. A final disclaimer: As I have mentioned often, my development experience is limited and welcome any questions or comments (or critiques from real development experts highlighting some particularly contradictory/wrong element in my logic).

This post seems to be running long and I worry that people’s attention has worn thin, so I will leave it here. Will discuss more development philosophy next time!

Tags: 5 Comments