What’s Wrong With the Commitment to Development Award List?

April 19, 2006

A quick scan of the “People’s Choice” nominees for the Commitment to Development Award gives the impression that the individuals from developed countries who have done the most to make rich-world policies more “development-friendly” are from a pretty narrow slice of the population. Mostly U.S., all male, many “inside-the-beltway” — an environment not known for its friendliness to anything, much less poor people in poor countries. So what’s going on?

Since this field of candidates was generated by soliciting names through the CGD e-mail newsletter and website, the main explanation is probably that those who are regular users of CGD’s materials are themselves from a narrow slice which strongly resembles the list of candidates. If that’s the case, I hope we can make a big push over the next year to reach a wider and more diverse audience.
The other explanation is that the media devote relatively little space or airtime to development policy issues, and they fill that up with the easy-to-get news of Gordon, Jeff, Bono, Bill & Melinda and the other household names of development. So when people think about development topics, the work of these folks comes to mind. The increasing celebrity-oriented content of development news — “did you hear that Angelina’s going to deliver the baby in Namibia?” — surely doesn’t help on this front.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1. Yvonne Siu Says:
   April 20th, 2006 at 12:13 pm

   Ruth Levine’s point rings loudly with those more concerned with the real impact that development programs are having rather than what designer suit Angelina Jolie is wearing in Namibia. While the work of CGD and others like it is admirable, are we to conclude that only those “inside the beltway” are doing the most for the poor and vulnerable in the world?
   Let’s unbuckle the beltway and get our message to those outside of Washington. Conversely, let’s also listen and appreciate those who hold non policy wonk views and who speak in terms of helping and effectiveness, not Washingtonian acronese.

2. John Daly Says:
   April 20th, 2006 at 4:14 pm

   Of those listed, Jimmy Carter has done most for “changing attitudes and policies towards the developing world” in a positive direction. But he was most effective when he used the Office of the Presidency of the United States to do so.
   The list is very weak on Europeans. Tony Blair has done much more in this respect than has Bono. How about Oxfam?
   How about the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, as an organization, or the World Food Program, the World Health Organization, UNICEF. How much has the UN done through its world conferences and summits?

3. Peter Schaefer Says:
   May 10th, 2006 at 1:36 pm

   An interesting point though my concerns are probably from the other side of the political divide. I nearly voted for “no one” when I saw that Jeff Sachs was on the list and then I saw Jim Kolbe. I won’t say all the specific reasons why he deserves this award but I will say that he is a modest, thoughtful, bipartisan Member who will be sorely missed.

We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.