Print
Share
Of Penn, Pigs and Cod
September 2, 2011
If there is one thing that Development Experts hate, it is celebrities acting as if they know something about development. Of course, if there’s another thing that at least some Development Experts hate, it is other Development Experts acting as if they know something about development. The good news for those folks, at least (and you know who you are): if Development Experts are as clueless on how to promote development as the celebrities, maybe the celebrities aren’t the big problem.
A recent article in Rolling Stone bemoans the slow pace of development efforts in Haiti as “a disaster of good intentions.” The piece is part of the usual depressing pattern –outsized expectations driven by hope and development agency hype are rapidly dashed by the reality that recovery takes a long time – and that even after a massive earthquake knocks down most buildings, no country is a tabula rasa for trendy new ideas. Janet Reitman, condemns naïfs in leadership positions with little knowledge of development reconstruction alongside development bureaucrats more concerned with turf that bricks and mortar and a dysfunctional Haitian government. Surely there was some of all of that.
The record of Development Experts in Haiti is… mixed, after all. My colleague Todd Moss pointed me to the story of the response to a swine flu epidemic in the country in the late 1970s and early 80s. Experts agreed that all 1.3 million of the country’s Creole pigs should be slaughtered. USAID brought in bigger and better American pigs. Sadly, the US varieties were not skilled at coping with the environment faced by the average pig in the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere –they wanted feed and wouldn’t eat scraps, they fell ill and had small litters. Many smallholders lost an important source of additional protein as a result. (As an aside, what is the issue with pigs? They killed off 300,000 in Cairo a couple of years ago in another over-reaction to swine flu. The pigs ate through as much as 3,600 tons of food waste a day –food waste now left rotting on the streets. The second rule of development should be Leave the Swine Alone).
Back to modern-day Haiti, however, the actor Sean Penn is one of the few to come out of the Rolling Stone piece looking reasonably good. You may wonder, as Vij and Julie do over on the Rethinking Blog, why he’s running a camp in Haiti, but he seems to be asking a lot of the right questions about things like drainage. Apart from one time when he’s hoodwinked by the bureaucrats and the supposed experts, the story suggests he’s getting stuff done. And in other news last week, it turns out Bob Geldof is fronting a $300m private equity fund investing in Africa. Maybe being an entertainer doesn’t immediately discount any ability to do something useful in policy circles (Republicans: think Ronald Reagan. And Democrats: … Kal “Kumar” Penn?).
Meanwhile, Development Experts do still know a lot (I became convinced after being called one, once). So celebrities interested in development issues should certainly speak to Development Experts before going off and trying to help (it is disappointing for the cause of global development, then, that I have yet to be invited to Lake Como, given tickets to a U2 concert, or even a voucher for free popcorn at a viewing of Mr and Mrs Smith).
But if celebrities should be humble, so should Development Experts. They don’t know all of the answers, either.
Which brings us to Cash on Delivery Aid. CGD has been battering on about COD like a cook in a chippy, but with some reason. It’s the idea that donor agencies pay countries for delivering outcomes (X more kids in school or vaccinated) rather than paying contractors and consultants to deliver the services which might (or might not) lead to those outcomes. Roving Bandit argues that COD “gets rid of the need for development experts.” I’d put it differently: it forces them to be humble. Rather than lording it over recipient countries saying “you’ll only get the money if you spend it like I think you should,” experts are put in the position of saying “you’ll get the money if you deliver results, but I might have some good ideas about how you can do that, if you are interested.” And recipients have the incentive to look for advice –after all, they’ll only get the money if they deliver the outcomes.
So, humility all around. That’s my very important, completely original, idea.
Possibly Related Posts
- On Not Being Cavalier about Results
- Wow: Will This Results-Based Approach Change DfID Country Allocations?
3 Responses to “Of Penn, Pigs and Cod”
Post a Comment
We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.
September 2nd, 2011 at 12:53 pm
I’ve read two interesting pieces with aid effectiveness implications written by Nathan Yaffe recently, and I have a question about each.
The first is a 2-part post on whether prioritizing internal aid actors might be a part of the answer for making aid more effective and efficient: http://www.aviewfromthecave.co.....odels.html (part 1)
http://www.aviewfromthecave.co.....nt-of.html (part 2)
The second, even more directly relevant, is about bilateral US aid to Haiti. I found this 3-part series to be a lot more informative than the Reitman piece, actually:
http://haitijustice.wordpress......a-request/
So, my questions are:
1) Is supporting local aid groups just the hip mantra these days, but not a legit part of the solution? Seems like philosophically it’s consistent with COD, in the sense that it’s a more hands off empowerment of a local solution, which is, in essence, a vote of confidence of local problem solving
2) When I read his writings about Haiti, I’m left with the impression – which I believe he substantiates successfully – that political and economic interests determine aid choices to a great enough degree that we’re relinquishing that power by switching to COD is…. never going to happen. So, is switching to COD made infeasible by the strength of political/economic interests, or is that also irrelevant?
Would love responses from Mr. Kenny or others on either topic…. And sorry for the profusion of links; they’re worth reading, however.
September 6th, 2011 at 11:17 am
On the roles of celebrities – used to be that they either worked through and promoted existing organizations (e.g. Angelina Jolie) or created their own (e.g. Madonna). The general lesson from those comparisons seemed to be that celebrities on their own frequently end up with ineffective programs and even scandals. I was struck by a NYT article on Sean Penn in Haiti (March 2011) http://nyti.ms/gZscxe precisely because it didn’t seem to fit either category. In some ways, he’s in the “create your own” category; but he seems to be so heavily involved himself and, according to the articles, is quite effective. Not a reproducible public policy but encouraging to see that individuals can make such a difference.
September 8th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Nick– thanks for the comment! On local aid groups –it is definitely part of the hip mantra nowadays, but that doesn’t mean its wrong
If local groups have to be transparent about what they do with the money and there is good M&E (as there should be for all aid), all else equal surely its far better to use them… not always, but usually. On the political feasibility of COD… well, DfID is trying a pilot in Ethiopia, so it isn’t completely infeasible, but your point well taken.
Bill –absolutely agreed. Sean Penn > Madonna, except when it comes to singing.