Blattman, Banerjee and Duflo Debate

On Chris Blattman's excellent blog a debate about development sprung up last week.

The question was basically this: What is the best first step for South Sudan as an emergent country?

The two sides are as follows: social spending (Duflo and Banerjee) versus security and private sector (Blattman).

Banerjee and Duflo champion social services for the poor (on the economix blog initially), including: schools, health care, health insurance and even a direct cash transfer system.

Blattman argues, given that South Sudan has little to no operational capacity for such bureaucracies, creating a welfare state would be too much of a burden. He advocates making peace with warlords, and creating invectives for them, and the rich in general, to invest in productive fixed assets such as factories or plantations. He also pushes for an operational police force. His point is that politics is primary and security is at the heart of it: maintain peace and support private sector development. Oh, and build roads.

Banerjee and Duflo respond, that pursuing redistributive policies that target the poor is essentially building the identity of the state. Hopefully, as they suggest, a virtuous cycle would start whereby the poor support the state for putting them first and therefor hold off special interest groups (eg. warlords, elites) from capturing the product of nation (oil mostly for now).

Finally, Blattman remains skeptical. With evidence from Sierra Leone he chops down the benefits of cash transfers. From his own experience in Uganda and Liberia, his opinion of the effectiveness of redistribution programs, as far as they spur development, is jaded.

Of course, we are tempted to think that this is an atrificial trade-off, and that the state of South Sudan can pursue both courses at once. While to some extent that may be true (eg. placating warlords could fit on both agendas) I think the notion that these respective policies build the identity of the state is accurate and useful.

Will the state grow akin to an enlightened version of African socialism of 1960's? Or more like the capitalist enterprise of the 90's plus security and sensibility? Perhaps it is unfair to cast upon them such shadows. In any case, let us all hope for Lant Pritchett's work to have some impact.

In the end, I must admit, I am convinced by Banerjee and Duflo. Perhaps because because of quixotry, perhaps because of this:

Bin Laden and Pakistani Aid

Osama Bin Laden has been killed. People are celebrating. I don't think we should be celebrating. Pakistan should certainly not be celebrating. As a Westerner in the UAE, I see moderate Arab Muslims shrugging their shoulders and those more conservative shaking their heads. No one is shouting. Pakistanis, notably those from Peshawar and the surrounding region,  give off no impression at all. But they in particular, should be worried. Take a look at this picture from the NYT:

If 96% went towards military, what does that leave little ol' development (plus overhead)? Not very bloody much. And now, with Osama dead, can we expect this stream to continue? Not bloody likely. Looking at it this way, it has been in Pakistan's best interest to keep Osama hidden and keep the taps flowing.

Traditionally, this is the time when the US disengages from a situation and leaves a mess for other organizations to fill in. The prize has been won. This reminds me of this video from a few years back in which Thomas Barnett makes a hawkish, yet perfectly acceptable presentation about how the US military needs to be comprehensively engaged in post war efforts to build peace and security.



Of course, Osama's death does not make this a post conflict zone, and in fact may do just the opposite.  Nonetheless, the strategic switch from offensive to developmental should be engaged.

I read a statistic from Paul Collier once (which I can't find now, of course) that said something like 40% of post conflict zones in the past 15 years that have attained some kind of peace have reverted back into hostile zones.

I brought up military spending at work today. People were surprised to hear that the US spends about as much as the entire rest of the world combined on their armed forces. A Syrian friend of mine replied lamenting about how rich his country would be if they weren't continuously funding the military. I told him of the untold billions Canadian PM Stephen Harper is going to spend on fighter jets. "For what?" he said.

World Bank Advocates Primary Education

Fifteen years ago if you had told me that the World Bank was in Uganda, advising the government there to spend more money on roads, and more importantly, education, I would have laughed at your cruel joke. In the 90s the Structural MalAdjustment Programs (if you haven't heard about them click on it!) were in full swing, and government spending was tantamount to turning off the taps of international aid.

Now we have this: the President of the World Bank advising the President of Uganda to spend more on primary education. Education! One of the least clearly measurable investments, in terms of economic outcomes, a government can make! Imagine that!

We should be hard on the Bank for their terrible mistakes. We should be skeptical of them because of their structure. Dominated by US interests and barely influenced by the 'recipients' of their policies, the World bank has arguably done more harm than good in the past. However, ever since they realized that capital controls and fiscal stimulus are an integral part of the developing nation toolbox, they have been getting more and more things correct. The IMF even have a set of guidelines to help poor countries manage capital controls, check it out. 

Shopping Can't Save the World

Over the previous 50 or so years we have seen the development of charities driven by classical capitalists. The Bill Gates' of the world, if you will. These magnates destroy take from the little guy with one hand give back to society with the other.

In a two action motion, they complete a viscous cycle. In the fist action they perpetuate the inequalities and injustices of the global capitalist system, they reinforce, and profit from the agreements and accords that keep poor people poor and ignorant. They profit big time. 

Then, in the second, they attempt to absolve themselves of the guilt that their business practice has brought upon them. They set up charities. And people forget. That they were ever bad in the first place is a secondary consideration. (I mean, they run charities, so how could they have done wrong in the past?)

Don'f forget! Microsoft is one of the most ruthless, dastardly and morally corrupt corporations in the world. They have abused so many people, from Namibian schools, to Danish programmers, it is remarkable. They are still malicious, even with a cherry on top. Of course, the same goes with many top companies in the States in particular, including Apple, Nike, Starbucks, Gap, etc...

These days, however, a new kind of business model has become the norm. One in which the two actions of destroying and deluding repairing society happen all at once. Its called brand aid and it's that same delusion we were used to, now it just happens all at once!

Should you feel better about buying a shirt you don't need from GAP because a portion goes to fighting aids? NO. Should the fact that Apple gives some tiny amount to fighting aids or feeding the poor forgive their abusive business practices NO!

These kinds of charity are merely promotional material. How could Old Navy or Microsoft get rich without poor people to abuse? Not as easily, that is for sure. It is in Starbucks best interest to keep the poor disenfranchised, but give them just a little help, so the public image of GAP changes so slightly, allowing the Nike to sell an extra million t-shirts/programs/anything.

Here's a little presentation from Lisa Ann Richey, the author of the upcoming book entitled Brand Aid: Shopping Well to Save the World. Please, please watch this Bono clip at 3:47. Ugh.

This is not to condemn projects that promote small business in impoverished nations, as Zizeck does in this great little video. There are thousands of products out there that are wonderful and worthy of your dollar. It is just to say that the odds are stacked against the poor. Big businesses enjoy it, and won't change anything. A little cash the flows straight to entrepreneurs in poor countries is a good thing. Indeed it is the least we can do, but it just won't solve anything.

It reminds me of the moral question my family sometimes asked itself when we lived in Kenya. Should we hire some more people? Should we help out more poor Kenyans, who most likely are over qualified for any position we can offer? Sure. But it won't solve anything.

That 1% goes to fight poverty in someway does not forgive overspending on silly things people don't need. That a handbag is made by a poor Ghanain woman does not make it good to buy fifty. It won't fix anything on the systemic level, therefore the moral penance it seems to afford is illusory, and by no means does it justify living beyond our means (as environmentalists). The best thing we can do for the poor is understand that the rules of capitalism are made by the WTO, the World bank and the OECD (and often local governments) and they are implicitly working against the poor by having the best interests of the rich at heart. And, even more important, we should strive to solve that. And how.

Hat tip to: Slavoj Zizek and Brand Aid

To Read

Two exciting new books are coming out in the next two weeks or so. These two books, as heralded as they are, represent the credit that randomized experiments have garnered in the field of development economics.

If we have limited resources (we do) and can choose only one thing to buy, should we buy bednets, textbooks or deworming medicine for poor children in Tanzania? Randomized control trials in economics help us to understand the real effects of interjections such as these. By employing this method of looking at differences in differences we can allocate aid funds most effectively ie. with the greatest positive impact and the least negative one. (If our ends were to get more education happening, it turns out deworming is the most effective, who knew? This feeds from a recent post on indirect aid sometimes being the most effective. )

The question of extrapolation is a pertinent one. Deworming worked well in Kenya, but will it work as well as say, bed nets in other more malaria-ridden circumstances? Luckily some very bright people are working in this field, and I figure extrapolation is well considered and rarely taken as given throughout the field.

These two books mark the forefront of the effort to make aid more effective and less defective....and it seems, in a very digestible way! (Who doesn't like digestible forefronts!?). I hope they can deliver to the UAE.

Click on a book to find out more:

  and 

Check em out:

and

Lant Pritchett in South Sudan

Lant Pritchett at South Sudan Workshop March 15, 2011 from GD on Vimeo.

Direct aid = Good aid?

Quite often when aid is given, whether it be humanitarian or otherwise, there is pang of regret that goes along with it. Usually it is something like:

"If only the governments weren't so corrupt..." or
"If only the NGO's weren't so self serving..." or more generally
"If only aid made it through to the people it is intended for."

These related problems are well documented by the likes of goodintents.org or aidwatchers.com and many others.

There are situations where the aid itself is perpetuating the problem, and the answer is to not give any aid directly, but rather to support efforts that end up relieving the problem indirectly.

To highlight this (and also to elicit some responses...) was really the purpose of my last post.

Sometimes trying to give directly, though attractive for its simplicity, is not the right course of action. Giving directly to an organization that treats the wounded, in say eastern DRC, does tug at the heart strings and sound like a good idea. However, if you read my last post, it may not be the most effective way to alleviate the problem. There are many approaches to healing the wounds of war.

Giving direct food aid to Ethiopians during famines, as we have seen in the past, is the true humanitarian's response. However, other avenues for aid may have been, and surely will be, more effective at creating a lasting change in the broken food allocation systems in Ethiopia. (Lets not get started on the weapons that food aid bought.) After all, there are many, many ingredients to development.

Perhaps solutions that involve supporting political negotiations, or the development of infrastructure, or children's initiatives might, in a round about way, help to alleviate the problem. These might also be crucially, free from creating the perverse incentives that maintain the problem. We do not want warlords supported by the international aid system; we do not want Ethiopians to waiting for food aid.


We all want aid to be more effective. Sometimes the answer is to give indirectly.

The case against humanitarian aid

Although aid talk these days is centered on Japan, Ill let Tales from the Hood and La viaid loca lecture you about the issues surrounding those charity efforts. Basically, the short lesson is they don't need your old socks.

Instead, today I would like to convince you that humanitarian aid, as opposed to disaster relief (Japan) or development aid (Kenya), is bad.

Consider this: Humanitarian intervention lowers the cost of war.  Casualties of war require medical attention which requires money and resources. The Red Cross for example, brings in all kids of resources to help those in need.

"Free relief for all of my soldiers and wounded civilians? Sign me up!"

Humanitarian intervention lessens the burden of war on those who wage them; the wounded are cared for, the hungry are fed.

---

Consider this: The media brings in all kinds of charity.

To quote La vidaid loca link from above, "Media attention on an emergency is a significant driver of the general public’s interest in giving to an emergency."

Media brings in money.

---

Imagine for a minute that you are a rebel militant in some forgotten post-war country:

Together with your brothers, you wish to rise to power. You and your comrades will become rulers of the land so that you can live the life of a provider; a king. However, your resources are dwindling, and poverty is rampant. Some seasons are plentiful - when the rains come, and when resource deals are struck - but there is always the risk that activists will block trade deals, government forces will capture all the rents, and rains will fail. The risk you face is high no matter your action. The life you live is most likely short. Money is what you need. Money is power.

Which is the 'path of least resistance'? Choose one, or two that fit together:

a) Farm: Knuckle down, get a real job tilling the fields and pray that the rains are good.

b) Revolt: Go into battle with government forces on the little weaponry you have left from your last resources-for-arms deal and try to take control of the resource rich areas.

c) Look for a job: Go to the city to look for a job. Maybe you could become a taxi driver.

d) Get some education: Learn a new skill to apply to a productive endeavour in the near future.

e) Cut off a few limbs of starving children: Create a big humanitarian crisis so international aid resources come flowing into your country.

Escalate a humanitarian crisis -> media -> humanitarian aid -> free resources -> good chance to syphon off funds -> money AND  healthy soldiers -> more war -> natural resource capture -> money




Humanitarian aid has perverse incentives: it decreases the cost of war, and increases benefits to warlords for going to war.


We should not give humanitarian aid.
(...and we haven't even talked about colonialism yet)
Convinced?

American blinders on?

Do people still believe that the US is the champion of democracy in the world even after learning that the US has supported Mubarak with 2 billion dollars every year (including 1.3 billion in military support)?

Do people still believe the US is promoting good governance even after learning that they support the current corrupt and oppressive (to varying degrees) regimes in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel, Algeria and Bahrain?

Do people still believe the US helps to promote smooth transitions to democracy after learning that they supported military coups in Tunisia, (recently reversed!) Algeria, and oversaw the transition of power from father (who was assassinated) to son in Lebanon?

(And we haven't even started to talk historically, or to mention Iraq or Iran.)

Hell, the US even started giving money to Gaddafi in 2009!

Surely the truth must be coming out now. I refuse to believe that someone could credit the US's involvement in the Middle East for the peoples' uprisings these days.

It is also quite clear (if you check this graph) that the US has and will continue to use more military funding to bolster tis to autocratic regimes, than it has to back up the clamor you always hear about liberalization and democracy:

FMF = Foreign Military Funding

And yes, I do mean the Gaddafi: the madman, the tyrant, the Berlusconi of the Middle East (if Berlusconi were a little more prone to pogrom):

Then again, there is nothing like a good ol' virgin female bodyguard troope eh boys?

How much of your government's budget goes to aid?

from aidwacthers.com

Note: this measure does not include aid given to countries that are considered 'developed' nor aid that is composed of export credits, official sector equity, portfolio investment, or debt reorganisation. 

How much aid goes to dictators?

This much:

Consult Freedom House for more on what it means to be free, and Bill Easterly on what it means to give to a dictator.



H/T: Aidwatch.com

CDG get points for the CDI

Yep, you guessed it, it's the 2010 Commitment to Development Index. Go ahead. See where your favourite country stacks up. 

The report has a fantastic breakdown of each rich country's strengths and weaknesses in supporting development through aid, trade, investment, migration, security, environment and technology. Point for comprehensive development indices!

Think Sweden might be a shining beacon of development assistance? Well, you would be right, as it scored highest overall. However, not surprisingly, in the technology category it scored solidly below average. Here's why: 

• Low tax subsidy rate to businesses for R&D (rank: 20)
• Offers patent-like proprietary rights to developers of data compilations, including those assembled from data in the public domain 
• Large share of government R&D expenditure on defense (1.0%; rank: 17)  
• Pushes to incorporate into bilateral free trade agreements "TRIPS-Plus" measures that restrict the flow of innovations to developing countries

While I can't get on board criticizing their subsidy policy regarding R&D (seems to be working!), their adherence to TRIPS-Plus is downright boneheaded. This policy program restricts WTO members to a prohibitive intellectual property rights regime and continues to do real damage to development.

(Also look how poorly Canada scores for environment! Why? Ahem:   1. High greenhouse gas emissions rate per capita (21.7 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; rank: 21)  and  2. Poor compliance with mandatory reporting requirements under multilateral environmental agreements relating to biodiversity (rank: 18))

Point for fun-time graphs, and one for pretty country report graphics too!

CDG: 3, Tea Party: 0 (?)

How transparent is your aid?

Do you give to charity? Do you know exactly where your money is going? Is 15% going to overhead, 30% going to implementation, and 25% going to an advertising budget? Well, we may never really know where our private charity cash is going but we can sure demand to know where our governments are being most generous, right? Damn right!

Publishwhatyoufund.org has come out with what they are calling the first 'global' assessment of aid transparency. It is compelling and accusatory. Take a look:

They also have a li'l interactive visualization feature.

Next time you see your government, stop them and ask them where your tax/charity money is going.

Mo says No

The Mo Ibrahim foundation has decided for the second year in a row, not to award the coveted Excellence in African Leadership award. The 5 million dollar cash prize, as I discussed in an earlier post, is awarded to an African leader who have been democratically elected, served within their constitutional term limit and have left within the last three years. As he expressed in this piece for the Financial Times, Mo and his team were just not impressed by anyone this year.

This year, like last year, the prize committee – chaired by Kofi Annan, the former United Nations secretary-general, who is independent of the board – has decided not to make an award.

So does that mean that African leadership has been, as The Economist might say, “hopeless”? And has the foundation, established to celebrate good leadership in Africa, ended up proving that there is no such thing?

No. Whether there is a winner of the prize or not, the purpose of the foundation is to challenge those in Africa and elsewhere to debate what constitutes excellence in leadership. The standards set for the prize winner are high, and the number of eligible candidates each year is small. It is always likely there will be years when no prize is awarded.

Though a disconcerting that there is no leader worthy of the prize, it's still nice to see this organization keeping their standards and not just doling out the cash to candidates who came close.

Kyoto Prototype

On my last visit to Nairobi a few months ago I was fortunate enough to be introduced to a fascinating fellow by the name of Jon Bohmer. Jon is the founder of an energy solutions company called Kyoto that won a huge competition put out by the Financial Times (and another from Brit Insurance Designs of the Year) for their solar oven. Kyoto has high hopes for revolutionizing all Kenyan energy systems.

Jon's wife Neema is a well respected member of a Somali tribe in Kenya that has recently inherited a vast expanse of beautiful land in the Rift Valley. Their plans for this land are just as grand as the land itself. But before getting into the big picture ideas, Kyoto has been not-so-quietly offering up innovations for saving energy. Take a look for your self.

The question that is invariably asked about projects like this is: Do these products actually sell? For now the answer is still no. Jon explains that it is difficult to get people to change their habits especially with regard to everyday routines such as cooking, washing and lighting.

According to the WHO, 1.6 million women and children die each year from smoke inhalation. This does not come a surprise for people that have seen the way food is cooked. However, out of all the products the one with the least appeal is the solar oven. Despite its obvious health advantages, people just can't get with the idea that you can cook with the sun (when it is out) and would always rather see a flame or proper oven at work on their food. I suppose sometimes you'd rather spend the extra money to get what you like.

On thing Jon believes firmly, if incorrectly, is that he cannot give these things away for free. He argues that a free item that necessitates a change in behaviour, is not likely to be used, whereas a small investment of money obligates a small change of behaviour. I disagree. If people are fully aware of the financial and health related gains in a new product, they are just as likely to use it either way. Jessica Coen and Pascaline Dupas agree. They set up randomized trials in Kenya using bed nets to test this question. They found that free ones were just as likely to be used as ones that cost 3USD. Unfortunately this study is not open to the public but one using pregnant women as the sample is.

Whereas all of the smaller products can save people time, effort and money if they so choose, the bigger projects in the works promise structural change. As of very recently, Jon and his team can install an array of private, portable, affordable and easy to maintain solar powered appliances including solar water pumps, solar air conditioning, solar desalinization, and general solar electricity. In the areas of Kenya that get sun everyday these really work well, including the land he has married into! Their scope for energy production in the rift valley is huge. He says within two years they'll be up and running, providing Kenyans with cheap and reliable electricity! A recent study of medium sized firms in Africa found that electricity was a major constraint on growth.

Another project that seems a bit further off involves algae. According to Jon, algae can be used for cleaning and fertilizer, but most importantly algae is a great source of nutrients. He believes firmly that algae can be the source of food security for millions of poor East Africans and beyond. If energy/money saving solar ovens can't find demand among the poor, will edible algae?

Also in the works is a Kyoto Institute at Narok University, where the team hopes to disseminate the value of solar energy and other innovative energy solutions. Maybe he'll be able to convince a young troop of Kenyans that a little algae for breakfast is a good thing. Go Kyoto!

Mo Ibrahim's 10 million dollar Cash Prize

Mohammed Ibrahim is a big cheese. He made his billions (2.5 US, according to Forbes) by launching  a telecommunications company called Celtel in several African countries. With Celtel now sold to the Zain group (for 3.4 billion US), Mo has taken up the task of improving the political landscape in Africa. He created the Mo Ibrahim Foundation in 2007 with the purpose of stimulating debate on good governance, collecting data and creating statistics on good governance, and recognizing achievement in African Leadership.

Toward this end, he created an African Leadership award. To be considered for the award leaders must have been democratically elected, served within their constitutional term limits and have stepped down within the last three years. Joachim Chissano from Mozambique won it first in 2007, then Festus Mogae from Botswana, and last year they decided not to award any African Leader. Bad news guys! Better shape up, you wouldn't want to lose out on a cool five million USD over 10 years and a further 200k a year for life!

The Foundation also releases quite a tidy index on quality of governance in Africa.  Here are some rankings:

(It seems that this islands do better than the mainland. Why would that be the case?)

Bill Easterly and Laura Freschi over at AidWatch show off some of the FT's interpretation of the Mo index. Pretty graphics. Of course, I am skeptical about the statistics, especially their usefulness for comparisons across countries and across time (diff in diff type). However, I think Mo is attempting to do something noble and should be encouraged. Given the history of big men in African politics, creating an extra incentive for leaders to be good seems necessary.

Creating incentives for leaders to step down gracefully, another goal of the foundation, is also very important. If people like Qaddafi and Mugabe would just slip away, I'm sure their nations would greatly appreciate it. 

Speaking of those two, some other brutal bastards that are still in office include:

Isaias Afewerki 

Laurent Gbagbo 

José Eduardo Dos Santos 

and, pictured below with the Obamas,

Teodoro Obiang Nguema:

Do you think a cash incentive is enough?

Calling Out Quiet Corruption (or Cultural Imperialism?)

"In Uganda, teachers in public primary schools are absent 27 percent of the time. In Chad, less than one percent of the non-wage recurrent expenditures reaches primary health clinics.  In West Africa, about half the fertilizer is diluted before it reaches the farmer. " - Shanta Devrajan, World Bank Chief Economist for Africa


The World Bank this year has focused their African Development Indicators on a concept called 'Quiet Corruption'.

According to the WB this form of corruption, the likes of which Dr. Devrajan discusses on his blog, quitely stifles the chances for growth and prosperity among the poorest people in the world. This type of corruption, they say, is very different from the headline-grabbing corruption scandals that indict morally depraved people for heinous crimes involving some transfer of wealth. Instead of overtly breaking the law for personal monetary gain, perpetrators of quiet corruption may simply not show up for work <=. This notion is broad enough to include all actions that deviate from what is normally expected, such as putting in a lower level of effort than expected, or bending the rules for some people and not for others. 


If we can define this term so broadly it could include what Nicholas Kris(jerk)off wrote in the NYT about the choices that poor people make. Poor people put in less effort to provide for their children than he expects. (Ok, perhaps that is stretching the term, but I just had to mention that terrible article. I won't quote it or deal directly with the problems with it - too annoyed - so you'll have to click on the links.)  


While we cannot deny the facts he quotes, what we can do is find the reasons why quiet corruption is so rampant and why poor fathers blow all their cash on beer (as he should have instead of perpetuating ignorance). If there is a ribbon that ties these concepts together it is the notion of 'role models'. Who are the role models in society? The richest, most powerful and most famous people in many developing countries are the corrupt political elite. They are also, unfortunately, the most emulated. If the people at the top made it there by being corrupt, and they are now above the law, wouldn't that pervert most peoples incentives for honest work? If it appeared that the only way to get ahead would be to cheat, lie and steal then I might also drown my conscience in beer. I might also not show up for work as often. 


But Dr. Devrajan is right: incentives need to change. Work could be more piecemeal, police and regulatory bodies should be better funded, and perhaps most important, the voices of the informed critics must be heard. 


But wait, in light of my contempt for Mr. Kristof, aren't we being a little bit one sided on this issue? I mean, life just doesn't work the same way in all places and we can't expect it to. Here in the UAE, as my neighbour once told me, "It's not a task based life, it's a person based life." Things almost always work differently in person than they do on paper. Some things In the UAE are expected to take more time then they would in the West, and meetings are a good token. Should I demand that this meeting - that I should be in right now - start on time? Should it think of this as corruption that we are expected to be in a meeting, getting paid as if we are, but really we are chinwagging the hours away (or in my case writing blog posts) ? No, that would be rude, people are just getting to know each other before the meeting starts, and that is part of this culture.


So when is it 'quiet corruption' and when is it just an acceptable part of culture? Perhaps the context of rampant poverty makes a difference? 

Africa Goal and Goal Condoms

In a previous post about the regulations that FIFA has placed on advertising in South Africa, I mentioned how I thought the poor would not benefit from the World Cup. When I wrote that post I had forgotten about a project several friends of mine started for the last world cup. Their initiative is brilliant:


"Africa Goal was initiated in line with the World Cup 2006. A team of nine people from diverse backgrounds travelled from Kenya to the West Coast of Namibia, projecting live World Cup matches every evening for the duration of the football tournament, together with HIV and AIDS information videos. Following the success of Africa Goal 2006, the same team, building on their experience gained and lessons learnt, is proposing the 2010 Africa Goal Project. Africa Goal 2010 will start in Nairobi, Kenya and end in Johannesburg, South Africa. The team’s journey will follow the “AIDS Highway” through Eastern and Southern Africa, where increased mobility and migration in conjunction with rising disposable incomes and the associated escalation of transactional sex along this central transport and trade route were a major contributor to the spread of HIV through the region."


Its an amazing adventure that I wish I could be a part of. Maciej Sudra, currently a High School Teacher at the International School of Harare, and Matt Herren, the CTO at a software company called Blankpage AG, are co-founders of the project and all around stellar guys. Also, two more friends and vital members of the team are Ana Sudra and Chris De Nogales who are also brilliant designers and visual artists. 


For this World Cup they have also put their talents towards creating a world cup condom initiative: Goal Condoms: 

Their practical approach to disseminating such vital information should be a lesson for the bigger, more well-financed initiatives. Speaking of finances, if you like the idea why not send them a shilling or two?

Best of luck and hats off to you guys!

A Nice, Healthy Taliban

I received a good question from Lady N today. Here is the news story that contains that very question:

"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) raised eyebrows on Tuesday when it announced it was giving first aid training and medical kits directly to the Taliban insurgency. The move is part of a wider Red Cross effort to save lives in Afghanistan. The agency is teaching local doctors and Afghan security forces how to deal with weapon-related wounds. But in April it also provided basic first aid training and emergency medical kits to "over 70 members of the armed opposition," the ICRC said."  - Richard Foot, Canwest News Service 

 Should the Red Crescent Teach the Taliban First Aid?  ( <- go ahead read more)

I say everyone should have access to the information/health care that
helps to save lives. However, if we (the royal we) have a limited
amount of resources we should spend those resources where
they do the greatest good. This is clearly ambiguous, but it is also
easy to see that saving the lives of people who wouldn't think twice
about killing other people is not very efficient (and therefore not
the greatest).  Although the efficiency argument is cold, I think it
fits this context of the moral dilemma quite nicely.

If we had unlimited health resources, or even a glut of localized and
immovable resources in taliban areas, I would argue that helping them
out is a good idea. A child in this part of the world who loses a
family member mostly or partly because health care is withheld is more
likely to grow to resent foreign organizations of any sort. (I think
this stands whether or not people are aware of intentional
restriction.) Anything perceived by locals as a positive influence
from foreign organizations is a good thing.

What do you think?

Post No.1 (Playground Politics and Races)

Ok, Post number one! This funny clip reminds me of a paper on UN GA votes and US Aid. The authors find a that countries will vote in accord with the US directly after after receiving untied aid from the US. The data only runs up to 2002, but it is revealing nonetheless. It's not only natural resources that countries are willing to give up to get some fresh foreign cash. Ahh, the ol' race to the bottom.

But back to resources, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative is a most excellent initiative that sets out rigorous standards for governments dabbling in the most profitable of extractive industries. In an effort to make natural resources beneficial for all, the EITI demands that countries reveal their resource revenues to the public in a consistent and honest fashion. An informed public is more likely to demand accountability, which in turn helps to combat corruption, elite capture and even perhaps ecological disaster. Of course, it is a completely voluntary initiative that doesn't carry much weight... yet. With any luck (and by luck I mean responsible citizens/investors/governments that demand nothing less than EITI certified products) this ought to slow that race down a bit.

The Africa kid is a great actor, by the way. :)

HT: Structurally Maladjusted