The secret to aid is people

One wonders, if in the final analysis, while number 2 is ever all that really works, number 1 is pointless to even talk about. Clearly, number 2 is the main reason things succeed, but taking that into account you could argue that any time 1) shows that, through rigorous testing, a project is successful, it is only down to 2 anyway. The point of 1 (rigorous testing) might be redundant (have studies comparing the two above been done?)

I’ve been thinking of this in relation to a dept in local UK govt (that is not unlike the OS – if I have the correct name, that oversees the CIA (FBI?). But one could argue that if you need a higher evaluation unit to ensure that people/dept in, say CIA and FBI are working properly, you assume that those that work for (say) the CIA/FBI are corrupt (or likely to be) and that those working for the OS are morally more grounded – surely probaility would show this to be unlikely (there is just as much likelihood in all 3 orgs, that people on staff will have good or bad morals – which are, to an extent, subjective in certain contexts). So going by that, the only point of a higher evaluation body (like OS) would be that is they were more transparent and accountable than the depts they are evaluating, monitoring and overseeing, but this is unlikely…as any org/dept will have more security and less transparency the higher up it is…which would mean, for any ‘overseeing’ org/dept to truely work there would need to be an OS overseeing/monitoring them and on and on.

In the UK, in local govt there are depts that serve as the OS does – that oversee other depts (say planning, or strategy) to ensure they are “working properly” and transparent. But like with the OS/CIA example, you could argue that such evaluating/monitoring bodies are, in the final analysis, pointless, as any dept that works well, will do so due to the people that staff it (their level of committment, expertise etc) and not because a ‘higher’ (and in these cases more secretive, less transparent body, that also doesn’t have the day-to day knowledge of that dept nor the expertise of that staff for the projets being undertaken there) are giving their opinion on it. And like the Us example, in the UK, also one cannot assume that someone working for an overseeing/evaluating body will have more expertise or morals (one could arge that in fact they might have less, as they are not working in a sector that they have specific expertise, and one could assume, passion for) – so who is overseeing them?

Logically the point of evaluating and monitoring outcomes of orgs seems important, but clearly any project that wants to do well will – and vice versa. Some added value comes from input (constructive critism) but is that likely to come from an evaluating body not connected to a project and perhaps without the inside knowledge of what it is about (and therefore what is likely to work or not?)

The point of all this, like (e.g.) the endless reports and MDG goals, does an evaluation of a project have any weight, in reality, to the outcome os a project? Of course, I’m kind of just making a very simplistic point using extreme cases, and of course some independent evaluation of projects is necessary – but I wonder, once all the dust has settled – what is their contribution (if any) to the outcome of a given project, in real terms.

Reading this blog entry made my morning. Thanks Bill.
I’ve been working in global health for 13 years, and I too have become a fan of Marie Stopes International. I have interacted with their staff in a number of countries, and am consistently impressed. I’ve often tried to figure out what makes them such a standout in among global health international NGOs.
I believe one important factor is that they are all about getting the job done; most of their staff are actively involved with services delivery and management. I think this helps to explain why they are so pragmatic, and not ideological. Many other global health NGOs are more active in the advocacy realm – without the grounding that comes from delivering services in 40+ countries every day. And it shows.

Also, their operations are always striving for sustainability, so they are not involved in quick fix approaches which are often appealing to donors/funders, but a lot less helpful to the people and communities they are aiming to serve.

Also, many of their patients I believe pay for their services – so they are not serving passive users who feel lucky to get something (anything). I should add that they also work hard to get subsidies flowing for poor users so that they can reduce cost barriers and serve as many low-income people as possible.

I also think they are unique in being service providers throughout many poor AND RICH countries. This means that, as an organization, they understand health systems better than most organizations which only operate in poor countries. And again, in my experience, this deeper understanding of health systems contributes to their better model for organizing and delivering health services; and it means when they do weigh in at the global/ advocacy level, I often find their positions and logic compelling.

I love what you said about their country director aspiring to be the last expatriate country director. That really reveals a lot of what makes them so effective: a constant focus on helping people help themselves.

This is strange because just today I shared the same sentiment with my coworkers here in West Africa. I work for a US-based nonprofit that does randomized evaluations, and I just got back from a field visit checking out a community bank that has seen success offering credit to farmers via warehousing. Even though inventory credit is an innovative way to offer finance to poor farmers, the bank officers said it works simply because the people involved are honest, diligent and they want it to work. I couldn’t agree more – loans were processed in minutes, not weeks, and they were not hamstrung by nonsensical storage requirements.

In this case, it was clear that these factors are important to helping poor people, perhaps more so than the innovative spin on their loan product..

Sir,
I completely agree with today’s post. Thank you.

I’m, however, quite puzzled that you -at Aidwatchers.com of all places- would reference Ferguson in such a positive light.

His methodology (I’m not thinking of specific method here) is so much in contrast to most of your own research.

If “The anti-politics machine” is the best evaluation you’ve ever read, wouldn’t that be quite a dismissal of mainstream economics’ methodology and then obviously methods?

Do you see a way out?

People doing what?

Now I will be the first to tell you that I am certainly not fan of option1. I have said here several times that I believe randomized control trials violate human dignity (poor people have mouths…just ask).

At the same time, I think it matter what people want to use aid to “succeed” in. It could be (and too often in fact it is) harmful to people you re trying to develop.

And this points to the larger problem I have with “aid” as a tool of development a lot of the time (don’t worry, its not Moyo sanctioned); it assumes the best interests of the poor. I think that matters a lot.

Even better than having people who “really, really want “something” to succeed”, your project must be representative of the needs of the poor who “really really want, themselves, to succeed.”

Are venture capitalists really the answer?

Couldn’t begin to know, though my gut cringes at the thought. Venture capitalism seems at odd with the wise view that people are always our most valuable human resource.

Hope the model for venture capitalism is something like the evolving “conscious capitalism,” which must always walk hand in hand with “conscious socialism.” It’s a checks and balances system, seems to me.

Never the either — or. But a dialogue between people bringing different insights to the table.

That written, I think your point that “Second, gut instincts tell you at least a little something about the attitudes of the PEOPLE involved . . .” is a good axiom, if that clause isn’t an oxymoron.

Effective entry. Though I’d love to quibble about some things, I feel less certain in a true economic discussion than playing the social critic. Pretty sure I’d just be further flaunting my lack of understanding.

Best.