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.

His approach to analyzing the problems is interdisciplinary, underscoring your point about needing to use broader tools of analysis than just economics/ econometrics.

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.”

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?

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..

Having worked in the evaluation department of a large international organization (which is staffed largely by economists) I found the dry and bland style of writing, coupled with an incessant bias towards quantitative methods (“we can’t do qualitative studies, they’re just subjective descriptions!!”) led to very poor evaluation papers which did an abysmal job of really capturing what had gone on in a project. Apparently if you can’t reduce it to a number it has no meaning.

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.