Excerpts from the BBVA Foundation press release issued today:
January 29, 2010 – The awardof €400,000 goes to the Development Research Institute (DRI) for “its contribution to the analysis of foreign aid provision, and its challenge to the conventional wisdom in development assistance,” in the words of the jury’s citation.
The DRI has brought a fresh approach to aid and development research, helping ensure that the economic aid rich countries provide to the developing world is better utilized. Its results question certain mainstream assumptions in development cooperation, like the idea that more generosity on the part of rich donor countries will have an automatic pay-off in poor country development.
“At a time when richer countries are being called on to increase aid expenditure, DRI has made it its mission to ensure that these resources are not wasted and that policy advice is effective,” concluded the jury in its resolution, which also singled out DRI’s determination to hold development assistance organizations and national aid agencies accountable to scientific scrutiny.
The DRI is co-led by two economics professors at New York University, William Easterly and Yaw Nyarko. Easterly holds a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is an expert in the political economy of development and the study of the effectiveness of foreign aid. Yaw Nyarko, one of the most highly ranked African academic economists in the world, is Associate Editor of the Journal of Economic Theory and has acted as a consultant to organizations like the World Bank and the United Nations.
Regarding the real effectiveness of humanitarian relief, the DRI has repeatedly criticized the lack of information and feedback between donors and beneficiaries. This is part of the thinking behind its Aid Watch initiative, a digital platform where researchers, policy-makers, commentators and aid practitioners can debate developments and exchange experiences.
Their research emphasizes that decisions about the allocation of relief funds cannot be left to foreign governments or multilateral organizations. Instead, they need to take close account of the social, cultural and economic peculiarities of the receiving communities in determining how and where the monies can best be spent.
The Development Cooperation award went last year in the inaugural 2008 edition to the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for applying scientific methods to assess the on-the-ground effectiveness of development assistance funding.
11 Comments
CONGRATULATIONS!
Professor Easterly, while I certainly think this award is merited, I’d be curious to hear what you think about the DRI (and, by extension, Aid Watch) receiving a cash award. If the goal of development — and this blog, which questions certain assumptions of the development apparatus — is to promote economic growth and improve the livilihood of the global poor (however that’s measured), is this the most efficacious allocation of funds? In your opinion, is it better to offer cash to development researchers than development projects, and if so, is DRI the most appropriate recipient?
Who holds development scholars and research institutes (and their benefactors) accountable?
On an important aside, I enjoy your thought-provoking blog and work tremendously.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Sidhu
And of course, congratulations!
Congratulations to Bill and Yaw, this is richly deserved and it says a lot about the breadth of thinking at the BBVA selection committee.
Congrats… Well deserved….maybe this is a sign that we aid critics are not as lonely as we sometimes think…
Congratulations!
As someone mentioned earlier, it would be good practice to know how this money will be spent. For the sake of transparency, of course. (We don’t need an Aid Critics Watch).
@Bob Kubinex: Too late! http://billeasterlywatch.wordpress.com/
@Bob Kubinec: …and apologies for the typo in your name.
Responses:
Michael, to my sorrow the Aid Watch watch is no long operative (notice the last entry was Sept 2009).
Jonathan, Funding research oriented to give feedback to aid agencies on what is working DOES seem like a correct priority to me (not that I’m biased or anything). Spending a few hundred thousand to give feedback on major errors made in spending $100 billion of official aid… strikes me as OK.
Researchers are held accountable by their academic peers who review articles for publication and in general make or break a researcher’s reputation. If you think I’m a tough critic of aid, academic critics are 10x tougher when reviewing each other’s work. Of course, the system is not fool-proof and some bad stuff can sneak through the system, or good stuff be rejected undeservedly.
Bob, your point on transparency of DRI/Aid Watch finances is fair. I am looking into this now. What I have found out so far is that the NYU admininstration controls what can be disclosed, and I’m not allowed to do it on my own — universities can sometimes be almost as bureaucratic as aid agencies! I will keep you posted.
Thanks for the helpful feedback (and for congratulations, much appreciated!)
Best, Bill
Congratulations to you and your team, Prof. Easterly. It is encouraging that institutions at this level are getting the point of what the DRI claims. You have certainly provided us with insight to be critical and more responsible when it comes to development.
Abraham Lincoln’s comment “If I had six hours to chop down a tree, I’d spend the first four hours sharpening the axe” is highly relevant to aid policy, and to the importance of analytical evaluation and research as a precondition for effective poverty reduction.
Many aid programs, in Monty Python’s immortal image, persist in trying to chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring. Even a blunt axe would be better.