Beware the fury of a patient man: Michael Clemens on Millennium Villages

Opportunity cost of MDVs would be clarified by better evaluation. The premise is that in a dysfunctional governance framework that support for specific development outcomes can be sustainable. If true, the MDV method may be justified. If not, a re-think is suggested for the mode of donor engagement to avoid wasting time and resources. The similar China village development example described by Michael Clemens suggests that the governance context, especially the enabling environment for private sector development, is decisive for sustainable improvement, and that the aid project model behind the MDVs has basic flaws. If farmers won’t use subsidised fertilizer, the response should be analysis of the value chains and cultural constraints, aiming to empower market responses. These are slow systemic questions, not amenable to quick fix from a big push.

Do the MV projects target actual economic causes of poverty?

For example, do the citizens of these villages have solid private ownership title to their land?

How is corruption fought in these villages, or with respect to interactions between villagers and outside government officials?

Does the government have wage & price controls in these villages?

Does the government have burdensome regulations on starting a business, creating a corporation, or hiring & firing workers?