New York Times on Millennium Villages

Like many readers I’ve been critical of the millennium villages. An article a few years back in the Wilson Quarterly furthered deepened my sense of disquiet about the whole idea.

But – according to this NYTimes article “Agricultural yields have doubled; child mortality has dropped by 30 percent; school attendance has shot up and so have test scores, putting one local school second in the area, when it used to be ranked 17th; and cellphone ownership (a telltale sign of prosperity in rural Africa) has increased fourfold.” – all over a five year period – so quite short – and, clearly, positively affecting 65,000 people.

That’s 65,000 people that are now (un?)arguably better off having been a part of the millennium village project – and exponentially (the people they deal with re village trade etc, future children etc) many more are also likely to be positively affected.

I agree with the criticism: “Mr. Easterly argues that the Millennium approach would not work on a bigger scale because if expanded, “it immediately runs into the problems we’ve all been talking about: corruption, bad leadership, ethnic politics.”He said, “Sachs is essentially trying to create an island of success in a sea of failure, and maybe he’s done that, but it doesn’t address the sea of failure.”

But, if in many respects the point of aid watch is to argue that 1) it is usually impossible to just recreate one successful project elsewhere (e.g. the RTs debate) without addressing other deeper issues, 2) that on the whole it is not possible to please all the people all the time, and that 3) smaller, innovative pinpointed projects, are likely to work better and therefore affect real change – then how can aid watch not applaud the millennium village as it is at this point in time?

If this was a project that was called anything other than a “millennium village” and if Jeff Sachs did not have his name attached, I can’t help but think that aid watch would be citing it as proof of the possible success an area can have when innovative smallish-scale development projects are championed.

Those seem to be the same “success” statistics they were quoting 2.5 years ago when we visited Sauri. Everyone we met seemed to have memorized the same numbers. Clearly a lot has been done in Sauri, but how does the progress there compare to the rest of the area? If you’ve spent any time in Kenya, you’ll have noticed that cell phone ownership has increased dramatically over the last five years – clearly not a causal impact of the MDV program.

Aid does help but the big question remains, is it even possible to promote local sustainable development on a bigger scale?

Criticism is always good. However after reading books from Easterly, Sachs, Collier and Moyo (am I missing someone here?) I still haven’t found the/an answer though..who has?

Elma

No one has the answers. The problem with development is that it’s based on the uncritical premise that social and economic change can and should be engineered by outsiders and that all this is possible despite the fact that Progress has always relied on massive exploitation (of other nations, peoples or natural resources). It’s basically one of many Enlightenment Myths. That is the basic axis upon which development theory turns and bc of which it doesn’t “work.”

We argue over getting the aid equation right (debates about correct inputs and techniques) when really it’s the underlying logic that is faulty – we are trying to do the impossible.

Quixotic efforts while we dream the impossible dream. Oh well, better to go down in history as Quixote dreaming of Dulcinea than one of Aldonza’s rapists.

Just my 2 cents,
Christine

To me, I think that the question of a rigorous evaluation of the MVs is secondary actually. With that much money and effort put into a single village, I will rather be surprised to find no effect.
The fundamental question to me is whether a “Millennium Country” or for that matter a “Millennium Continent” is feasible and whether it could function the same way.
I believe that Mr. Sachs has his own doubts about that. If so, then the whole idea of millennium villages becomes obsolete to me.
I propose that, instead of increasing the number of MV across Africa, the funds could be pulled together to try a “Millennium Country”. There are plenty of small countries in Africa that could be used to limit the cost.

agriculture output doubled.
mmm, looks nice doesn’t it.
But in East Africa farmers have been growing MUCH more food since 2008, because of the very high prices at that time.
That’s why now the maize/corn price next door (uganda) has plummeted from 900ugx/kg to less than 200shugx/kg, with no trader buying and nowhere to store the stuff.

doubling the agricultural output has always been the easy part. Creating a market for the extra output such that also the income doubles, has always been ignored and always will.

re Moussa.blimpo, gekonomist and Michael Clemens: yes, I totally agree with your comments on the long term goals of MDVs, the fact of how much money has been put into them thus far, and the question of trade for agricultural outputs etc.

I suppose my point was simply that as it is Now (the future notwithstanding) it is arguably a success (even taking on board the measures that have allowed this to happen – aid money, outside intervention ensuring there are enough trained teachers, trained health workers etc.). And as aidwatch often posits a general theme of – lets take each place on its own merits, it’s difficult to recreate what works one place to someplace else, and champions innovative, entrepreneurial based ideas, then this would appear – as it is Now – to meet these basic requirements. Non?

Yes, clearly the MDVs have been set up by ‘planners’ (in easterly speak) but also clearly some ’searching’ would have been necessary at some point. A comment by David in the recent post by Easterly – ‘Am I useless’ – summed up the planner/searcher dichotomy quite well I thought.

Avam – don’t misunderstand me. Of course economies/societies evolve and there is absolutely no clear cut distinction who is and is not being exploited. What I’m saying is that this greater reality is too big, decentralized, and messy to fit into neat little boxes in an institutional devt matrix that you can then direct and change as a result of engineering.

When we examine wider modernization/devt in retrospect…it wasn’t plotted out – it was the unplanned result of many different factors (including some smaller scale ‘plans’) that converged and continued to evolve.

I think the underlying logic of devt-aid is simplistic in thinking it can “change” societies to fit a pre-determined notion of what “should” be – particularly given its limited means (financial, power, human resource).

That the world will change and evolve I don’t doubt. But that that change can be controlled/enabled/planned/executed/faciltated/whatever by the aid industry seems to me to be false…and that’s what I was talking about when I said no one has the answers.

General comments on the article:

There seems to be little consideration of the fact that Sauri was already subject to numerous ‘development projects’ before Millennium came. Millennium brought ‘more of the same’, and people already knew how to talk to please donors, how to respond to them to keep the finance flowing, and how to be dependent on outsider help is more lucrative than ‘helping oneself’.

Great lines posted by Christine, at 1.26pm on the 10th above. Also the above post by AVAM.

Unfortunately we are confined to interpreting what we hear about in Sauri ‘as if’ it is happening ‘to us’, kind of thing. How to get under the skin of the Sauri people?

There is a sense in which all these ‘projects’ arise from fear. … If Westerners are so clever, and capable of helping people out of their poverty, then why do they not go and ‘join them’ for a while (20 years or so)? The Millennium has a very adequate budget to put 100 Americans onto the ground at a few of the projects for five years each at least, to join hands with the locals and live alongside them to see what the projects are ‘really’ doing. (Instead, it is hard to ever see a Westerner.) Whether anyone will listen to them subsequently could be another question. Joining them at ground level will reveal things that a New York perspective never will. Engaging with people in their own language will in due course enable an understanding that English never will.

I wonder if we have any friends, who whenever they come to visit us always insist on ‘taking over’? Out of kindness, we may keep inviting them. But it is a bit rude always when visiting folks to say ‘I have the money and I will change you. Do what I tell you.’ Of course, pragmatically poor people play the game.