Skip to content

Millennium Villages: Moving the goalposts

Here on the blog, we’ve been following the progress of the Millennium Villages Project, a joint effort from the UN and Columbia’s Earth Institute that has introduced a package of development interventions in health, education, agriculture and infrastructure into 14 “clusters” of villages throughout 10 African countries.

In response to a critical paper by Michael Clemens and Gabriel Demombynes, the MVP architects published a statement last week that they said would “clarify” some “basic misunderstandings” about the project. This statement caught our attention because—I would argue—what it is actually doing is seeking to reframe the debate about the project, and redefining project success in different, less ambitious terms.

“The primary aim” of the project, the MVP architects write, “is to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in the Project sites, as a contribution to the broader fulfillment of the MDGs (Evaluating the Millennium Villages: A response to Clemens and Demombynes, October 2010, emphasis in the original). Also important, they say, is to clarify what the MVP is not: “The MVP is not testing a rigid protocol for implementing MDG-based outcomes…The MVP is not claiming or aiming to provide a unique or “optimal” model for achieving the MDGs.”

This sounds fine unless you’ve read the many other MVP project reports and documents that clearly outline other, different, major goals and indicators of success.

For example:

So, in this context, what’s even more revealing about this new statement is what it does NOT say. It does not mention that the improvements to the villages will be self-sustaining, or even moving towards self-sustainability by 2015, although that notion was at one point advertised as a “central proposition underpinning the Millennium Villages concept” (MVP FAQ, late 2006). In this case, the clarification seems more like a retrenchment, a moving away from the ambitious claims made at the project’s optimistic outset.

The new MVP definition also backs away from talking about interventions “undertaken as a single integrated project” that will serve as “proof of concept that the poverty trap can be overcome” (as stated in the PNAS paper cited above). In fact the impact of the project as an integrated whole can’t be demonstrated, the MVP authors argue, because some of the same improvements at work in the Millennium Villages (insecticide-treated bednets, subsidized fertilizer and seeds, for example) are also present in many of the surrounding villages.

Before, the project was defined in its own materials as a research experiment (a “proof of concept” carried out first in “research villages”) to prove that a package of development interventions delivered in a particular way can help lift the very poorest people living in rural Africa out of poverty forever. In today’s new formulation, the MVP is a means to show that by spending an amount roughly equal to 100 percent of the village’s per capita income on already “proven” interventions, for a period of 10 years, it can allow that village, for at least one moment in time in 2015, to step across the finish line demarcated by the Millennium Development Goals.

If the project continues to define success in these narrower terms, it will effectively shift the focus away from any obligation to show that the positive things achieved in the Millennium Villages are self-sustaining beyond the 10-year life of the project, or to prove that they are actually a result of the project itself.


Screen shot of the top of World Bank’s Africa Can…End Poverty Blog last Friday:

That notice was removed; here’s what the same blog tells us, at the bottom of the post, today:

UPDATE: Another view from Chris Blattman.

Be Sociable, Share!
This entry was posted in Grand plans and aid targets, Metrics and evaluation and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. quicksilversurfer wrote:

    “In today’s new formulation, the MVP is a means to show that by spending an amount roughly equal to 100 percent of the village’s per capita income on already “proven” interventions, for a period of 10 years, it can allow that village, for at least one moment in time in 2015, to step across the finish line demarcated by the Millennium Development Goals.”
    That says it all and it is honest!… But I bet it won’t be a “lesson learned” for Mr. Sachs…

    Posted October 27, 2010 at 10:59 pm | Permalink
  2. Sadder but Wiser wrote:

    Excellent post. What’s most striking about the MVPs is not that they attracted initial enthusiasm–since almost any well-hyped idea can grab some uncrticial attention for a little while–but that anyone still takes them seriously. Development professionals needed little time to see that this was simply very old wine (practically vinegar, in fact) being repackaged in a glitzy new bottle with the then-trendy word “Millennium” attached. By now the mainstream media should also be catching on. By revealing the contradictory and constantly diminishing promises of MVP’s own promoters, this post should help hasten the day that the MVP concept is seen for what it is: simply another failed, top-down vanity project, unsupported by theory and roundly refuted by practice.

    Posted October 28, 2010 at 9:55 am | Permalink

4 Trackbacks

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Michael Clemens, Conduit Journal. Conduit Journal said: Millennium Villages: Moving the goalposts […]

  2. […] trying to achieve, and how it will assess its success, judging by these latest posts from Aid Watch and Chris Blattman. Late news: an online petition to reschedule a cancelled debate between Sachs […]

  3. […] this, the wonks came out of the woodworks, cheering for more scrutiny of the MVP, calling out Sachs to meet them in the street and even suggesting conspiracy theories […]

  4. By Milleniumsdörfer, Update « Kantoos Economics on November 10, 2010 at 5:15 am

    […] ist mir doch glatt der Aid Watch Eintrag entgangen, soll aber hier nachgeliefert werden. Darin heißt es In today’s new formulation, the […]

  • About Aid Watch

    The Aid Watch blog is a project of New York University's Development Research Institute (DRI). This blog is principally written by William Easterly, author of "The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics" and "The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good," and Professor of Economics at NYU. It is co-written by Laura Freschi and by occasional guest bloggers. Our work is based on the idea that more aid will reach the poor the more people are watching aid.

    "Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking." - H.L. Mencken

  • Recent Comments

  • Archives