UPDATE 4: 3rd nomination for positive. Day 3 of silence from MVP
UPDATE 3: another nomination for positive evaluation (Michael Clemens paper), another energetic disavowal by the author (see comments below).
UPDATE 2: oops, author of only nomination so far says it’s not so positive– see comments
UPDATE: received first nomination of positive review
On Twitter, @bill_easterly noted yesterday’s Aid Watch post :
On Millennium Villages: this is not my own predictable response, this is independent guest post
Which immediately got the reply on Twitter:
intentional irony? your guest posts are as “independent” as any MV self-assessment
Aid Watch will let its guest posters defend their own independence, but in the meantime let’s find another guest poster that will pass our critic’s most stringent independence test. In short…
…could somebody please send us a strongly positive evaluation of the the Millennium Villages.
Our critic rightly notes that self-assessment is not what anybody is looking for, so the only restriction is that the evaluators of course must not be part of the MV program themselves, i.e. must be independent.
This is not satire. Aid Watch would be very happy to hear from those evaluators of the MVs who have the strongest possible positive portrayal of the results of the MV intervention. We will post summaries of these evaluations without comment on Aid Watch.
UPDATE: received first nomination of a positive review of MVs: an article in Vanity Fair.