David Cameron's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday morning lays out his "golden thread" vision of development and foreign aid. This is an approach to development clearly pitched to political conservatives.
I was sad and disgusted last week to see the highly-respected New York Times declare that “America is stealing the world’s doctors”.
This is a joint post with Julie Walz
Since the mid-nineties, many African nations have ushered in dramatic economic and political changes. But growth in other countries is stalled due conflict, repressive regimes, and lack of infrastructure. A new publication captures the diversity across Africa, using an economic lens to evaluate the key issues affecting Africa’s ability to grow and develop. The Oxford Companion to the Economics of Africa is a compilation of 100 essays on key issues and topics across the continent. It includes contributions from young African researchers, longtime researchers on Africa and four Nobel Laureates. Authors were given the freedom to write their own perspectives, thus the result is not a literature review but an engaging snapshot of concerns and possibilities across the continent. With 48 country perspectives (from Algeria to Zimbabwe) and 53 thematic essays, the book rejects a one-size-fits-all approach yet recognizes that there are continent-wide opportunities and challenges. As the first work of its kind, it is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in the field, from graduate students to policymakers.
I’m thrilled that the 2nd edition of African Development: Making Sense of the Issues and Actors is out this week. Thanks to Chris Blattman at Yale, Callisto Madavo at Georgetown, and others who have used it in their courses, demand for the first 2007 edition was high enough that the terrific Lynne Rienner asked me to do an update.
Researchers who call their work scientific must make their work reproducible. That is, other scientists must be able to reproduce the same result in an essentially similar setting. If they can’t, the result gets dumped. When I was a boy, two scientists at the University of Utah claimed to discover a way to cheaply generate energy with “cold fusion”. But because other scientists could not reproduce that result, no one today builds energy policy around cold fusion.
This is a joint posting with Rebecca Schutte.
Last week’s deadly unrest in Mozambique became a global news story, as clashes between security forces and people protesting rising food prices in the capital, Maputo, left at least ten people dead and more than 400 people injured. CGD Non-Resident Fellow Chris Blattman explained his skepticism about such riots, questioning why many were blaming climate change and higher international grain prices for domestic unrest. Rather, he pointed to poor domestic policies and alarmist journalism and “yearned for real information” about the root causes of the riots this weeks. Having recently returned from Mozambique, here are some additional insights on the food riots.
The ever-vigilant Chris Blattman drew attention yesterday to Ethiopia’s currency devaluation. What was surprising and interesting about this move is that the devaluation was not undertaken under the usual duress of “macroeconomic adjustment.” Typically, in Africa, macroeconomic and foreign exchange crises have been the trigger for devaluation.
I recently made a public plea for rigorous evaluation of the U.N. Millennium Village Project (MVP), an experimental effort to break African villages out of poverty traps with a large package of outside assistance. The public response from the MVP left me puzzled.
A British private security firm, Sabre International, is sponsoring the employment of Sierra Leoneans for security jobs in Iraq. According to its own website, the company holds multiple aviation security contracts for three airports in Iraq (Baghdad International Airport, Mosul Airport, and Najaf International Airport).
This is a joint post with Michael Clemens.
The headline in the Boston Globe on September 20, 2009 was catchy: "Billions of dollars and a Nobel Prize later, it looks like 'microlending' doesn’t actually do much to fight poverty." The article referred to the findings of two recent impact evaluations in microfinance in India and the Philippines conducted by researchers at MIT and Yale, respectively. The studies, which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of microfinance interventions, found “weak and in some cases nonexistent effects” of microfinance on profits, expenditures and well-being. Privately and publicly, donors, MFIs and practitioners are expressing concern about the impact of these studies on the future of microfinance. Are they right to be worried?