« Cap-and-trade-war | Main | In which regards are autistics more rational? »
Aid Realism for the Idealist
The failure of foreign aid to lead to economic development has left many cynics in its wake. For this reason, I enjoyed The Blue Sweater, Jacqueline Novogratz's story of moving from aid-idealism to aid-realism without ever passing through the way-station of aid-cynicism. As a naive, aid-idealist Novogratz spent a lot of time on the circuit in Africa; eventually hard lessons wore away the naivety but not the idealism. Of course, Novogratz learned a lot about the corruption, failure to experiment, and lack of accountability of the aid agencies but she also learned to be realistic about the do-gooders:
Philanthropy can appeal to people who want to be loved more than they want to make a difference.
But the hardest lessons were about the poor. In the late 1980s, Novogratz worked with a group of native women to build up a thriving business in Rwanda. Inevitably some of her friends became terrible victims of the 1994 genocide. Perhaps even worse, some of her friends became perpetrators. Hard lessons like these drove Novogratz's evolution.
I've read the following sort of thing many times:
It is so often the people who know the greatest suffering--the poor and most vulnerable--who are the most resilient, the ones able to derive happiness and shared joy from the simplest pleasures.
I've heard it so many times, I tend to dismiss it but Novogratz follows up with this:
That same resilience, however, can manifest itself in passivity, fatalism, a resignation to the difficulties of life that allows injustice and inequity to strengthen and grow...
Which, for me at least, turned a trite observation into an important insight.
Novogratz's experiences eventually developed into the Acumen Fund, a venture capital firm for aid. The idea is to invest patient capital in scalable, for-profit businesses that deliver services to the poor. The fund, for example, has invested in a firm producing drip irrigation systems in Pakistan, a Tanzanian firm that produces mosquito nets and an Indian firm producing internet-telephone kiosks in small villages.
The fact that the businesses have been for-profit has been critical. In selling bed nets for example the Tanzanian firm learned that talking about malaria doesn't sell. What sells, in the words of one of their top salespersons is, "The color is beautiful, and you can hang the nets in your windows so that your neighbors know how much you care about your family." As Novogratz puts it:
Beauty, vanity, status and comfort....The rich hold no monopoly on any of it. But we're a long way from integrating the way people actually make decisions into public policy instead of how we think they should make them.
Patient capital is no panacea--what is?--but by investing in entrepreneurs who must listen to their customers a charitable venture-capital firm can multiply the effectiveness of its philanthropy.
There is a powerful role both for the market and for philanthropy...Philanthropy alone lacks the feedback mechanism of markets, which are the best listening devices we have; and yet markets alone too easily leave the most vulnerable behind.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on June 30, 2009 at 07:37 AM in Books, Economics | Permalink
Comments
I would love to get a lunch together between Novogratz, Muhammad Yunus, William Easterly and Jeffrey Sachs. That would be lively.
Posted by: Alex at Jun 30, 2009 8:31:36 AM
Aid has too often been confused with development. Aid missions and charities have their own individual goals, which akin to science research for example would not yield any tangible short-term economic result. I think that generally charities western, global and local one have helped more often than not.
Encouraging development on the on the other hand is a very different ball game. Many people think that providing loans or grants to the poorest nations would actually help them get on the path of sound economic development. Opinion is split. The poorest nation's leaders (for most of them ruler is a better world) are keen supporters of this, many researchers are not.
The political, cultural and even religious issues with trying to "pull out" the third world from poverty are too many. This has mislead many people to think that charity and aid are pointless. They are not.
Posted by: Bull Fax at Jun 30, 2009 9:15:24 AM
kiva > acumen
Posted by: farmer at Jun 30, 2009 10:18:11 AM
There is a subtle difference between the mindset of the for-profit businessman and the aid-worker. The former tries to find out what his customers want, so he can provide it. He needs the active co-operation of his customers. The latter tends to start with a clear conception of what will make his clients better off, without needing to consult them. The clients are passive recipients of what the aid-worker is providing.
Businessman/customer is a healthier relationship than aid-worker/client.
Posted by: Philo at Jun 30, 2009 10:41:51 AM
Culturally we've been raised to identify certain things as inherently not-so-good (evil might be a bit strong, but close). We've been told those things are almost naturally against the innate goodness of humankind. Money has that kind of bad rap, as does marketing and profit in general. When we can let go of some of those beliefs and see things as they are (e.g. marketing is an effective tool that can do good or bad depending on the person using it), we'll finally be able to craft and implement effective strategies that will bring enduring change.
Posted by: Tsai Yi Chan-Beal at Jun 30, 2009 11:14:17 AM
I don't know anything about this woman in particular, but I know the type. It's those people (idealists whose idealism is tempered by realism but not corrupted by cynicism) who make good things happen in this world. The pithiest statement of this is the title of Alan Blinder's book "Hard Heads, Soft Hearts."
Posted by: David J. Balan at Jun 30, 2009 11:30:16 AM
I recently asked the founder of KIVA, Jessica Jackley this question: "Isn't microfinance just a symptom of financial sector over-regulation in developing countries?"
Her answer was "No, microfinance is just a way we can help."
Which, of course, did not shed much light. She didn't say "No, financial sectors in developing countries are not over-regulated, but microfinance is some kind of magical fairy dust that beats out the established banking industry in developing countries".
Nor did she say "Yes, developing country financial sectors are over-regulated, which is why NGO-based microfinance is needed, it is a way we can help until the political process becomes rational and de-regulation occurs in the financial sector of developing countries".
Anyway, I would be much happier if those in aid, microfinance, and other charitable NGOs were willing to admit that they exist largely because of poor political and regulatory environments with low economic freedom, and that they wished those situations would be fixed so they could get put out of the charity business.
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Jun 30, 2009 12:58:29 PM
Mr. Econotarian,
Further, I could loan my neighbor some money. What would I need to get in return, maybe 8%, but they can go the bank and get that. Why can the bank beat me out, because they have the power of fractional reserve. So, potential economic ties where expertise is closer to home (I could probably gauge the risk of my neighbor defaulting better than Citigroup) is undermined by centralization. Of course, my neighbor might not like taking a loan from me, but a small co-op might otherwise exist. I believe my thinking is right on this.
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 30, 2009 3:17:57 PM
@Mr. Econotarian:
"the founder of KIVA, Jessica Jackley this question: 'Isn't microfinance just a symptom of financial sector over-regulation in developing countries?' Her answer was 'No, microfinance is just a way we can help.'
Actually, I find it refreshing that she didn't over-answer the question.
Posted by: Zbicyclist at Jun 30, 2009 4:36:15 PM
"Actually, I find it refreshing that she didn't over-answer the question."
There's always the possibility that she didn't even understand the question.
Regarding microfinance... any institution that isn't a chartity (actually operates on an economically sustainable basis without relying on donations), will charge interest rates that many people would find disturbing. 5% monthly is typcial (60-80% per annum).
Not that there's anything wrong with that. There are sizeable administrative and logistical costs associated with extending and monitoring small loans to people in remote geographies with limited infrastructure, as well as higher loan loss risks when underwriting without the benefit of collateral or credit scoring agencies. These higher costs and risks have to be factored into higher interest rates.
However, learning the facts about interests rates may send microfinance proponents into fits of cognitive dissonance when they can no longer figure out whether the borrowers are being empowered or exploited.
Posted by: Russ R at Jun 30, 2009 6:31:52 PM
I had actually thought about something similar in refrence to the upcoming anti-trust case with google. I imagine that it may be easier to turn wikepedia to a for profit to make something capable of competing against google as a place to place internet advertising. I in no way envy either the goverment or google in this venture. (or for that matter the consumers).
If a a few other great non-profits industries were somehow able to maintain similar missions and goals while adding the goal of profit they just may make the world slightly better.
Posted by: Travis at Jun 30, 2009 8:58:57 PM
Comment add.
I am fully aware that many may say that there is no bar to entry for non-profits from otherwise acting nearly identical to for profits with wierd accounting, but I imagine that for profits are great at many things that non-profits have seemed to hold a nitche in for so long, and I imagine there is a ton of anti corruption benifits.
Posted by: Travis at Jun 30, 2009 9:06:06 PM
lotrogold.biz offer cheap lotro gold
and cheap lotro powerleveling
service.You can come and have a look!Thank you!
Posted by: lotro gold at Jun 30, 2009 11:53:20 PM
Yes foreign aid without a modicum of civil order is a waste. I too am surprised that an efficient burning cooking stove in India will be much more likely to be used if it is designed attuned to local custom of sitting or standing while cooking.
For instance, one charity was unable to find a way to make a profit off of drilling and operating frshwater wells in Africa. This doesn't mean never drill wells there (freshwater is more correlated to economic activity than oil). It means development here needs a larger investment than for-private operators can provide; the opposite of this thread's innuendo. What I see particularly egrecious is the degradation of resources that have a spillover effect. Zimbabwe has lost the ability to exports crops and now spreads disease to neighbours. Iraq used to have the best healthcare in the Middle East before Saddam and GWB.
The USA would not exist if not for the foreign aid of British human capital and Native vitamin C foraging skills. Americans are free riders of 17th century English Universities and Indigenous gathering skills. Seriously, this is exactly the same type of thing you are advocating not be utilized unless paid for.
Posted by: Phillip Huggan at Jun 30, 2009 11:57:47 PM
...I've noted from world news observations last few years about 1/3 of poverty is bad aid as described, the rest is insufficient aid levels (give them the damn mosquito nets if insufficent income). Perhaps where you guys are making a very very acute observation is many skills are not properly costed. A western salaried/skilled aid worker needing to teach someone about the benefits of using a mosquito net probably is teaching some schooling rationality basics equivalent at least to $hundreds$, orders of magnitude more than $8 cost and $25 mailing cost of net. Same for administrative costs of delivery small microfinance loans. Where someone could make a fascinating contribution is in learning where these costs reduce via economies of scale. Microfinance is now being offered by mainstream banks in developing world.
I'd guess if enough people use mosquito netting, it becomes part of local custom and gets explained in kinship circles for free. Those wells definitely don't scale (though maybe economic if locals somehow capture well services supply chain, which is a different economic subject).
Posted by: Phillip Huggan at Jul 1, 2009 12:07:19 AM
...I've noted from world news observations last few years about 1/3 of poverty is bad aid as described, the rest is insufficient aid levels (give them the damn mosquito nets if insufficent income). Perhaps where you guys are making a very very acute observation is many skills are not properly costed. A western salaried/skilled aid worker needing to teach someone about the benefits of using a mosquito net probably is teaching some schooling rationality basics equivalent at least to $hundreds$, orders of magnitude more than $8 cost and $25 mailing cost of net. Same for administrative costs of delivery small microfinance loans. Where someone could make a fascinating contribution is in learning where these costs reduce via economies of scale. Microfinance is now being offered by mainstream banks in developing world.
I'd guess if enough people use mosquito netting, it becomes part of local custom and gets explained in kinship circles for free. Those wells definitely don't scale (though maybe economic if locals somehow capture well services supply chain, which is a different economic subject).
Posted by: Phillip Huggan at Jul 1, 2009 12:07:43 AM
Regarding microfinance... any institution that isn't a chartity (actually operates on an economically sustainable basis without relying on donations), will charge interest rates that many people would find disturbing. 5% monthly is typcial (60-80% per annum).
The MFIs I'm familiar with charge in the range of 2-5% with 5% being the high end of the range. Maybe in other countries or regions 5% is more typical. It's not that outrageous when you compare it to what credit cards in the U.S. charge. I think if you compare it with local credit cards in these countries, the discrepancy is even smaller. And as you point out, MFIs lend without the benefit of credit scores or, in many cases, even credit bureaus to get past credit history.
However, learning the facts about interests rates may send microfinance proponents into fits of cognitive dissonance when they can no longer figure out whether the borrowers are being empowered or exploited.
I don't know anyone who has real-world experience in the sector who would go into these aforementioned fits of cognitive dissonance. Microfinance beats local loan sharks, often by a substantial margin. It would have to, otherwise people would never tolerate all the paperwork needed to apply for a microfinance loan. For MFIs not operating on the Grameen Bank model, you typically have to have an existing business and have to show your business is stable enough and generates enough revenue to be able to afford the regular payments for the loan.
Does microfinance really help people claw their way out of poverty? Nobody really knows. It certainly provides a service that people are willing to pay for. And it does so to people borrowing amounts too small for commercial banks to be interested. It could be that one of the biggest benefits of microfinance is that it forces people to set aside a small amount of savings as a condition of borrowing (this is an almost universal requirement). It also introduces people who were too intimidated to walk into a bank to the world of financial services.
Posted by: Ricardo at Jul 1, 2009 1:52:23 AM
There is no greater source of information about the value of a thing than the fact that someone is willing to part with their own money to obtain it. This is especially the case when that someone has precious little to part with.
Posted by: Alan Brown at Jul 1, 2009 5:42:38 AM
A thread on aid which fears to mention IQ is like a thread on space which fears to mention gravity.
It is the most important constraint on what can realistically be done.
Posted by: asdf at Jul 1, 2009 6:45:28 AM
Whether people are exploited or empowered by credit depends on what they do with the money.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 1, 2009 6:53:01 AM
Ricardo, apart from small loan sizes, the main claim to fame of microfinance is microloans are given to people who don't have collateral and banking services likewise. And it worked. Yunus discovered there is an entrepreneurial class among the poor, maybe 25%-20% of a population, that repays loans at or better than the rate of peolpe with collateral. The banks weren't serving these people because they wrongly assumed collateral was a necessary behavioural prerequisite to paying off loans.
Andrew: true. Microfinance doesn't work for 100% of a population.
asdf: a reason to educate the population and attack media and politician that needlessly lie.
Posted by: Phillip Huggan at Jul 1, 2009 4:52:46 PM
Yes ,your article is very good, we have the same belief with you,so let me introduce thearea to you.Now Juicy Jewelry and cheap Juicybecome more and more popular within all kind of people. Juicy couture is a kind of juicy Jewelry sale . It won a good reputation. Juicy Couture Jewelry often held its regular discount activities,such as Juicy ring, Juicy charm ,fashion juicy
,vivienne jewellery and Juicy couture earrings so on.In these activities juicy couture sale got great success. juicy couture consists of two
main aspects, Juicy couture necklaces and
juicy necklace accessories.
Fashion Juicy couture series are worthwhile than other fashion couture jewelry. They have a lot of fashion jewlery,for example fashion Juicy
necklaces, fashion juicy earrings, fashion juicy bracelets , fashion juicy rings and fashion Juicy charms ,fashion vivienne on sale. Vivienne jewellery is a new jewellery brand,it include all fashion jewellery ,such as westwood jewellery , vivienne westwood necklaces, vivienne westwood jewellery ,vivienne westwood and so on .We assure you of our best services at all times.
Posted by: Juicy Jewlery at Jul 7, 2009 3:04:47 AM