15 Responses

1. Hmmm. I guess I’d prefer to see more self-awareness and reflection – though admittedly this may generate angst and self-doubt, I think the former may be more productive.

   In particular, I believe academics working on development related topics are often not willing to squarely face and wrestle with the tradeoff between doing the research that answers the most pressing policy questions, and doing the research where the data or question are amenable to more rigorous (and respected by peers and journal editors) methodologies.
   It is the rare academic indeed who admits that they will opt to focus their attention on a question of little policy relevance, because they can apply the coolest methodological tools. But in my experience, that is by far the most common choice.

2. anonymous wrote:

   “I wonder if you could look a the dilemma I presented of the NGO that is duplicating work and tell me how you would deal with it where you in their shoes. What are you proposing? What are your arguments?”

   I am not an economist, nor a professional of any sort. So it’s almost certain my observations are going to suck;-)

   Here’s your scenario:

   “[S]uppose you are a respectful, well intentioned, professional. Suppose you run a good, high impact NGO. That is your full time job, your life.”

   “Now, suppose someone points out to you that you duplicate some of the work other people are doing, and that the people you want to “help” would benefit a lot more if you redirected your funding to another group, to reap economies of scale and provide more and better services… You, however, loose your job in the process. Would you do this?”

   I certainly can imagine that venality can be a reason why NGO’s and agencies might not “sell out” to the other entity, loose their job and move on. But it’s not the only reason I can imagine.

   Economies of scale can be very important cost savings. But bigger isn’t always better, and the reason is there are countervailing diseconomies of scale. So the ideal organization size is a little like Goldilocks and the bowls of porridge.

   One of the problems in figuring out whether economies of scale will exceed diseconomies of scale between many NGOs and aid organizations is that a disproportionate amount of the fixed capital is human capital.

   Among the diseconomies of scale are communication costs and duplication of effort.

   Tip O’Neil famously said “All politics is local.” Aid efforts are local too. One of the criticism of large AID efforts is they do not take advantage of local knowledge and conditions.

   In your scenario the NGO is well run and has a high impact. The case for economies of scale in that case would have to be overwhelming to be convincing. And in most cases, the sort of research to make such a case doesn’t exist. So a judgment call has to be made. My impression is that while the motivations are complex, the case that the job is a sort of bribery against merit is hardly the largest factor in making the judgment call. I suspect “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” plays a bigger part.

   I’m no philosopher either. Camus opposed the philosophy of nihilism. I point that out because in one way or another Camus thought that meaning was important to people. My sense about meaning is that it is constructed. Our lives are an invention, a composition.

   Morality can be imagined as absolutes of good and bad, fixed stars if you will. The architect Christopher Alexander writes in his book “The Timeless Way of Building”:

   “There is a central quality which is the root criterion of life and spirit in a man, a town, a building, or a wilderness. This quality is objective and precise, but it cannot be named.”

   My sense why the quality cannot be named is because all is in creation. The quality exists in relationships, it is between rather than fixed.

   Rigorous study, like Chris Blattman does, provides valuable information about the world which can help to maximize positive impacts. But people in their daily navigation through the world cannot afford to study every decision. Rather we use metaphors and values to aid us.

   Our worldviews are sets of interlocking ideas, but largely we are unconscious about them, and take them for granted. But sets of values, metaphors and worldviews, can be quite different from our own. Often it’s only by being in a different place, exposed to people whose worldview is different from ours that we can become more conscious of our worldview.

   Economics provides a set of explanatory principles about the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. In turn those principles can become metaphors to guide decision making. My view is that we should be careful when we apply those principles metaphorically outside the domain of economics.

   One reason I am cautious is because certain metaphors like “Time is money” are commonplace in the West, but do not align with the metaphors of either time or money for most people in the world. Using economic terms metaphorically can inhibit our ability to understand how others, presumably those we’re trying to help, navigate through the world. Such blindness is not helpful, especially when we imagine that our way of viewing things is morally superior.

   Even in developed countries, among educated people, we confront different ways of valuing. These differences are not usually irreconcilable, but neither are they compatible in some sort of one to one replacement scheme.

   I suspect humility comes hard for those who’ve toiled long and hard for their Ph.D. So it was all the more impressive to me to see Blattman encourage a little angst and self-doubt. It seems that you took him as being holier than thou. I took him as saying that things are always more complicated and interesting than we anticipate.

   Forgive me for babbling on too long in comments. I can be reached by email for any further clarifications.

3. Nihilism is a form of morality, atheism a form of religion so, in some ways, morality is inescapable. The bigger problem is claiming to be doing one thing whilst doing another.

   ROI should have been obvious because last time I checked 99% of aid industry was not-for-profit so, technically, ROI<=0. But things are more complicated. Profit is really an accounting term. It is residual revenues after cost that is distributed to shareholders. In NGOs, typically the “share holders” are the people running it, and so they do not need profits: they can get remuneration through salaries. These can be very large. And as for the “Non-Govermental”, well, if you look, most of these rely on governmental hand-outs one way or another. Perhaps a better term for them is “private equity firms”. There is today an NGO industrial complex that is in serious need of regulation on disclosure, etc.. @powers
   you claim “I differ with anonymous about the importance of getting beyond morality.” yet rather than get to substance you criticize me for being passionate, etc.. You add “The point is not to move beyond debates about good and bad, better or worse, but to make reasoned arguments.”

   Yes, so I wonder if you could look a the dilemma I presented of the NGO that is duplicating work and tell me how you would deal with it where you in their shoes. What are you proposing? What are your arguments?

4. Maximizing positive impact on the ground is a proposition which requires moral judgments; i.e. decisions of good and bad, better and worse. anonymous with great righteous indignation demands that people in the field step down from their moral soap boxes. anonymous’s demands are passionate that passion seems to preclude reason.

   anonymous feels that the use of ROI was obviously figurative. It’s important to recognize that metaphors obscure as much as they clarify. When using terms for one thing to describe another confusion is likely. anonymous alleges hypocrisy among International Financial Institutions for saying they’re maximizing lives saved. But the objectives of IFI’s are more focused on economic indicators and goals such as forming markets.

   anonymous’s initial example of a moral dilemma was whether it is good to receive payment to conduct a comparison study when one is rather confident in advance of the outcome. Indeed there are moral pitfalls to avoid. Obviously it would be wrong to set about to demonstrate falsehoods through the construction of a study and by jiggering data. It would also be wrong to receive payment for a study if one knew in advance their prejudices would likely lead to results which could not be objectively verified. But those are not the moral decisions anonymous posits.

   I differ with anonymous about the importance of getting beyond morality. It seems to me that anonymous is making moral arguments. The construction of anonymous’s arguments mirror precisely the tone and attitude anonymous condemns.

   The point is not to move beyond debates about good and bad, better or worse, but to make reasoned arguments. In other words we all need to take better measure of about our moral judgments.

5. OK, the religious satire thing was stylistically amateurish (then again this is a blog, not a poetry competition). So lets leave that out and focus on the more important issues.

   I am all for a a little more angst and self-doubt in academia and the aid industry.

   My problem is when we start saying that some aid workers are better than others in moral terms, or that some are just aid tourists.

   As I have tried to argue, if you question and probe deep enough, even the “best” operators in the field often reveal some powerful moral contradictions.

   Lets have angst and self-doubt, but lets step down from the moral soap box. Lets also be very frank about our individual motivations when we engage in aid/research etc.

   If we leave morality aside we can use better assessment criteria like ROI (here used in a figurative sense, as should have been obvious). It would also force people to ask themselves not just if what they are doing is morally “good” in some sense, but whether it actually maximizes its positive impact on the ground. The two do not necessarily go together.

6. In response to anonymous. Return on investment is a financial calculation. ROI was the term anonymous used in re the moral dilemma about the question whether it is ethical to receive financial payment to study a question regarding the benefit of investments in university versus under 15 education when one presupposes the answer in advance.

   Anonymous wrote:

   “The profit you refer to here is not monetary profit, but lives saved – that is what we are, supposedly, trying to maximize.”

   I’m for maximizing lives saved, but the word “profit” is generally understood in financial terms rather than in terms of lives saved. And in subsequent comments here anonymous speaks about morality in financial terms.

   I do get that anonymous is making a forceful moral case for “getting beyond morality.” But the arguments don’t make sense to me. So I’m not convinced about that position, which neither implies censorship nor is a personal attack.

   I found anonymous’s initial comment impolite not because anonymous is “exposing things for what they are,” but rather for an anonymous post on a blog containing a boorish religious satire.

   anonymous responds to my observation that rudeness is rarely useful among collaborators by writing:

   “And lets not leave religion out of it either, that goes against free speech.”

   Professor Blattman offers his assessment that a little more angst and self-doubt in academia the aid industry might be a good thing. anonymous seems to take Blattman’s position as evidence of his moralizing which anonymous finds morally suspect.

   Blattman understands that rigorous study increases certainty. So that for everyone the domain about which we can be reasonably certain is therefore limited. The point about a little angst and self-doubt seems a reminder not to be too certain of that which one has not studied. A helpful reminder as he embarks on a new project.

   anonymous references professional standards and implies working as an aid worker, researcher or doctor. I am not a professional. But Blatman’s uncertainty seems a more reasonalble professional stance than anonymous’s certainty.

7. @Powers

   The profit you refer to here is not monetary profit, but lives saved – that is what we are, supposedly, trying to maximize.

   If NGOs, IFIs etc say they are maximizing lives saved, yet their actions reveal otherwise and they know it, then they are hustling: they are earning their keep by saying one thing, doing another.

   Just like some investment banks peddle bad stocks, so some/many/most NGOs and IFIs peddle bad investments.

   Unfortunately, exposing things for what they are often earns one the rudeness sobriquet. I mean, one doesn’t get a lot of points for telling aid workers helping some children in Africa to step down from the moral high horse, or that half the NGOs that went to Indonesia after the tsunami, say, were adding to the problem rather than solving it. But these questions have to be raised.

   Also, please lets try not to personalize things or express disagreement through disqualification, it is one of the most insidious form of censorship. And lets not leave religion out of it either, that goes against free speech.

   So, why not talk about Christian safer sex interventions. I find them highly morally suspect, yet some believe to be acting on the Lords’s very own orders…

   Finally, it would be interesting to see what moral philosophers have written about the ethics of charitable giving and aid. Maybe some readers have something to say about that.

8. I’m not an economist, but I very much enjoy reading your blog. Perhaps it’s because I’m not so engaged in the study of the economy that a feature of anonymous’s thinking stands out.

   It seems that in anonymous’s system of morality return on investment is the best standard of right and wrong. Further he says, “We’re all hustler’s.” I think a rather standard meaning of “hustler” is a person who gets money through questionable means.

   This association of profit as the standard of morality maybe widely shared. However, while I’ve heard others express this view, it hardly seems the commonplace view.

   In life we confront differing value systems and sometimes they can seem astonishing.

   Satire can reveal folly and wickedness through wit. Religious satire is always difficult terrain. anonymous’s satiric litany fails. The target is not to expose folly in religion but in Professor Blattman through association. Blattman so far as I’ve seen has not exposed a religious point of view in his writings here. The litany is a grotesque caricature and is not funny.

   Albert Camus consistently opposed the philosophy of nihilism.

   Matt rather charitably characterizes anonymous’s comments as “being a little over the top.” Perhaps there’s a fine line between being over the top and rudeness. But rudeness is rarely useful among collaborators.

   anonymous’s exploration of morality is a worthwhile effort, but these comments about morality seem to lack credible authority.

9. Gotcha! We are all saying the same things in a way. There are diverse philosophies about what is best for society. In our home countries and abroad.

   We share many views on the aid and relief world. The good, the bad, and the ugly. In my 20 years in corporate America as a business analyst on various projects and as a consultant, I used to say that “my job was to eliminate my job”. I had to transfer knowledge and prepare employees for the day that I would “go away”. I needed to have a plan, have a budget, and execute the project with the end in mind.

   Unfortunately that is not how the aid and relief world works. Perpetuating poverty keeps them in business. You are right about the redistribution of funds. My experience has seen a pathetic lack of partnerships. Everyone wants to be the hero.

   In the big picture, the strategies and policies of the “aid and relief” world have failed miserably in Africa. I know there are very complex issues; HIV/AIDS, malaria, corruption, tribalism, and regional conflicts.

   My African friends tell me that they just tell these people what they want to hear. They have grown tired of the promises.

   However I do see a new paradigm emerging that is revolutionary. The young generation is trying to tear down the status quo. It will happen. We live in a global village and technology is helping to bring people together to solve these problems.

   “Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change.”
   Robert F. Kennedy

10. Otim,

    Actually I share a lot of things with you. I am certainly not proposing that people treat Africa like Disney. I repeat, people should act professionally and with
    respect, there, and everywhere.

    My problem is with aid workers taking the high moral ground about their job. This presents a lot of problems.

    For example, suppose you are a respectful, well intentioned, professional. Suppose you run a good, high impact NGO. That is your full time job, your life.

    Now, suppose someone points out to you that you duplicate some of the work other people are doing, and that the people you want to “help” would benefit a lot more if you redirected your funding to another group, to reap economies of scale and provide more and better services (kind of like Buffet giving his money to Gates as opposed to setting his own foundation). You, however, loose your job in the process. Would you do this?

    My bet is 9.9/10 NGOs/aid agencies, etc.. will not. But, if you don’t, Are you really as saintly as you think you are? Why not be honest: you like your job, you are doing some good, you are doing it well, and you want to keep it that way, even if it has some pretty nasty opportunity costs. Or have you forgotten how many lives 1$ can save, as presumably your fictitious NGO has been preaching to its donors.

    So, welcome to the aid industry, where the good, the bad, and the ugly are all but one. In aggregate this imposes enormous costs, but who is going to be the first to quit this selfish war of attrition, with so many silent victims. Who is responsible? Who to blame? Or, Should anyone be blamed? These have no easy answer.

    So, my advice to Chris was not to become insensitive, etc…, but not to take his job so seriously as to believe he is “helping” in some moral sense. In the last analysis, if we are frank, he, you, me, all of us, get something out of this. We are all hustlers, is life, and, frankly, I don’t see much wrong with it (again, with caveats of professionalism, respect, etc.). We just cannot live up to such high expectations.

    Moreover, the businessman who sets up shop in Africa is also helping, as is the tourist (including development tourist) who spends his dollars. Aid workers, researchers, doctors, they are no different. We are not special, no better. Nay, quite possibly, we are worse, and the quicker we acknowledge this the better.

11. Otim Michael, I appreciate what you’re saying and I think Anonymous is being a little over the top on purpose, but your dichotomy between a knowledgeable volunteer and an employee that is simply doing a job is a false one.

    In my experience, many/most volunteers are not knowledgeable and those that are simply can’t stay for long. The bulk of complex development work thus gets done by the employees that are there for the long term, both African and Western. They are doing a job.

    If there is something important they need to be doing that they aren’t, it should be part of their job. Even the most amazing employees need some sort of job expectations that they can feasibly meet rather than the neverending expectation that they will volunteer to do more and more with (and for) less and less.

    Maybe this isn’t far off from what you are talking about, but I should thought that you were setting up a sort of overoptimistic idea of knowledgeable volunteers that exist only in smally numbers.

12. Anonymous,
    You missed my point. There is a huge difference between being a tourist and being an NGO or aid worker. Tourism is vital to many economies all over the world; including Africa. Tourists need no invitation.

    Please try to imagine this; a group of African academics, economists, community leaders, business people, and politicians showing up at the mayor’s office of your city. They are there to help. They have seen the news reports of arsons, rape, murder, and high school dropouts in the media. Most people would laugh at them. Then why do we do that to Africa? It is with that perspective that I ask the question, “who was the African that invited you to Africa?”

    I would rather have a knowlegeable volunteer with passion and creativity than a employee that is simply doing a job. Too many international aid organizations have employees that are just doing their job. Too many of them have become businesses that promote mediocrity and perpetuate “third world welfare”.

13. 4. Who was the African that invited you to Africa?

    Are you serious? Do we all need an invitation to go to some country / continent? Only to Africa? 40 million people visited France last year, Do they need invitations?

    The point as I see it is not that we should not agonize about aid, etc. but that we should start by getting beyond the moralizing and take a more sincere look at our individual motivations.

    Pretending we are in it for purely selfless reasons and taking the moral high-ground can get us into all sorts of trouble and inconsistencies.

    A car mechanic repairs cars, a doctor repairs people. Is the later more morally worthy than the former? Not in my books. He is just doing his chosen job.

14. Sheesh, I hope that wasn’t the first email you read to start your day.

    In this forum, people need to realize that we all generalize when sharing our thoughts, observations, and interpretations.

    I stand my my previous statements when seeing a way forward, especially in Africa. I ask every NGO and “development tourist” three questions:
    1. What are you doing to empower the local community?
    2. What are you doing to advocate sustainable development?
    3. What are you doing to create jobs?

    The ability to immediately answer two of those three questions tells a lot about the usefulness or uselessness of that organization to Africa.

    I guess I can add one more question:
    4. Who was the African that invited you to Africa?

    Chris, you don’t need to “get over” anything. The blogosphere has opened up the dialogue of global issues. In the past it has been an arrogant monologue from the superior thinking “west”. Your voice is one of thousands. There is now a forum for ideas, opinions, and potential solutions to important issues to be discussed.

    All of our contributions need to be presented and shared. That is called learning. We gather information from many sources. Hopefully that information grows into intelligence. Intelligence is nothing more than a brain full of knowledge. Wisdom is putting intelligence into action. More wisdom is desperately needed in this world.

    Keep sharing your thoughts and ideas with us Chris. People will approve with some; and people will disapprove with many.

    There are more solutions than problems in this world. We just have to discover them!

15. Anthropologists have an enormous wealth of ideas on this issue; definitely a time when as economists we have much to learn.

    I am tempted to agree with you though Chris, that we actually need much more agonising about whether our presence is useful and indeed not counterproductive (‘first do no harm’ etc).