Category: Amanda Barner

Amanda Barner

Q: What are the factors that classify as good news in Africa according to Radelet?

A: Radelet considers several factors to be indication of “good news” in Africa. Factors include economic growth rates in terms of annual income per capita and overall GDP, as well as rates of trading and return on investments. He also considers the amount of people living above and below the poverty line. School enrolment and completion, as well as literacy rates are incredibly important, especially for young girls, and decreases in child mortality and overall health are signs of good news. Much of this is possible only through good governance, which has changed for the better in the 17 developing countries.

Q: Explore the Millennium Villages. Find retrospectives and critical views, and address the most urgent task (according to Jeffrey Sachs the greatest global challenge) eradicating poverty. 

A:  Jeffery Sachs describes extreme poverty as “the most urgent priority, because it is a matter of life and death for at least 1 billion people.” Extreme poverty is defined as the daily struggle for mere survival. Sachs approves of the creation of SDGs, the first being to end extreme poverty, including hunger. In 2005, he created villages scattered across sub-Saharan Africa to act as concrete goals towards MDGs. According to their website, Millennium Villages are “fighting poverty at the village level through community-led development,” and that with modest outside support, the villages can “transition from subsistence farming to self-sustaining commercial activity.”

There is, however, criticism as to the effectiveness of these villages. Some economists question the effectiveness of aid, or suggest that aid could better be used elsewhere for less flashy but better conceived projects.  Or for example, if a village like Ruhiira is doing well, is it because Uganda in general is doing better or can Sachs take that credit? Most cripplingly, there are no guidelines to compare the Millennium Villages to other villages in the same area, so it is difficult to accurately measure how successful the villages and aid applied to them have been. Michael Clemens especially has been critical of the villages, first to admit that he admires the goals of the villages, but that because of how the project was created, there is no way to include a follow up and measurement of the success of the villages. And As Beth Duff-Brown points out in her review, there were no baseline comparisons made to other villages in the area so that progress or lack of it could be monitored and tracked.

Q: Choose two villages. Why was that particular village chosen? What is the goal for that village? What successes or failures have been recorded? What do the critics say? Look at the countries’ GDP, GNP, WDI, HDI, etc. to evaluate the village. How are local, national and global issues addressed and involved? And finally, what do you say after reading pros and cons. Is it a viable project towards ending poverty?

A: Koraro, Ethiopia:

I chose Koraro for its unique approach to income with the use of beekeeping. The goal of the village was to address the problems of “severely degraded soil, high malaria and maternal mortality rates, lack of classrooms, unsafe drinking water, and extremely poor infrastructure.” According to its website, Koraro has seen success in generating income from 1,200 bee colonies, management of dairy cows, poultry production, and trading textiles and grains. There is now access to clean water for an estimated 6000 people, and particular attention has been paid to construction of primary schools as well as the “Girl’s Club” which keeps female students from dropping out.

As of 2016, the GDP of Ethiopia is $73 billion, it’s GNP is $660, and as of 2015 it’s HDI was 0.448. It should be noted that road construction and incentives to workers has been taken up by the local government, so while it may have started as a goal for the Millennium Village, it is only possible with government support.

Ruhiira, Uganda:

The goal for Ruhiira was to difficult travel, very little wood due to deforestation, and “the highest tuberculosis prevalence in southwestern Uganda.” In some ways, the village (according to its own website) has been successful, with children in primary schools receiving meals changing from 5% to 74%, and a School2School program which connects children in Ruhiira to children in Connecticut via internet. Malaria prevalence is “approaching zero”, maize yields are up, and there is better sources of drinking water. Uganda as a whole has a GDP of $24 billion, a GNP of $630, and a HDI of 0.493. Since there is no real method of comparison and monitoring of success of the village it is difficult to accurately track its successes and downfalls.

I feel that the vision Sachs had for the villages was well-intentioned, and there certainly has been some improvement in the villages, though how much of that is due to Sachs project cannot be known. I am irritated by the lack of measurable goals and quantifiable data compared to other baseline villages in the area. I believe that ideas behind the Millennium Villages are solid: creating local methods of generating income, but the execution was poor.

Additional Resources:

https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2018/04/24/a-look-at-the-millennium-villages-project/

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/why-careful-evaluation-millennium-villages-not-optional

https://data.worldbank.org/country/ethiopia

https://countryeconomy.com/countries/ethiopia

https://data.worldbank.org/country/uganda

https://countryeconomy.com/countries/uganda

 

 

By Amanda Barner

1. Jacqueline Novogratz in her TED talks brings up the question on how to define poverty. What is her answer? What is her main message?
   1. In her TED talk, Jacqueline Novogratz defines poverty as the (as of 2005) 4 billion people who make less than the equivalent of $4 a day. She uses this definition to point out that she primarily works with those who make around $1-3 a day. Her examples include Indian farmers who make even less, an average of .60 cents. She also points out that well-off people tend to view impoverished populations as these big masses of people who need the help of foreign aid. The reality is that if given the chance and resources, poor people can and will make their own business decisions and find ways to provide for themselves in their own local economy without the assistance of foreign hand-outs. This leads to her main message, which is that instead of focusing on just helping the poor by sending over secondhand goods or malaria nets, we should instead help impoverished people create their own local businesses. As she states, the question is not “why can’t we help these people?” but rather “how can we help these people do this for themselves?”
2. What is the vision, the goal of the SDGs? What is the effect of neo-liberalism (cutting government spending promoted by the World Bank and IMF)?
   1. The vision of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is to “guide the world’s economic diplomacy in the coming generation”, to both understand and find a way to solve global problems. Since these problems are large and far-reaching, the SDGs were created to have a better and more defined grasp on how to tackle these overarching issues, such as hunger, gender equality, and climate action both on land and below water. Not only is the world economy massively unequal in resource distribution, but it is also harmful to the earth, and thus the SDGs target not only the world economy but also global society and the earth’s physical environment. As Sachs points out, this also includes good governance, because the SDGs are useless if government and business leaders of countries do not actually work towards these goals.
   2. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) were created as well-intentioned way of promoting aid based on pre-existing benchmarks. However, if not used properly, foreign aid can lose its effectiveness. The idea then, is to better help developing countries by creating business opportunities for domestic investors with regards to the country’s politics. With this in mind, it is important to remember that neo-liberalism, defined as the emphasis on free market competition, has led towards a few monolithic companies dominating transnationally, leading to both economic disparity and protectionism in industrialized companies.
3. John McArthur in Own the Goals talks about “Players on the Bench”. Who are they and what does he criticize?
   1. John McArthur criticizes the hesitancy in Washington DC and especially of President Bush, State Department officials, and the World Bank to embrace the MDGs. By refusing to publicly approve of and work towards the MDGs for so long, the United States missed an opportunity to build political capital in international issues, as well as offer aid in development efforts which could have created more amicable bonds between countries. By trying to avoid any fixed goals of foreign aid, the United States ended up falling short of pledges to developing countries in Africa.
4. The article “How to Help Poor Countries” (2005) addresses the question of more aid money. Please elaborate. What are suggestions made by the authors?
   1. The authors point out that in some specific circumstances, aid can do quite a lot of good, for instance with the global fight against AIDs and eradication of smallpox. However, while aid can work well, it can only happen if the countries receiving it help themselves and “have the capacity and the leadership to spend the money wisely.” If the aid money cannot be distributed or handled properly then it loses its effectiveness. Historically, some countries like China or India have received little aid from the United States in comparison to countries such as Mexico or Nicaragua, and yet China and India, through their own systems of government and economy, have managed to grow, whereas those with aid but little ability to distribute it still suffer from stagnancy. More effective that simply giving foreign aid money is the act of helping those countries create their own economic policies and businesses, which would generate longer-term and far more stable sources of money.