If you only read one thing this week…


Evidence based poverty reduction and the Millenium Villages by Nick
November 30, 2011, 11:28 am
Filed under: If you have 30 mins, measuring results

So – here’s the dream – figure out how to reduce poverty, scientifically. Find ways to do this that you can show, with numbers, actually work. What a seductive idea. And how slippery and evasive. Let’s look at one of the flagship projects, the Millennium Villages.

They are the poster child of Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute at Columbia, along with UNDP. The idea is to take Sach’s theories of poverty traps (if you need to brush up on this stuff it’s all in ‘The End of Poverty’ by Sachs), and design a series of pilot interventions that demonstrate, empirically, that an integrated approach to rural development with consistent adequate funding over time can achieve the goal of lifting communities out of the poverty trap (and meet the Millennium Development Goals while we’re at it).

There are 13 of the sites, in 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, plus a bunch of similar type projects all over the place. They started as a five year project in 2006 and just got renewed for another five. So – where are we as far as empirical proof of poverty reduction is concerned? Well, it’s, erm, a mixed bag, and sort of depends on how you look at it…

ODI did one of the earliest reviews of it in 2008 (read the full pdf here) – a little early to really show impact on poverty reduction, they do claim crop productivity increases (although only alongside additional agriculture inputs, so there isn’t really a lot of income increase). There does seem to be some malaria reduction, and that’s good, although it’s not entirely clear how cost effective this public health program is compared to traditional ones, since the whole thing is a big integrated package.

ODI signs out with some rumblings about sustainability of gains and issues of scaling up, but they are basically optimistic. Not so the Soils, Food and Healthy Communities group, who claim that their Ekwendini project villages that use sustainable agricultural techniques and crop diversification achieve better agricultural gains with far less cost.

Fast forward to this week, when we get the first independent evaluation of the MVPs, by Kenyan economist Bernadette Wanjala of Tillburg University. She looked at 236 families in the project and 175 control families in the same districts (read more here). She was hoping to find that the MVP project (which spends the equivalent of 100% of local per capita income per year on each beneficiary) would be able to show some empirical increase in recipient income. Unfortunately, she couldn’t find any evidence for it.

How can that possibly be? Well, let’s dig in a little more. She did find a 70% increase in agricultural productivity, which did tend to increase agricultural income in those families (at a substantial input cost). The problem was that those families that spent more time farming seem to be spending less time doing other profitable activities, and their income in those other areas fell, canceling out benefits.

The MVP group claims that ‘incomes are rising’, and that the project is ‘enormously successful’, but unfortunately doesn’t publish their data on incomes.

So where does this leave us? The MVPs are a bold attempt to test theories of change on a village level, and five years on we’re still arguing about what the data mean. It’s encouraging to see donors and academics entering this field of research, and perhaps not surprising that the answer is “it’s complicated – we need more research”.

Advertisements


Business, conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding by Anna
November 22, 2011, 10:48 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

Violent conflict is bad for most businesses. But what impact does business have on conflict? This short blog post from a site called “Find What Works” provides a good overview of the ways in which businesses can avoid exacerbating conflict and actively promote peace. For those of us who work with private sector actors in conflict-affected environments, this post gives inspiration for how we can work with businesses not only to reduce poverty but to reduce conflict, as well.



Why we have to look outwards by Anna
November 7, 2011, 2:08 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

The McKinsey Quarterly has just published an excerpt from Daniel Kahneman’s new book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. The excerpt gives a really good example of what happens when we plan using only our own internal knowledge as estimates. It’s a really good reminder of the need to bring external perspectives in during our planning processes. Read the article here. (Note: you have to sign up to get access to the full excerpt but it is free and totally worth it).



What difference can 100 days make? by Anna
November 1, 2011, 10:06 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

Review of “Local Empowerment Through Rapid Results”, by N. Matta and P. Morgan in the Stanford Social Innovation Review.  Summer 2011.

The Rapid Results methodology invites groups to take a complex project from identification to achieved goals in 60-120 days.  While the approach is applicable to diverse groups, the authors focus on the public sector since, despite plenty of capacity in government agencies, systemic barriers too often prevent their potential to become results.  They convincingly argue that the Rapid Results methodology can help create “energy, momentum and confidence” for agencies to tackle issues such as increasing use of family planning services that have been illusive or stalled, sometimes for years.

Rapid Results shares a number of similarities with the Community Mobilization approach used by organizations such as Mercy Corps, which gives localized groups a way to identify needs, then prioritize, plan, implement and maintain projects.  Both approaches aim to increase ownership, commitment and leverage local knowledge of what motivates people for change.  Some differences are that while community mobilization intends to be multi-staged in which community members work together to build process skills through increasingly complex projects, Rapid Results starts with an intentionally ambitious goal and manufactured timeframe that a designated leader is accountable for and is supported by coaches trained in the methodology.

An exciting potential application of Rapid Results is refocusing an agency or other group after a set-back in order to rebuild confidence and legitimacy with constituents.  There is more to learn, as the authors readily admit, about scaling-up and sustaining Rapid Results initiatives, but some cases of replication and policy integration are cited from Madagascar and Eritrea.  So, not a magic solution, but Rapid Results is another important approach to have in your program design and implementation toolbox.

Read more about the Rapid Results Institute at http://www.rapidresults.org.