Chris Blattman asks:Why don't we write more about worst practices?
Well for one thing, agencies and consultancies that rely on government funds are loathe to air their dirty laundry when future funding is on the line. Even when they do screw up reports are written so as to subtly blame local partners and government participants. Just like politicians, development professionals and NGOs - meant to act in the long-term interests of their supposed constituencies - profit much more from acting in their own short-term interests (exhibit A - schools).
Well, what to do? We must incentivize frank admissions of errors. Those who openly and honestly declare mistakes and poor programs should actually be rewarded - at least to a certain degree.
The World Bank already has an Independent Evaluation Group and randomized evaluations are all the rage among academics. For markets to be efficient (and yes, proposals for development funding indeed comprise a market), information must be freely available and accurate; let's hold development results to the same standard.
(Picture from Penguin Blog)
1 comment:
It's not obvious to me that many in the aid industry are able to recognize failure--in a world of good intentions and soothing jargon, there are only degrees of success. The tendency of self-evaluation, and of hiring "independent" evaluators from within the industry, does little to help. Hence the importance of critics like Bill Easterly, academics like Tom Carothers, and new thinking backed up by research impossible to ignore (e.g., the Poverty Action Lab).
Post a Comment