The series so far includes:

• Duncan Green from Oxfam, who contrasts progress in developing countries over the last year with the gloom of the ‘formerly rich’ countries of the G-8.
• Calestous Juma from Harvard, who identifies regional integration and better links with the diaspora as key drivers of Africa’s growth.
• Shanta Devarajan from the World Bank, who is cautiously optimistic, especially in the light  of increased demand by Africans for their governments to be accountable.
• Linda Raftree from Plan, who also emphasizes progress towards more inclusive and open societies.
• Kevin Watkins from Brookings and UNESCO, calling for “a properly financed global fund for education like those that have delivered such striking results in the health sector“.
• Jonathan Glennie from ODI and the Guardian, who is pessimistic about the prospects for international cooperation in the face of rising protectionism and nationalism as a result of poor economic prospects in the US and Europe.
• and my contribution, reproduced below, which gives a positive account of progress in many countries in Africa over the past year, and emphasizes the importance for developing countries of better global decision-making.

Economic growth has made the developing world less dependent on aid

A new generation of leaders, business friendly policies, technology, the spread of peace, and strong demand for natural resources have helped Africa to withstand the global downturn.

The Mercato, the commercial hub of the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia's economy grew by 7.5% in 2011.

I celebrated New Year’s Day 2011 in Ethiopia, where we lived for three years. Ethiopia is humming with the optimism and energy of a fast-growing country, creating more jobs, sending more children to school, expanding healthcare, and providing electricity, clean water, sanitation and roads.

Ethiopia’s economy grew by 7.5% this year, and it is not the only country in Africa to boast a high growth rate. Africa has been the fastest growing continent of the past decade. The emergence of a new generation of leaders, the end of the continent’s debt crisis, business-friendly policies, new technologies, the spread of peace, and strong demand for natural resources have helped Africa withstand the global downturn.

Steve Radelet, a former senior fellow at the Centre for Global Development, has documented the emergence of 17 African countries in which total income is growing by more than 5% a year – increasing average incomes by 50% in 13 years. That growth is attracting businesses and investors from Africa and abroad, and the continent’s middle class is expanding. By 2015, about 100m African households will have incomes greater than £2,000 a year, roughly as many as India today.

And as they grow, developing countries are becoming less dependent on aid.

At the start of 2011, we did not expect a year in which so many people would be able to claim their rights and freedom. The Arab spring has moved many of us, but should not have surprised us. Better government has spread across Africa and the Middle East, defying outdated assumptions in the west. Thirteen African countries held national elections in 2011, four leading to a change of government; there will be 13 more in 2012. South Sudan gained its independence after a largely peaceful referendum.

When the year began, we did not know the rains in east Africa would fail. But in contrast to the 1980s, in today’s Ethiopia drought no longer means famine. Unlike its neighbour Somalia, there has been no repeat of the TV images of starving people in Ethiopia. That’s because, with the help of foreign donors, it has put in place early warning, food reserves and distribution systems, and a safety net that supports the poorest families in their own communities.

As developing countries have become more integrated into the world economy, and less dependent on aid, so their interests have changed. The most important international events for developing countries this year were the repeated failures of European leaders to put in place a credible plan to save the euro, the G20′s decision to put the world trade talks out of their misery, and modest progress at the Durban talks on climate change. These will all have more impact on developing countries than gatherings of the “development set” at World Bank meetings, the UN general assembly or the Busan forum on aid effectiveness.

But while progress has been good, it is not yet fast enough. Hundreds of thousands of people in the Horn of Africa will have spent Christmas in refugee camps, and about a billion people will go to bed hungry on New Year’s Eve.

In the years ahead, the Centre for Global Development in Europe will be working with policymakers, researchers and academics to find evidence-based, politically savvy ways for rich countries and powerful institutions to help developing countries lift themselves out of poverty. Our focus is on the world’s efforts to promote shared growth, protect our environment, reinvent our financial system, clamp down on international corruption, encourage and share innovation, reduce inequality and entrench peace.

For affluent and developing countries alike, these are the aspirations for 2012.

Information, not coordination, is the key to aid effectiveness.  Some donors such as USAID are becoming interested in a more decentralized ‘Google Maps’ approach to aid coordination, to facilitate well-informed decisions by people on the ground. For this to work, donors need to do two things: publish more detailed project level information, and do so in an open, reusable, internationally consistent data format. Transparency aimed at a domestic audience is not sufficient.

We now know that the development system has met just one of the 13 targets it set in 2005 for making aid more effective. That is not surprising: the problems diagnosed in the Paris Declaration are real and important, but the solutions that have been pursued in its name have not been practical. There are better ways to achieve the aid effectiveness which the Paris Declaration envisages.

Here is an example of the problem, from Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami:

“Last February in Riga [close to Calang in Indonesia], we had a case of measles. The epidemiologists from Banda Aceh gathered, fearing that the measles would spread among displaced people, but the girl was cured in two days. Eventually we discovered that this child had been vaccinated three times by different organizations, each without a vaccination card or any type of control. The symptoms were the result of these measles vaccines”.

Informal translation of an article in El Pais (April 13, 2005)

This is a graphic example of a widespread problem in development and humanitarian aid: a coordination failure leading to a substantial waste of money.

Following Paris, a conventional wisdom has grown up on how this kind of problem should be tackled. The regional health department should call a big meeting of all the donors and NGOs who might be interesting in running an immunization programme. They should share information with each other about their plans: which vaccines they intended to administer, and where. Under the leadership of the ministry, the donors should agree a division of labour to eliminate overlaps and ensure that aid is used efficiently.

Similar committees would have met to plan and coordinate every other kind of intervention to avoid overlap and make the best use of limited resources.

You don’t have to have a degree in Political Science to be able to see why this committee approach does not work. A country director for a large government aid agency recently told me that he spent more than half his time in donor coordination meetings. Most of each meeting is taken up by donors listing what they are doing. (Not surprisingly, he has now quit.)

So what is the alternative?

Once an aid agency has been licensed by the health ministry to provide vaccinations, it could simply publish online, in an accessible format, details of its plans and activities. Another organization planning its own programme could then easily check how they can best fit with what other agencies are doing. With open information sharing, no child would be vaccinated against the same disease twice; and under-reached populations could be easily identified and served.

This is an example of an important general point about improving aid effectiveness. Aid staff on the ground should not be stuck in endless coordination meetings: they should have the information they need to make good decisions about how to have the biggest impact, within a regulatory framework established by government, without being constrained by inappropriate rules and incentives imposed on them from far away.

A Google Maps approach to development?

There is growing interest in a ‘Google Maps’ approach to development coordination. We have seen welcome moves towards mapping of aid projects, for example by the World Bank, USAID, and Canadian CIDA. But as the example of vaccination in Banda Aceh illustrates, the key to making this information useful is that sufficiently detailed data from many different organisations is available in one place.

Some of the momentum towards greater aid transparency is driven by the need for increased accountability to taxpayers in donor countries. This is a laudable goal, but if data publication is targeted on this purpose alone it misses even bigger potential benefits from transparency. The US Government is making gradual progress on its Foreign Assistance Dashboard and a geographical coding system: but on current plans the data will not contain enough substantive detail. It will record information which is good enough to get a broad sense of where aid is being spent (‘top level administrative region’) but will not record specific locations (‘street corner’). This approach may be enough to meet the needs of a US accountability agenda, but it will miss the opportunity to use robust project level data and geo-coding to track and coordinate aid, to close down the space for corruption and waste, and to link feedback from project beneficiaries to specific aid funders.

It is also important that aid information is published in a reusable open data format, which has been agreed by a large group of donors in the IATI standard. Several donors – including the World Bank, the European Union, DFID, Australia and the Netherlands – are now publishing their data this way. Other donors have plans to do so. While it is welcome that Canada is publishing more detail about its aid projects, as the website makes clear the target audience for this information is “all Canadians”. The information published by CIDA is of almost no use to people in developing countries because it is not published in a form which is compatible with data from other all the other donors. Open data – in the sense of being genuinely accessible and comparable – enables civil society, parliamentarians and citizens of developing countries to be part of the coordination and accountability from which they are presently excluded.

In contrast to Canada, the United States has said it will ‘cross-walk’ its aid data to the IATI standard, which is extremely welcome. But so far they have not done so. While the implementation of a Foreign Assistance Dashboard is an important step towards domestic US accountability, all this data will only be of use internationally to make aid more effective and accountable when it is also published according to the international data standard.

Of course, USAID and State Department have limited resources and should be spending their money as much as possible on aid rather than administration. But as the World Bank has found out with its Mapping for Results project, it is not tremendously complicated or expensive to geo-code aid projects – and it will be even easier if that is done at the outset by front line staff who have detailed knowledge of the projects, rather than retrofitted afterwards in Washington. Nor has it proved difficult or expensive to organize data into the IATI format: I am told it took UNOPS just four weeks to implement IATI, from start to finish. There are many other donors, and organisations such as the Development Gateway, AidData and aidinfo, who have experience in geo-coding projects and publishing information in IATI format, who would be glad to help to design procedures, set up systems, and even to share their computer code. Furthermore, the administrative savings from reducing duplication by publishing open data are estimated rapidly to outpace these modest implementation costs. This is not primarily a question of money, but of leadership, recognition of the value of transparency which serves international as well as domestic audiences, and a willingness to reach out to work with others.

We can – and must – make aid more effective. This means making sure that decisions on the ground are likely to yield the biggest possible impact, and for that we need not more coordination meetings but better information, greater decentralization, simplified systems, fewer perverse incentives and more accountability.

If you have comments please put them on the CGD website.

It is a shame that an increase in the number of special adviser posts is treated as an indicator of either profligacy or politicization of the civil service.  Special advisers have played an important role which has helped the civil service and protected it from being drawn into party politics.  In my civil service experience over 25 years, I worked with some excellent special advisers. Some of them, such as David Cameron, John Bercow, Ed Miliband and James Purnell, have gone on to other jobs in politics. Others have returned to jobs in business, think-tanks or public relations.  I worked with some duds too: that’s when you really came to appreciate the advantages of having good one.

Norman Lamont, then Chancellor, with his Special Adviser

A good special adviser plays an important role in government by helping the civil service to think about the political implications of policy options – which is an essential perspective if policy is to be well-designed and implemented.  They work with civil servants to identify the political questions that ministers are likely to ask, and to provide satisfactory answers, helping to smooth the policy-making process. They deal with party political issues – such as writing speeches for party events and dealing with party processes.  Without special advisers, civil servants in Ministers’ offices would inevitably end up being drawn into these party issues.  Special advisers also play an important role in helping to break down the silos across Whitehall – they often do at least as good a job as the civil service at identifying issues requiring cross-departmental discussion, and helping to broker agreements across government.  All this is provided within a reasonably well-regulated structure which helps to avoid accusations of improper influence by outsiders.

The total cost to government of all this is about £7 million a year – in other words, negligible, relative to the institutional benefits of having a transparent arrangement which ensures that Ministers have access to alternative sources of advice from a political perspective.  The Institute for Government recently recommended the appointment of additional special advisers to strengthen the functioning of the coalition government.

Michael White asks in today’s Guardian why Liam Fox didn’t make Adam Werrity a Special Adviser.  I don’t know the answer, but a possible explanation is that each minister has a quota, in an attempt to keep the numbers down.  Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor, got round this by appointing a “Council of Economic Advisers” instead. It is sad to see a cheap political tail (a fetish about the number of Special Advisers) wag an important institutional dog (having a structured mechanism for Ministers to draw on political advice if they wish).

The political establishment has become absurdly fastidious about the idea of Ministers getting advice from a variety of different sources.  There is no principle – nor should there be – which prevents Ministers from listening to the opinions of a wide range of people from outside the ranks of the civil service and special advisers. We should welcome a diversity of opinion, especially from people who are well-informed in an issue, which almost always means they have some sort of interest in it. These interests may be financial, institutional or simply a matter of doing something in which the person believes.  There is no requirement that a civil servant must always be present when Ministers meet other people: the civil service is not there to police a Minister’s interaction with the outside world (and nor does the civil service wish to do so, though sometimes they may wish they had). It is up to Ministers to choose which advice they wish to heed, and they are accountable to Parliament for those decisions. The civil service already has privileged access to decision-making: it should not (and in my experience does not) aspire to have a monopoly.

So can we please embrace the role of Special Advisers in government; not impose too tight a cap on their numbers; and ensure that they are properly paid and supported? They play an important role in the strange ecosystem of government.

Annoyingly the meeting was held under The Chatham House Rule which means I am not allowed to report who said what. (Tangential thought: I am considering ignoring this in future if the invitation does not make it clear that this is the basis on which the meeting is being held.)  I am allowed to tell you that the group included people from ODI (Simon Maxwell & Andrew Rogerson), a co-author of Philanthrocapitalism (Mike Green), DFID (Paul Healy Healey & Laura Kelly), the EBRD (Erik Berglöf, Gaspard Koenig & Hans Peter Lankes), and representatives from KPMG (John Burton), ActionAid (Lucia Fry), Save the Children UK (Jessica Espey & Kate Dooley) and BOND (Joanna Rey).

It turned out to be an interesting discussion.

First, there was considerable pessimism about the public’s appetite for aid. Opinion polls depend heavily on how you ask the question, but a common theme seems to be that the public’s concern for poverty and development is stable and quite high; while the public’s confidence in government aid is falling rapidly.  There are several reasons why these may be diverging, which are not mutually exclusive. Declining support for aid spending may be the effect of the economic downturn; it may reflect a trend towards public distrust of bureaucracies; it may be the long term consequence of aid’s failure to live up to its supporters’ excessively grandiose claims of what it can achieve. There was some debate about whether a greater focus on ‘results’ could reverse this.  Hardly anyone seriously argued that declining public support is merely a temporary consequence of the economic downturn which will reverse automatically when incomes start to grow again.

A second interesting theme was the tension between more effective aid, and aid which donors are willing to provide. It is possible that as the system shifts towards greater recipient country control of how aid is used (as envisaged under the Paris Declaration), so support for aid in donor countries declines.  If you can’t use aid to promote your economic, commercial, security and strategic interests, then you might not want to give it at all.  Bertin Martens memorably pointed out that the end of structural adjustment programmes in the 1980s (under which donors attempted to impose various policies on recipient countries) was followed by sharp decline in aid in the early 1990s.  If you see the aid relationship as an equilibrium between the interests of the donors and the interests of the recipients, and if the Paris Declaration is an effort to move away from this equilibrium by reducing the power of donors and increasing the power of recipient countries, then perhaps declining aid budgets today are a consequence these modest moves away from the equilibrium. There is almost no public support for budget support (a form of aid which embodies many of the Paris principles) and  budget support may now in retreat – so perhaps the aid system was temporarily pulled from its equilibrium by Paris, and may now be heading back to it again.  In other words, there may be a choice between an abundance of somewhat ineffective aid which balances the interests of recipients and donors, and aid which is less conducive to the interests of donors, more effective at reducing poverty, but much less abundant.  Aid agencies have a stronger internal interest in abundance than in effectiveness, and so will tend to support a return to the equilibrium in which aid is popular and plentiful, but not tremendously effective.

The third theme was the most interesting.  Mike Green recalled an idea from Empire, a ghastly book published in 2000 by Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, which suggested that activists may organize themselves as a ” post-modern posse”.    Mike suggested that, in the absence of effective mechanisms for global governance to provide public goods in a rules-based system, we are left tackling these problems in temporary coalitions, or posses, which come together outside formal structures and without formal legitimacy. Examples range from the coalitions of the willing which come together to support military intervention, to the vertical funds which have proliferated in the aid industry.  (Mike was not suggesting that this was desirable, but pointing out that this may be what happens in a second-best world without effective global institutions).  This idea clearly resonated with the group, which recognised the applicability of the metaphor as a description of today’s development system. (Update: more on the ‘posse’ idea from Mike Green and Matt Bishop here.)

My own view, for what it is worth, is that:

• we should consciously reposition aid as support to those who are most marginalised to provide them with access to key services such as food, water, health and education, and move away from the idea that the purpose of aid is to accelerate economic development;
• that’s not because economic development isn’t an important objective; but it may not be the best use of aid;
• the main things that industrialised countries can do to promote economic development in the developing world may be changes in other policies ‘beyond aid’ such as trade, climate change, migration, climate change, cooperation on tax, tackling corruption and illicit financial flows; and arms sales;
• some organisations which profess to be interested in development are too heavily focused on aid and not enough on how we can improve these other policies.

When it shall be said in any country in the world, ‘My poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive’—when these things can be said, then may that country boast of its constitution and its government.

Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man

Malini Mehra and Alex Evans discuss the big development challenges of the 21st Century in Development Drums 25

Alex Evans and I recently took part in a discussion of the big development issues with a committee of Members of Parliament in the British House of Commons. Alex kicked off that meeting with a magisterial and somewhat pessimistic presentation which set out ten key issues for development, and we took his presentation as our agenda for this discussion on Development Drums.

Malina and Alex are interesting and knowledgeable on a dauntingly wide range of issues, and the podcast covers a lot of ground: the changing distribution of global poverty; demographic change; the financial crisis; oil prices; food prices; feeding the 9 billion; climate change; trade; the changing face of conflict; the global governance deficit; and the implications for UK development policy. Each of these issues really needs an entire episode of Development Drums to be discussed properly, but I thought it was interesting to bring them all together to draw out common issues and ideas.

The following thoughts struck me from the discussion:

First – the importance of resilience which cropped up again and again in the discussion. I think this is possibly the Next Big Thing in development thinking (as if we need more Big Things). The idea is that we should be helping to develop the institutions and assets that ensures that people are resilient to shocks, of which there seem to be likely to be more.

Second – treating shocks as opportunities as well as risks.  As Alex points out in the podcast, there was a narrow window after the collapse of Lehman Brothers during which we could have remade the global financial system: but nobody had a plan ready to go. There are going to be more shocks: will the progressive development community be ready to seize the opportunities these represent?

Third – the almost complete failure of global governance. All the issues we discuss relate in some way to the failure to put in place effective global processes and institutions to solve collective action problems  such as on trade, climate change, or food supply. As Malini says, we are living in an era not of the G-8 but of G-0.  Alex provides an interesting analysis of the problems in the podcast: on the face of it, to my mind, the problems don’t sound insurmountable.

Fourth – the optimism and energy coming from emerging countries such as India and China. Malina both describes and embodies this.  But it’s also clear that on many issues – notably trade and climate change – the interests of these increasingly powerful countries are now diverging from those of the less developed countries, and we need to think hard about ensure the interests of the poorest countries are not left behind a grand bargain between the old and new rich countries.

Fifth – development policy isn’t mainly about aid.  In a discussion which surveys the big development challenges confronting us, aid hardly gets a mention. Yet most of the development agencies in the world spend most of their time thinking about aid.

How to listen to development drums

You can listen to Development Drums on your computer straight from the website (http://developmentdrums.org) or download any episode (from here) to your MP3 player or computer. Alternatively, you can subscribe to Development Drums on iTunes free of charge (search for “Development Drums” in the iTunes store).

As is the Development Drums custom, the podcast plays out with a slightly relevant song.  See if you can guess before you get to the end what it’s going to be (there’s a clue hidden in the title of the podcast, Episode 25: Global Development Challenges).

Other development podcasts

I find podcasts a convenient way to keep up to date, especially when I’ve got long plane flights or trips by road; and lots of people listen to them when running on the treadmill in the gym or during their commute.

If you enjoy Development Drums, you may also enjoy the Center for Global Development’s Global Prosperity Wonkcasts, which are a bit shorter than Development Drums.  As with Development Drums, you can listen online, subscribe to the feed or subscribe free on iTunes.

The Guardian has also recently started a monthly development podcast.  The most recent editions are about “securitisation of aid” (that is, greater focus of aid on fragile states) and on so-called “Land Grabs“.  Again, you can subscribe to the feed directly, or get it free on iTunes.

Here’s a complete list of development podcasts:

• Development Drums
• The Center for Global Development Prosperity Wonkcast
• The Guardian Focus Podcast
• Think Before You Give
• BBC Africa Today
• Peterson Perspectives
• PRI: Global Health and Development
• The World Bank Podcasts
• Philanthropy This Week
• PRI: The Changing World

Other economics podcasts

Tim Harford (author, and FT leader writer) has just compiled a list of the best economics podcasts.

Earlier this year, Lant Pritchett and Michael Clemens laid down a challenge to development policy thinking:

Development is about people, not places; the development benefits of labor mobility are enormous; and the costs of greater labor mobility, sorely feared, are often exaggerated. The next step for global development policy might be to take labor mobility seriously as a powerful weapon in the fight to give all people on earth the same opportunities that most readers of this chapter now enjoy.

The benefits of migration for development

We know that migration can make a hugely important contribution to development.  It benefits the migrants themselves, enabling them to increase their own incomes and lift themselves and their families out of poverty. It also benefits the countries from which migrants come, as Ireland and Norway found in the nineteenth century. Remittances to less developed countries are now about $325 billion per year, much more than $120 billion a year of official aid. These remittances, for the most part, go directly into the hands of low-income people and they rise faster than aid after natural disasters.  Migration is also an important driver of technology transfer and knowledge sharing which contributes to long term economic growth.  It can improve leadership and governance: two thirds of developing-country heads of state or heads of government studied and lived abroad before they returned to lead. Of the 21 cabinet ministers of Singapore, 20 have an advanced degree from outside Asia and almost all have extensive work experience outside Asia.

Economists have estimated that a relaxation of rich countries’ restrictions on temporary labour mobility of about 3% of their labour forces would raise developing country welfare by an amount roughly equal to total annual global aid flows (see here and here). The British government already knows this: the papers were co-authored by Alan Winters, now Chief Economist at DFID.  Unlike aid, a small increase in labour mobility would cost rich countries nothing: on the contrary, it would cause their own economies to grow.

Why so little reaction to changes in UK policy?

Yet supporters of international development have been reluctant to take up the cause of increasing immigration, perhaps because it is politically unpopular in rich countries. (Michael Clemens at the Center for Global Development, and Sarah Mulley at IPPR stand tall as honourable exceptions to this generalisation.)

Fear of championing a politically unpopular cause might be why there has been little reaction in development circles to last week’s announcement of changes to UK immigration policy.

The new British stance is likely to have significant adverse effects on people in developing countries.  Because free movement of people within the EU is guaranteed by treaty, the UK government can cut total migration only by clamping down on migration from countries outside the EU.  Under the previous policy, people from developing countries faced implicit discrimination because of the “previous salary” provisions; now Tier 1 General immigration has been almost completely abolished, closing off one one possible route for immigrants from developing countries. The government has announced that it will sharply reduce the number of students coming from abroad. Students make up almost two thirds of the non-EU migrants entering the UK each year.  More than 40% of the student visas are for study below degree level, which the government plans to end altogether.  I have not been able to find a breakdown of the country of origin of these students, but it is a fair bet that the majority are from developing countries. The government also plans to end completely the link between temporary migration (eg for students) and the ability to settle permanently, and it is consulting about stopping post-study visas.  All this is a very big deal for developing countries, both because it will reduce immigration from developing countries and because it will limit access to education and skills transfer.

I was struck that that the possible impact on development and poverty was not mentioned by any member of Parliament in the debate.  Do MPs not know that this will have a significant impact on developing countries, or do they not care?

As well as being bad news for developing countries, the policy of reducing the number of students from abroad is also bad news for Britain – not just for educational institutions whose markets will shrink, but for the loss of lifelong connections that former students in Britain take away with them, with adverse effects for our reputation, influence and commerce abroad.

The impact on rich countries of immigration

Immigration remains a hugely sensitive political issue in the UK.  Some people are concerned about the economic effects: on jobs and incomes, and increased demand for public services such as education, housing and welfare.  These economic worries don’t stand up to scrutiny. The suggested impact on jobs relies on the mistaken idea that ‘there is only so much work to be done’ and that a job given to an immigrant is one fewer for someone else.  Immigrants increase demand in the economy as well as the labour supply, so immigration will not, on its own, lead to an increase in unemployment.  Nor does immigration reduce wages for native-born workers – on the contrary, the evidence is that immigration leads to a small but positive increase in wages resulting from increased demand. There may be some negative effects on the wages of low-paid workers, especially on the wages of previous immigrants; but given that the overall effect is positive, these distributional effects can easily be offset with appropriate tax and spending policies.  On balance, immigrants make a huge contribution to the economy.  Nor is immigration a drain on the public finances.  A UK Home Office study estimated that immigrants paid in 10% more in taxes than they received in public services and benefits, compared to only a 5% ‘surplus’ for the UK-born population.  A subsequent study by IPPR found that in times of deficit, immigrants made a small contribution to the deficit, albeit smaller than UK-born citizens.  Either way, the effect on public finances is small.  It suggests, however, that the government should be more agile about ensuring that spending on public services responds quickly to changing population patterns so that public services in particular communities do not come under pressure when there is a rise in the number of immigrants there.

Other people are concerned about the social effect of increasing diversity of distinctive cultures in our society. Providing reassurance about that is beyond my competence as an economist; but speaking personally I value living in a diverse society and dislike intolerance of difference.

I don’t want to be dismissive of the fears and concerns of the population about greater immigration, though the evidence suggests that the overall economic effects are positive.  But even if there were negative effects, that would have to be weighed against the hugely positive impact for both the immigrants themselves, and for developing countries as a whole.   We have obligations to other people, including those who did not have the good fortune to be born in the UK; and almost any other way of discharging those obligations will be more expensive to us than permitting greater migration, which is likely to be on balance to our advantage.

Recognising the impact on global poverty

I’m an optimist, but I’m not delusional:  I know that concern about global poverty is not going to convince politicians to open the country’s borders in the face of domestic political concerns about immigration.  But that does not mean that development advocates should surrender. If the government is determined to have a tighter immigration policy, let’s make sure that the details of the policy are development friendly.  The business lobby has managed to persuade the government to relax restrictions on transfers within firms. If overall immigration is capped, and powerful lobbyists secure a relaxation of the kinds of immigration they favour, the burden of the reductions will fall on those who have little voice and nobody willing to speak for them.

The absence of any apparent interest in the development impact of this new immigration policy has convinced me that there should be a requirement on the government to publish a quantified poverty impact assessment of any policy proposals which are likely to have a significant effect on the people of the developing world, including immigration, trade, intellectual property, climate change, and arms sales.  I don’t imagine that this would change policies overnight, but a requirement to produce and publish such an analysis might concentrate the minds of policy-makers and and their advisers on whether there are ways to adjust the details of the policy in a way which does less harm, and perhaps some good, for development.

Under the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006, the UK Secretary of State for International Development is required to publish an annual report containing “such general or specific observations as he thinks appropriate on the effects of policies and programmes pursued by Government departments on (a) the promotion of sustainable development in countries outside the United Kingdom, (b) the reduction of poverty in such countries.” I hope that the Secretary of State, who has a strong personal commitment to transparency, will consider it appropriate to include in the next report observations about the effect on development and poverty of these changes to immigration policy.

Finally, Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times notes in his blog that the government’s new immigration policy won’t tackle the underlying problems that has made this a political issue. He concludes:

So, unable effectively to tackle the kind of immigration that actually upsets people, the British government is taking aim at the one group of migrants that are largely uncontroversial and that unambiguously contribute to the country’s well-being. What idiocy.

But how do we value diversity in the aid business, when the prevailing consensus, embodied in the Paris Declaration, is that proliferation of aid agencies is a growing problem which is making aid less effective?

The aid system could in principle benefit from the emergence of new kinds of donors (specialised multilaterals such as GAVI, new donors such as China and Brazil, philanthropic foundations such as Gates, private non-profits such as Marie Stopes) working alongside conventional bilateral and multilateral aid.  Different kinds of organisations could bring particular strengths which complement each other’s work.

However, in practice these different types of organisation do not seem to be playing to their strengths. Like kids playing football, everybody follows the ball instead of holding their position on the pitch.

Proliferation is a significant problem

We will come to the benefits of diversity among donors. But first let’s acknowledge that proliferation is causing real problems on the ground. Developing countries are having to deal with a large and growing number of partners, each with separate agendas, priorities, and requirements. Meetings, reports, milestones and systems multiply. Skilled staff are hired away to serve in local agency offices or NGOs. Funding is fragmented and unpredictable, which means that developing countries are often unable to bring together the scale of long-term, predictable finance needed to undertake significant institutional reform and service delivery. Donors lose influence, because they undermine each other; and yet developing countries are not able to keep track of, let alone exercise sufficient ownership and control over, an increasingly fragmented system of aid delivery. Public accountability is impossible, since nobody has a clear view of what resources are being used, by whom, or for what purpose. Donors face rising administrative costs when agencies proliferate, and the costs of coordination and harmonization rise exponentially with the number of aid agencies.

Here are three real life examples of the problems that are caused by the proliferation of aid agencies:

• In Vietnam, it took 18 months and the involvement of 150 government workers to purchase five vehicles for  a donor-funded project, because of differences in procurement policies among aid agencies. (source: Knack/World Bank)
• In 2007 alone the EU countries launched 22,000 new aid projects inn developing countries, with an average budget of €0.7-1 million. The total costs of preparing new projects by EU donors (not the money needed to fund them, just the administrative cost of putting them in place) is estimated at between €2-3 billion per year. (source: EU)
• In the aftermath of the tsunami disaster a local doctor in Banda Aceh, one of the most affected areas, wrote: “In February, in Riga (close to Calang) we had a case of measles, a little girl. Immediately, all epidemiologists of Banda Aceh came in, because they were afraid of a propagation of measles among displaced people, but the little girl recovered very fast. Then, we realized that this was not a normal case of measles and we discovered that this girl has received the same vaccine three times, from three different organizations. The measles symptoms were a result of the three vaccines she received.” (source: Djankov et al)

(For more examples of proliferation badness, take a look at ‘The Governance of the aid system and the role of the EU’ by Owen Barder, Simon Maxwell, Mikaela Gavas and Deborah Johnson.)

Different types of agency could make different contributions

These problems are caused by a growing number of aid agencies doing broadly the same thing.  That proliferation imposes substantial costs on donors and on recipient countries and this makes aid much less effective.  The question is whether there are also benefits to having this large number of agencies, compared to delivering the same amount of money through fewer channels.

In principle a greater variety of different types of donor, if they focused on their specialisms, could strengthen the aid system, because they can make different kinds of contribution which could complement both existing donors and each other.

Here are some ways in which different types of donor can make different contributions:

• Philanthropic foundations, such as Gates, Ford, Hewlett and Rockefeller, are still tiny in comparison to government aid agencies, but they are increasingly important in particular sectors, notably health.   In their recent book, Philanthrocapitalism, Matt Bishop and Mike Green argue that the growth of philanthropic giving should be welcomed, because these foundations bring a “businesslike approach to solving society’s problems”.  According to this view, philanthropic donors bring new attitudes and ways of working. Foundations are frequently founded by successful entrepreneurs, so they may be more inclined to operate along business principles, such as making decisions based on evidence, tightly controlling overheads, adopting new technologies, and focusing more sharply on results. They may be willing to take more risks and accept more failures in return for bigger success than risk averse governments. Foundations may be more able and inclined to work closely with the private sector, which plays a key role in development, which official agencies have not found easy to do.  Because foundations do not depend on public support for future funding, they may be willing to support unpopular causes, or investments which do not easily capture the public imagination (e.g. supporting statistical systems in developing countries).
• New government donors such as China and Brazil are playing an increasingly important role (though the Economist was wrong to suggest that Brazil’s aid budget is comparable to that of Canada and Sweden).  This has caused concern among traditional donors, who worry that their implicit cartel is undermined by donors that are less concerned about governance and human rights, and that are prepared to be more open about its desire for access to raw materials and minerals. These new donors do not feel constrained to follow the DAC development model, and in many ways developing countries prefer the approach which tends to respect the sovereignty and ownership of developing countries. These donors rarely poach skilled staff; and they do not overstretch developing country governments with meetings, reports and workshops.   They are also willing to invest in sectors that the DAC donors have moved away from, such as infrastructure, irrigation and university scholarships.
• The number of private charities is also growing, funded both by institutional donors and by private giving. Here in Ethiopia there are about 3,500 NGOs, spending about $1.5 billion a year (compared to the Ethiopian government budget which is about $4 billion a year). Private aid through charities tends to focus on supporting communities and individuals rather than governments. It tends to be more opportunistic and closer to the ground. These organisations can bring about results more directly although it is harder to bring about systemic change this way.
• Specialised multilateral global organizations – such as the Global Fund against AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM) – continue to grow in number. In principle, they can bring apply specialist skills and expertise, they can learn more systematically and spread knowledge more quickly, they can bring together a number of different donors, the public and the private sector to work in a more joined-up way on a particular issue, and they can raise money from the public because they can be more specific about what they do.

This changing landscape could benefit the aid system …

In an ideal world, if these different development actors played to their strengths, and stuck to their specialities, this growing diversity could strengthen the international aid system as a whole. Foundations could act like venture capitalists: taking bigger risks, and backing it up with rigorous evaluation and evidence, but leaving long-term financing of scaled up successes to official aid donors. Official aid agencies could focus on long term funding and resource transfer, and they could provide sustained support for institutional change and capacity. Private aid could focus on achieving community and individual level results. Specialised global organizations could provide particular expertise not available through generalist support. The growing number of official donors could build up expertise in particular countries or topics, and specialise in these, and they could respond to evidence generated by foundations and NGOs about what works, by taking those activities to scale.

If these actors could all focus on their strengths, and if the aid system enabled them to work together well, these changes in the development landscape might substantially improve the effectiveness of development assistance.

… but in practice it does not work like that

That’s all very well in theory, but most people working in the aid business will tell you that back on planet earth, it doesn’t work like that.

Rather than differentiate, development organisations have strong incentives to converge.  So instead of specialisation we get duplication.  The philanthropic foundations say that they have a more entrepreneurial, risk-taking approach; anecdotal experience suggests that in many cases they prefer the implicit validation of being part of a multi-donor group.  (This may be a form of political correctness: agencies seem to think that the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness requires that they be part of a shared funding arrangement rather than doing anything alone.)

For example, consider the bandwagon on restoring funding of health systems.  Increasing the funding of health systems is something of which all right-thinking people should approve.  The arrival of the big global health initiatives, particularly GFATM and GAVI, coincided with a collapse in funding for health systems which led to many unnecessary deaths in developing countries. Donors are now seeing that the shift away from health systems to vertical funds was an error (one which was predictable and predicted), and the pendulum is swinging back to funding health systems.  The institution with the mandate and greatest capacity for supporting developing countries to strengthen their health systems is the World Bank. So why are the Global Fund and GAVI being allowed on the health systems bandwagon?  The logic of establishing these specialised multilateral agencies was that they would bring particular depth and expertise to specific activities which would be available from more generalised aid agencies. If we offer competition to World Bank concessional loans in the form of grant finance through GAVI and and the Global Fund, most developing countries will look to these institutions instead.  As a result of the proliferation of health funds offering grant finance for health systems, the core role and capacity of the World Bank is eroded, and we put at risk the benefits of specialisation by GFATM and GAVI.   Similarly, the International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) was set up to enable donors to secure the benefits of front loading spending on vaccination, for which there is a clear economic rationale.  Now it is proposed that it should also finance health systems: if there is an economic rationale for using IFFIm on health systems, I’d like to hear about it.

What’s missing?

The growing number and diversity of development organisations could be a source of strength in the aid system, if different organisations could stick to their specialities and if they worked in an aid environment which enabled them to work together effectively.

In competitive markets, firms tend to focus on their strengths, because this is how they make the biggest profits. Firms that diversify into another line of business either need to make a success of that new work, or they will start to make losses and eventually decide to withdraw or they will go bust. So appropriate specialisation is the consequence of individual decisions by profit-maximising firms, and not a result of a collective compromise.

Unfortunately, the political economy of aid encourages the opposite behaviour.    The “operating system” which supports the work of aid agencies creates pressures against specialisation.  For example:

• Organisations which work collaboratively and holistically across a wide range of activities are likely to attract more donor funding than organisations which are effective in a particular niche.  One reason for this is that many donors either don’t have, or don’t systematically use , information about impact and cost effectiveness when they make resource allocation decisions – so there are rewards for aid organisations getting involved in as many activities as possible, and no penalty if this mission creep makes them less effective.
• Lack of transparency and access to information about who is doing what means that organisations cannot make sensible individual decisions about how they can increase their own impact with finite resources and avoid duplication.
• There are no mechanisms by which innovative ideas can be pioneered by foundations or NGOs and, if they are successful, taken up and taken to scale by official donors and multilateral funders. There too little venture capital to support innovation; too little rigorous analysis of what actually works; and the mechanisms for taking successful programmes to scale are too unpredictable and capricious.
• Donors, NGOs and foundations are all under pressure from well-meaning activists to be engaged in everything everywhere.   For example, last year the Lancet criticized the Gates Foundation saying that it should “do more to invest in health systems and research capacity in low-income countries, leaving a sustainable footprint”.  DFID is criticised for a perceived lack of investment in agricultural research.  In a sane world it would be perfectly sensible for the Gates Foundation, which has very little in-country presence, to fund technological research in health and agriculture, but not to invest in health systems in developing countries; and for DFID, which has an extremely professional presence on the ground in developing countries, to invest in developing country systems but not to spend money on research, in which it has no discernible comparative advantage.  We could have the same total spending on both research and systems, managed by organisations specializing in those activities and reducing coordination and transaction costs.  But development activists and politics apparently make such a division of labour impossible for both organisations.
• The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and Accra Agenda for Action are being implemented in ways which create strong peer pressure on donors to collaborate and harmonise, to engage in pooled funding and joint activities, rather than to diversify and specialise.  Where there are efforts towards a better division of labour (e.g. this EU initiative), the approach is based simply on getting down the numbers by committee, rather than creating incentives which push development agencies towards focusing on the areas in which they have a comparative advantage.

What should we do?

The proliferation of development organisations, which could be a great strength, is instead becoming a growing handicap for the aid system, because the system is not well adapted to taking advantage of that diversity and encouraging appropriate specialisation.

Some possible measures that might address this are:

• a step change increase in transparency about aid.  The International Aid Transparency Initiative offers the promise of this, as it will provide up-to-date, detailed information about aid projects in an accessible form.
• agreement to an international standardized system for describing and measuring outputs and unit costs, to facilitate cost-effectiveness comparisons across development organisations;
• explicit use of unit costs and cost-effectiveness in aid allocation decisions, in a way that penalises organisations which are engaged in activities in which they are relatively ineffective
• the development of a mechanism for “venture capital” funding with an associated process for scaling up success;
• self-restraint by development activists who do more harm than good by trying to push every development organisation to be involved in everything.

As ever, I’d welcome further suggestions in the comments section.

In the meantime, I am dead impressed by this collection of very accessible briefs from the House of Commons Library (of all places). The briefs are easy to understand, and they will be useful for people who are trying to write good analysis as well as for people who want to understand the statistics that they are reading.

Here are links to the briefs (all of which are pdf files):

• What is a billion? And other units
• How to understand and calculate Percentages
• Index numbers
• Rounding and significant places
• Measures of average and spread
• How to read charts
• How to spot spin and inappropriate use of statistics
• A basic outline of samples and sampling
• Confidence intervals and statistical significance
• A basic outline of regression analysis
• Uncertainty and risk
• How to adjust for inflation
• Chart format guide

Hat tip: Flowing Data and Lone Gunman

You can think of patents as a kind of prize.  When you invent a new product, the government gives you the right to operate a temporary monopoly. This enables you to charge more than the marginal cost, and the premium is your “prize”. This arrangement has the huge advantage that it links your reward to the amount people are willing to pay for your invention, so it encourages innovations that people actually value.

This kind of prize as a reward for innovation may be fine for a new kind of vacuum cleaner, or for Lady Gaga’s latest album. But it has two big disadvantages which are especially relevant for people who live in developing countries.

First, the use of patents prevents some people from benefiting from the new technology if they are unable to pay the higher price.  If a company develops a drug for heart disease, or a more efficient form of solar panel, the patent will enable them to charge much more than marginal cost for their product. That’s how the inventor gets paid. But the result is that millions of people will not be able to afford that product – though they might be able to afford it at marginal cost. The temporary monopoly results in fewer people benefiting from new technologies than ought to benefit, in the sense that those people would be willing and able to pay the marginal cost.  This is potentially a big welfare cost to society as a whole. It means, for example, that people may die of heart disease because they can’t afford the high price of the drugs, even though they could buy the drug if it were sold at marginal cost; or they can’t use new fertilizers or seed technologies, even though the benefits to them of doing so exceed the cost.

Second, if we reward inventors by granting them temporary monopolies, we only create incentives to develop products for which there are likely to be enough consumers wealthy enough to pay a monopoly price.   Nobody will invent a vaccine against malaria, or a cassava plant that resists mosaic virus, based on the possible rewards they will get from charging high prices to its consumers.  So the patent system is a prize for people who invent cures for baldness, but not a prize for people who invent ways to prevent the spread of malaria.

For these reasons, other incentives, such as prizes, Advance Market Commitments, and similar mechanisms, may be effective either as alternatives or complements to the patent prize of a temporary monopoly, especially for technologies that would have benefits in developing countries.

The Economist quotes Tachi Yamada, the president of Global Health at the Gates Foundation, as suggesting that Advance Market Commitments or prizes may not work well for drugs that require a long time to develop:

Tachi Yamada of the Gates Foundation is a big believer in giving incentive prizes, but gives warning that it can take 15 years or more to bring a new drug to market, and that even AMC’s carrot of $1.5 billion for new vaccines may not be a big enough incentive. No prize could match the $20 billion or so a new blockbuster drug can earn in its lifetime. So, in some cases, says Dr Yamada, “market success is the real prize.”

This seems to reflect the suggestion that is sometimes made that Advance Market Commitments may not be appropriate for for early stage drugs, but the economics of this argument is faulty.

It is clearly true that the reward for bringing to market an early stage medicine, such as an AIDS or malaria vaccine, would need to be higher, both because of the greater uncertainty and risk of failure, and because the rewards are further in the future.  So an AMC for an early stage product would probably need to be larger than for a late stage product that just needs some tweaking for use in developing countries and some investment in bigger production facilities.  But let’s not overstate this.  The median total market size for new chemical entities that pharmaceutical companies actually bring to market is about $3-$4 billion.  Most medicines are not $20 billion blockbusters.  So $3-$4 billion is roughly the market size that the private sector considers sufficient reward to develop new medicines.   We don’t need to match the blockbusters.  An AMC of $4 billion might well be enough to incentivize the development of a malaria vaccine: and let’s not forget that if it turns out not to be enough, it won’t have cost the funders anything.

Furthermore, just as the firms discount the prize by the risk of failure, the funders should similarly discount the cost.  If there is a 25% chance that no vaccine will be developed (because the technology is uncertain) then firms will discount the “prize” – that is, the value of the committed market – when they make their investment decisions.  But in this case, the expected cost to the funders of a $4 billion pledge is $3 billion, and this is what they should include in their value for money calculation.  That means that even though the nominal amount that has to be promised for an early stage product needs to be higher for a given impact on R&D, to take account of the probability of failure, the expected cost to funders is not higher.

The same point can be put another way.  A high probability of failure makes all investment in R&D less attractive, but it does not make AMCs relatively less attractive than other forms of funding.  When the probability of failure is high, the expected return from each dollar spent encouraging innovation is lower. This is true if that dollar is spent up-front in the form of research grants of the kinds normally given by aid agencies and foundations (since the higher probability of failure reduces the expected benefits of the grant), or in the form of a prize or promised market (since the higher probability of failure reduces the expected benefit to firms, and so reduces the incentive for them to invest in R&D).  The effect is the same either way. Higher probability of failure is clearly bad, but it does not make AMCs relatively less efficient as a way to pay for research for early stage products.

Whether an AMC for an early stage product is good value for money depends ultimately on the value of the product.  If donors were to spend $4 billion buying a malaria vaccine for use in developing countries, it would be a hugely good investment, saving millions of lives a year at a fraction of the price of many other interventions. It would result in huge savings on trying to prevent malaria in other ways, or treat to treat malaria; and the resulting reduction in the burden of malaria would have huge economic benefits for developing countries. Given that there is no question that donors would want to spend at least $4 billion paying for a malaria vaccine to be used across the developing world, it is inefficient for them not to say so right away, and thereby create incentives for private sector investment in accelerating its development.  The risk of poor value for money in aid spending comes not from making the commitment, but from failing to do so.

When Dr Yamada says that “market success is the real prize”, he seems to be missing the point that market success is not a good way of rewarding innovation for developing countries.   If we rely on market success, in the form of a temporary monopoly, to reward innovation then we will exclude half the world’s population from being able to access technologies developed with rich markets in mind, such as drugs against cancer and heart disease, clean energy, new agricultural technologies, or new software.  And “market success” creates no incentive to develop technologies which primarily benefit the world’s poor such as a vaccine against malaria or a variety of cassava that resists the mosaic virus, because inventors know that the people in poor countries cannot afford the monopoly prices that would enable inventors to recover their costs.

Fortunately my partner has reality-based beliefs.

What is striking about the class of poverty professionals (of whom I am one) is that the good living (granted, not at the billionaire or millionaire level, but pretty good nevertheless) is made through the very process of analyzing, writing, recommending on poverty. To me, at least, this is discomforting and disconcerting. I feel slightly ashamed within myself when I turn up to a poverty conference (perhaps even one where I am the keynote speaker), having flown business class, staying in an expensive hotel and (sometimes) being paid handsomely for attending. I recall many years ago, when I was in my twenties, telling the anthropologist Mary Douglas about how I was starting to do consulting for the World Bank on poverty issues, and how important it was to do this work. “And it’s not too bad for one’s own poverty either, is it?” came her worldly, knowing, reply. The seeds of discomfort sown by that comment have germinated and taken root, and now won’t let go.

Ravi suggests that everyone working in development should reconnect with poverty through a poverty immersion:

each poverty professional should engage in an “exposure” to poverty (also known as “immersions”) every 12 to 18 months. I do not mean by this rural sector missions for aid agency officials, nor the running of training workshops by NGO staff. What I mean is well captured by Eyben (2004); these are exercises that “are designed for visitors to stay for a period of several days, living with their hosts as participants, as well as observers, in their daily lives. They are distinct from project monitoring or highly structured ‘red carpet’ trips when officials make brief visits to a village or an urban slum….”

A friend of mine from DFID did this recently and came back saying how valuable it was.  I am in favour of immersions, though I don’t think it gets close to addressing the problem that Ravi is grappling with.

This reminds me that in March 2008, the Conservative development spokesman (and, since yesterday, the UK Secretary of State for International Development) announced that all DFID staff would be required to undertake a week-long immersion living in a poorer community. Andrew Mitchell said:

These immersions will serve as a valuable ‘reality check’ from the usual round of meetings, paperwork and spreadsheets. It will help keep everyone at DfID focused on their core mission: serving and helping poor people to work their way, sustainably, out of poverty.

I hope that they will implement this proposal now that they are in Government, and I hope DFID’s new Ministers will consider doing an immersion themselves, perhaps during the summer recess.

(via Suvojit)

We understand that all the main parties are committed to increasing aid to 0.7% of GDP, with some relatively minor differences about how that would be used.  But if we are serious about development, we need to look beyond aid to address the circumstances in which developing countries are trying to establish economic growth and political stability.  Our other policies – for example, on trade, climate change or immigration – make a huge difference to how quickly poor countries can develop.  Will you, as Prime Minister, be willing to make changes to UK policies which are against the immediate interests of a group of UK citizens – for example, arms exporters or pharmaceutical firms – but which support our collective longer term interest in seeing a fairer, safer and more prosperous world?  If so, what concessions would you make?

The development policy discussion in the UK has focused too much on aid.  As I’ve argued here today, aid is important, because it helps to improve people’s lives while their countries are developing.  But I don’t think aid is the most important factor in accelerating development – for that it is much more important whether we adopt fair global polices on climate change, trade, agriculture, immigration, intellectual property, conflict, corruption and international governance.

The manifestos are largely quiet on how the political parties would address these issues, and they have not yet been pushed to address it.  I think this is because so many people who work in development are dependent for their income on aid, so they tend to judge parties’ policies by their willingness to increase it.  A worthy and notable exception is Alison Evans at ODI, who is always smart, who picks this up in her recent blog post on development in the election:

.. a crucial question is whether there is any a wider read-across from the manifestos to the international development agenda?  Development is not only about aid and there is a danger that the allure of the 0.7 debate can and will detract from a much wider set of policy concerns that impact on the prospects for growth and prosperity in developing countries.  Each of the manifestos cover growth, trade, immigration, security and climate change – all  areas in which the debate about international development policy and global poverty reduction is increasingly engaged – but  none of them spell out in any detail what this means for the way their governments would work on these agendas or how the funding would work. Where is the coherence between policies and between policies and implementation?

This is exactly the right question to ask (it is a pity that the post is entitled: “main parties pledge 0.7% for aid but how will it be spent?”). We have been assured that the three largest parties are committed to retaining DFID as a separate government department, with its own Cabinet Minister, and with a budget that rises to meet the UK’s commitment to increase aid to 0.7% of GDP.  But if they are serious about development then DFID will also need to have an important role right across the government, ensuring that the UK’s interests in development are taken into account when the government considers other policies from immigration to climate change.  That does not mean that the development interests should always trump the UK’s other national interests, but they should be considered and there will often be ways to adjust the details of the policy in a way that costs us little but has a huge impact on the developing world.

If we want to help to accelerate development, then some of the time we will need to put the UK’s broad, long-term interest in  building a safer, more equal and prosperous world ahead of the UK’s narrower and short-term commercial or political interests.  The most important international development question for the UK election should be: which of the political parties is willing to do that?

As  Labour puts the finishing touches to its election manifesto, sources familiar with the process say that a new big idea is taking shape. The proposal is to extend the concept of  “earned autonomy” in public services  down to individuals.  Labour plans to put every citizen who has completed full-time education into prison.   Citizens will then be able to earn their way out, by getting a job and using their spare time for voluntary service to the community. When they demonstrate that they are not terrorists, and when they can prove that they do not have any kind of mental illness that predisposes them towards a crime, they will move first to an open prison from which they can get a job, and eventually to their own homes.   People close to Ministers say that they have been impressed with how well this approach has worked with asylum seekers, who start off imprisoned until they can demonstrate their value to society, and think that this approach would be popular in seats where Labour is alarmed by the rising popularity of the British National Party.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a minister familiar with the details of the manifesto said:

Hard working families will welcome these steps.  Honest, law abiding citizens have nothing to fear. Where individuals demonstrate the capacity and capability to do more we want to work with them to test how greater individual control can deliver more effectively and more efficiently.  We want a new relationship between the citizen and government, one based on a partnership approach to delivery. It is not sufficient to say that citizens should have more control and freedom; this is a partnership and citizens need to be clear as to what they are asking us for, and how changes will benefit everyone.   We are ready to cede control where individuals can demonstrate that they will use those freedoms effectively, but greater control must be balanced with responsibility and accountability.

Owen Barder
1 April, 2010

The Times criticizes the Conservative Party for their commitment to maintain the planned increases in development spending. The leader recycles discredited assertions about the negative effects of aid rather than offering solid analysis.  There isn’t a single reputable econometric study showing that aid causes harm through  exchange rate appreciations, corruption or slowing progress to democracy.   Peter Bauer, whom the leader article quotes, was criticising Cold War foreign assistance programmes which bear little resemblance to aid programmes today. Aid today is increasingly practical, targeted and measurable, just as The Times says it should be, and it works.

Britain was one of 147 countries which pledged we would “spare no effort” to meet the Millennium Development Goals. As The Times implies, we should not be judged on what we spend but on what we achieve. On this basis we are not yet doing enough to achieve the goals to which we are committed.  That is why it is important that Britain should continue to increase its world-class development programme, and press other nations to increase their spending too.  To resist this on the grounds that 0.7% is an arbitrary figure is a clever-sounding point for a debating society, not a reasoned argument against the commitment of all the main political parties to meet Britain’s international promises, and to press other countries to do the same.

From the other end of the political spectrum, Kevin Watkins in The Guardian seems to be determined to use development to score party political points – and to do so he has had to put himself in the strange position of arguing against the country-led approach to development which is supported by all main UK political parties.

Under the Labour Government Britain has helped build an international consensus that aid works best in support of a country’s own development strategy; that policies imposed from outside rarely work; and that governments should be accountable to their own citizens for their policies and actions.  Kevin Watkins rightly supports these points in other contexts. Yet he apparently won’t entertain the idea that other countries may have different views from his (and mine) about the best way to organise and fund public services.

I’ve read the Conservative Green Paper and it does not call for state services to be rolled back in developing countries. It says that governments should guarantee access to education for all their people; and that donors should fund that guarantee and support and encourage governments to choose whatever path enables them to expand education provision fast and effectively.  It does not propose or advocate market-based solutions in education: it says explicitly that the Conservatives would work with the public, not-for-profit and private sectors.

Kevin Watkins quotes the Green Paper saying “We bring a natural scepticism about government schemes“; this is the entire basis of his claim that “the Conservatives will use aid to roll back the state in key services“.  But it is clear when you read this sentence in context that the Conservatives are questioning the role of the government in aid, not planning to tell other countries how they should manage their public services.

There is now a valuable cross-party consensus on the need to use aid money to support countries’ own development priorities and programmes.  The challenge today is how to bring public sector reform to the aid business – including the possibility of some market-like disciplines to make aid more effective and accountable.  There are proposals in both the Government White Paper and the Conservative Green Paper to make aid more transparent and accountable and to link it more closely to results. Kevin Watkins might have used his space to tell us what he thinks about these ideas instead of trying to score party political points on development.

(By the way, I admire Kevin Watkins, but I’m not comfortable with the fact that a UNESCO official, paid from public funds, is using his position to make highly partisan and inaccurate attacks in the newspapers on the main UK opposition party. )

I’ve got no party political axe to grind: my interest is in supporting the best possible policies to accelerate development, so that the world is a fairer, happier and safer place for everyone.  It seems odd that the Conservatives should be attacked from both left and right for articulating development policies which seem to me squarely in the mainstream of development thinking.

The cross-party consensus that the UK’s development budget should continue to increase, and that British development policy is amongst the most effective in the world but nonetheless there is room for improvement, should be a matter of shared national pride, not scorn and sniping from whichever direction.  Let’s sustain that consensus, and not allow development policy to be used as a political football even in the heat of an election campaign.

Update: see Kevin’s reply in the comments.

As well thiking it was the wrong decision in principle, I worried that a company that says one thing (“Don’t Be Evil”) and does another will eventually suffer from the contradiction between their values and their actions.

So I applaud their announcement today that they are taking a new approach in China and their threat to pull out of the market.

(Ironically, Google’s own blog is censored here in Ethiopia. You cannot access blogspot blogs.)

Google is standing up to dictatorship and speaking out for free speech, and putting this ahead of their immediate commercial interests.

It is hard to imagine other companies standing up for their – and our – values in this way. (Can you imagine Microsoft withdrawing their Bing search engine instead of producing sanitized results?)

Bloggers are quick to criticise when companies do the wrong thing.  So let’s be equally unstinting in our praise when they do things right.

Good on yer, Google.

I’m glad that Duncan and Chris, his Oxfam colleague,  endorse a key argument of the paper, which is that the development industry will improve through evolutionary change rather than grand design; and that a driver of this change will be better mechanisms feedback from the citizens of developing countries about what is working. The paper points out that this kind of evolutionary change comes from variation and selection – and that the aid business does not have enough of either to ensure evolution towards more effective aid.

Duncan and Chris  have reservations about the word “beneficiary” to describe the people in developing countries whom aid is intended to support.  I think that is a good point, and I’d be happy to use a different word if we can find a suitable alternative (I don’t think that “primary stakeholder” or “rights holder” takes the trick, since neither is sufficiently specific about who we mean).

I don’t want to put words in Duncan’s mouth, but I detect from his review that he is more sceptical than me about the value of markets. He dismisses without much fanfare the  the idea of giving more choice to the, er, “intended beneficiaries” (aka primary stakeholders and rights-holders):

Where I think he is wrong is a largely market based philosophy for creating incentives based on New Public Management theories of expanding choice more than voice. … This in turn requires some quite fundamental organisational change with in aid agencies, as well as establishing more citizen to citizen links possibly using new social media.’

That is an unfair characterisation of my view: I am in favour of choice AND voice.  A large part of the paper, especially when talking about networks, is precisely about how citizens can have more voice, and I talk explicitly about citizens links through new social media.  But there are huge problems to overcome in achieving this, because the “intended beneficiaries” are geographically and politically remote from decision-makers in aid agencies, which means their voice is dimly heard, if at all.

While I agree with Duncan on the need to ensure that people have voice, I find it surprising that he (in common with many people who regard themselves as progressive) is so reluctant to give choice where possible as well.   Duncan’s (excellent) book is called From Poverty To Power – and I believe that giving people direct control of resources and allowing them to choose what services they want, and from whom, can be one of the most important ways of empowering people.  Duncan calls this a “technocratic/new labour enthusiasm for using market mechanisms” – but the idea of giving the poor more direct control of resources goes back long before New Labour:  Oxfam’s honorary President, Amartya Sen, got a Nobel prize for his 1982 book, Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, which argued that it would be better to give people money than food in a famine.

I have not swallowed the New Public Management story hook, line and sinker, but I do believe that there have been positive experiences (for example, from the publication of league tables, and the distinction between purchaser and provider).  While I think we should learn from new public management, my paper describes in some detail the shortcomings of a market-only approach, especially as it relates to foreign assistance.  I hoped my paper would be an elegant synthesis of some of the best (and proven) tools of this school of thought with lessons from other approaches, especially the use of complementary mechanisms of networks, voice, regulation and planning.

The aid industry has almost entirely evaded the reform of public services over the last decade.   There is no measurement of results; no distinction between purchaser and provider; no customer choice.  Presumably the lack of reform is partly because the shortcomings of the industry are felt by people with no political power or voice in the political systems of donor countries. The incumbent service providers are politically powerful, well organised, and deeply conservative about any change that affects their interests.  The aid system has, over time, drawn to it people who are sceptical about the value of markets and choice, saddling developing countries instead with five year plans and long coordination meetings.  No politician in a donor country is enthusiastic to take on these vested interests, in order to improve services for people they will never meet and who have no vote in the election.

Michael’s approach is an enviable combination of analytical rigour and strong ethicaal principles.  This 25 minute video is a powerful argument for why we can, and should, remove government restrictions on where people can live and work.

Because the total resources available are less than the needs, it is very important how they are used.  If poor decisions are made about the allocation of precious aid resources, the result can be additional suffering and death for millions of people.

This post why I think that attempts from outside to argue for aid to be earmarked for particular causes can lead to unnecessary deaths and suffering.  Aid works, but it could work better, and many sectoral advocates are not helping.

***

A striking example is the amount of money donors earmark for spending on HIV and AIDS here in Ethiopia.

Government spending on health in Ethiopia comes to about $4 per person per year.  According to OECD/DAC data, foreign aid for health in 2007 added about $5.15 per person to the government’s resources, bringing the total of government and aid resources to about $9 – $10 per person per year. (As an aside: health spending per person per year in the UK is about $2,000 per person per year; in the US it is about $4,500.)

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), in Ethiopia about 65% of the population (52 million people) live in areas at risk of malaria. Malaria is the leading cause of health problems, responsible for about 27% of deaths; and malaria epidemics are increasing. The HIV/AIDS prevalence rate among adults is 2.1% (2007) – that’s about 1.6 million people living with HIV.

Of $5.15 per head provided in aid for health to Ethiopia in 2007, about $3.18 per head was earmarked for HIV  while about $0.26 cents per head was allocated to malaria control.  Given the relatively low burden of HIV, earmarking 60% of health aid for HIV is excessive relative to other needs for health spending.

Of course it is right that we should try to make sure that everybody with HIV has access to medicines to keep them healthy, and we should work to prevent spread of the disease. But we should also make sure that people have bednets and drugs to stop malaria, provide childhood vaccination to prevent easily preventable diseases, ensure access to contraception and safe abortions, and, above all, enough funding to provide basic health services that would save thousands of lives and suffering.  Yet we are not willing to provide enough money to do all of this.  It is in this context that it is damaging to earmark 60% of health aid to HIV.

This excessive funding of HIV relative to other health needs is damaging in at least three ways.

First, aid money is not being spent in ways which would yield biggest impact. Take this analysis from the Open Budgets Blog:

Using these estimates, it would cost an additional US$29.7 million to treat all of the 540,000 kids who died from pneumonia/diarrhea in Nigeria and Ethiopia. Were this money to come out of the HIV budget, it would reduce the number of HIV patients that could be provided treatment by about 61,240. So, using these admittedly very rough estimates, our current allocation of resources from the pot of money for disease treatment suggests that we value the life of a person with HIV at 8.8 times the value of the life of a child with pneumonia.

Another way of looking at this is that reallocating resources from HIV to treating pneumonia and diarrhea in Ethiopia and Nigeria alone would have saved nearly half a million additional lives in one year.

Second, the misallocation of aid money sucks scarce resources (administrators, doctors, political attention) from other programmes which would have more impact. As Rakesh notes:

In Tanzania, I have seen any number of health centers which lack water and toilets, where women cannot deliver their babies safely, but which has a new building with 4 air conditioners and 2 Land Cruisers and weekly workshops on AIDS.

I wrote about this problem in 2007 after visiting a clinic in Burkina Faso which had been starved of medical workers by the recruitment drive by the local PEPFAR-funded clinic. And Laurie Garrett wrote in Foreign Affairs about the impact on basic health facilities of funding linked to specific diseases.

Third, the misallocation of aid money creates perverse, possibly lethal, incentives.  Here in Ethiopia the existence of huge amounts of aid money for AIDS chasing too few people with HIV means that there is a kind of welfare state emerging for people with HIV.  It is not perhaps the welfare state we see in many European countries, but it is much better resourced than is available for people without HIV.  As well as free health care, people living with HIV are supported to find work, and their children get free education.  NGOs fall over themselves to get people living with HIV and their families onto their lists.

The result is that some Ethiopians emerge from being told the results of their voluntary HIV tests in tears because they don’t have the disease and so do not qualify for this assistance. The quality of life for them and their families would be better if they did; and their life expectancy could well be higher, given the access to health services that would be unlocked.  There are even rumours here in Addis Ababa that some people are deliberately getting themselves infected, so that they can give their children a better start in life.

***

I have used the example of HIV because the misallocation is particularly egregious here in Ethiopia (as it is in some other countries in sub-Saharan Africa). But I do not want this to be misunderstood as an attack on AIDS activists, or on funding for HIV in particular.  Some of my best friends – indeed, some members of my family – are AIDS advocates and they are among the most committed and well intentioned development advocates.  If they had been listened to earlier, a great deal of suffering in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere could have been avoided; and the path to development would not have been so long and arduous for the countries most affected by AIDS.  These advocates are merely one group among many making the case (and earmarking funds) for their cause.

Look, for example, at this recent paper by ODI on education (funded by the Hewlett Foundation) which complains that while funding for basic education has grown in real terms it has not grown as a share of total aid. The paper is all about how education advocates can do more to “capture” the global stage and compete with health spending. (“Capture” is their word, not mine).  And I am not picking on education either.  There are endless demands from activists to commit more money to agriculture, microfinance, water, maternal mortality and a long list of other important issues.

The development industry seems to be riddled with people whose main job is to divert money  to their good cause.   The advocates are united by a strong belief in the priority that should be given to their sector (education, water, AIDS etc). They convince themselves that they are speaking for real interests of the poor, which they consider to be unaccountably neglected by everyone else. Within many aid agencies there is a permanent state of low intensity bureaucratic warfare for resources, sucking up the time and attention of staff as they fight to defend and expand funding for the causes they work on.  They deliberately stoke up pressure in private alliances with civil society organisations – many of whom they fund – to raise the political stakes through conferences, international declarations, and publications with the aim of committing funders to spend a larger share of aid resources on their issue.  Territory is captured and held by way of international commitments in summit communiques.  But for the aid budget as a whole these are zero sum games, and everyone would be better off – and many lives would be saved – if it stopped.

The advocates might defend themselves by saying that they are trying to bring more money into development, not to reallocate aid from one cause to another.  But as they know, or ought to know, that is not how development budgets work.  The UK commitment to spend $15 billion on education by 2015 does not advance by one day the path to UK aid reaching 0.7% of GDP.  Either the commitment is meaningless, because that much money would have been spent on education anyway; or it has resulted in a reallocation of aid within a fixed total to education from something else which would otherwise have been a higher priority.

The earmarking of funds within a fixed total takes money from one good cause and puts it into another. If the money moves to a lower priority, the result is additional suffering, more deaths, a longer journey to economic development, and the need to give more aid, for longer, than if choices were driven by locally-determined, well-informed, evidence-based decisions about needs and priorities.

Here in Ethiopia, the Minister for Health is very clear sighted and articulate about the health priorities for his country, and the need to allocate resources to building effective basic health systems.  Within the limited resources it is able to control, the Ethiopian health ministry makes intelligent decisions about priorities, understanding the variations within the country as well as between countries.  They have much more detailed and specific understanding of the issues that affect people here than well-meaning activists in Europe or America.  Furthermore, it is their country and their path to development, not ours.

***

What do we need to do differently? I set out in a recent  CGD Working Paper the need to address the political economy of aid.

First, we should be much more rigorous and systematic about defining and measuring results from aid so that well-informed choices can be made.  There is a huge and expensive industry of “monitoring and evaluation”, most of the results of which is worth less than a pitcher of spit. We should dismantle it, and use a fraction of the money to fund a smaller, more sharply focused, more rigorous, international, independent collection of real evidence about the cost effectiveness of development interventions.  (Tentative steps in this direction are, of course, being fiercely resisted by the trade union of evaluators.)

Second, we should try to stop earmarking aid; we should make more use of results to demonstrate that aid is effective. The Paris and Accra agendas for aid effectiveness, which have been agreed by all the donor nations, require donors to respect the development priorities of aid recipients.  But there has been almost no change on the ground in this direction.  One step towards doing this is to put in place simple but rigorous ways to measure and attribute results, so that donors can be confident about  (and can explain to taxpayers) how their aid has been used.  If we cannot produce compelling evidence about what aid has achieved, it should be no surprise that ministers and taxpayers want to determine in advance how the money will be spent.

Third, we should stop creating global funds, and merge or close the ones we have got.  The existence of bureaucracies whose raison d’etre is to spend money in a particular sector or in a particular way creates incentives to promote resource misallocation because it protects jobs and institutional budgets.

Fourth, we must massively increase the transparency of past, present and future aid, so that informed decisions can be taken about how resources are allocated (not just between countries and sectors but within them).  Under current arrangements, donors publish details of their aid up to 23 months after it has been spent. Donors need to publish detailed information about their current and planned future activities so that governments, donors and the private sector can identify the gaps where additional resources would have most effect.

Fifth, we should, as a development community, heap scorn and opprobrium on anyone caught advocating for more resources in their sector.  We need stronger social norms in development that frown upon this kind of anti-social behaviour.

***

You may think that this is all a bit over the top.  Arguments about the architecture of aid may sound rather abstract and rarified, but aid is a scarce, precious resource and it is no exaggeration to say that if we spend it badly, the result is the avoidable deaths of literally millions of people.

The most important step in his argument is the first one.   Wolf says:

I, for one, have no difficulty with arguing that immigration is a privilege, not a right. Most people agree.

The assertion that “immigration is a privilege not a right” seems to me to be the wrong starting point.  I would begin with an opposite premise that seems to me to be much more basic and compelling:  “The burden of proof rests on those who would restrict human freedom.” If someone wants to move from one part of the planet to another, to live and work and raise their family, then we ought to have a very good reason before we set up a system to stop them.

To construct his argument, Martin Wolf wants us to believe both the following claims:

1. Immigration has a negative impact on the existing population; and
2. We ought to pay more attention to the interests of the existing population than the interests of the migrants.

On the first leg of this argument, Martin Wolf (under the guise of “calling for a debate”) claims that immigration is harmful to the economy, environment and society of the existing population.  As it happens, I don’t agree with any of this, though since that is not the point I want to focus on, I shall restrict myself to pointing to the economic and social success of countries that have been open to large-scale immigration.   But while I think the first leg of the argument is wrong, it is the second leg of the argument that I most want to challenge.

I doubt if anyone would seriously contest the view that even if if immigration causes some harm to the existing population, this harm is in total is far less than the very significant benefits to the migrants themselves.   So the case for restricting the freedom of people to live where they choose can only be made if you accept that we should pay more attention to the interests of the existing population than to the interests of the migrants.

There is no question that it is a widely-held view that we should give more weight to the interests of the existing population.  For example, Wolf says:

My view is that the interests of the existing citizens are of decisive weight, though we should also place some weight, too, on the interests of immigrants.

Perhaps I was born with faulty wiring, but I simply do not understand this view.

I believe we should give equal weight to the rights and interests of every human being. The idea that the interests of people born in our own country should weigh more in our moral calculus than the interests of people born elsewhere is, in my view, indefensible.  To say that we will less attention to the interests of another human  because they happen to have been born far away is organised racism, directly comparable with the pass laws under apartheid.

The United States Declaration of Independence asserts:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence does not limit its assertion of equality to people born within a single country. Nor is the pursuit of happiness bounded by national borders created by man. (This is just as well, as in the period following US independence one third of Europe’s population migrated to the Americas.)

Of course, the view that we should give equal weight to the interests of all human beings is unlikely to get very far in political systems designed to represent the interests of the citizens within existing borders.  But just because a political system makes it possible to ignore the rights and interests of a group of people who are weakly represented in it does not mean that it is morally right to do so.

My view is that the burden of proof lies with those who would restrict the freedom of people to live anywhere they choose.   This argument would require, at minimum, weighing up the costs and benefits of a restriction to show that we are better off in total if we curtail this freedom.  A case could only be made by placing more weight on the interests of the existing population than on the interests of other people.  I understand that there is a a widely-held view that we should do exactly that, but I nonetheless think it is profoundly wrong.   When we weigh up the argument for a policy to restrict people’s freedom based on the benefits that such a restriction will bring, we should place equal weight on the rights and interests of all people, and not privilege the interests of some people who happen to be like ourselves.  The case for restricting immigration rests on denying the equal humanity of people born abroad.  I hope that, over time, we will come to see this with the same moral outrage as we now view slavery and apartheid.

When I was a teenager, I visited Berlin, and read the grafitti on the Berlin Wall that said “No wall can stand forever”.  Now on the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, we look back with horror at the way the wall was used to keep people in.  Perhaps in another twenty years we will look back with equal disgust at the walls we build today to keep people out.

Though they come from quite different points of view, there is quite a lot of convergence between them. They agree that there is much more corruption in poor countries than in rich countries; that nobody should put too much faith in econometrics to decide whether corruption is a reason that poor countries remain poor; and that you do not fight corruption by fighting corruption.  But whereas Daniel Kaufmann believes that you have to tackle corruption to create the conditions for markets to work and to to create economic growth and prosperity, Mushtaq Khan believes that you should focus on policies to promote growth and that a certain amount of corruption is an inevitable (albeit undesirable) corolloray of the transition to a capitalist economy. I hope you find the discussion between them as interesting as I did.

What strikes me about all this is that this is a topic on which there is a serious gap between mainstream public opinion and the opinion of many (but by no means all) development “experts”.  Most people believe that corruption is a one of the most important reasons why poor countries remain poor; and yet a lot of people working in development seem to be willing to tolerate some corruption as an inevitable fact of life in poor countries.   My view is that this is a topic on which we need to see much more convergence of thinking, based on sound evidence and analysis, and that this is an important step if the development business is to regain and retain the trust of the people paying for development assistance.

Where do I come down?  I guess somewhere in between. Corruption is clearly a very serious problem which robs the poor most of all, and deprives millions of people of access to service and of the opportunity to earn a living.  In some countries, it is a major obstacle to economic growth (I think Nigeria is such a country). But there are many different causes of poverty, and there are some poor countries that have very little corruption (Ethiopia, where I live, is such a country).  And there are striking examples across history of countries that have experienced rapid industrialisation despite having quite high levels of corruption at the time (including Indonesia, Thailand, Korea, Japan) – in many cases, corruption is something that is tackled after the establishment of an industrialised capitalist economy with a strong middle class, not before.

I do think that many people working in development are too complacent about corruption.  The poor, like all of us, have dreams of a better life, and they are not helped by a poverty of aspiration on our part.

There are some countries – such as Nigeria – in which corruption is clearly a major obstacle to investment and growth.  There are other countries – such as Ethiopia – in which there is very little corruption which are nonetheless very poor, so it cannot be the case that eliminating corruption is the main driver of development.  And a lot of industrialized countries had long periods of rapid economic growth despite widespread corruption – which in many cases they sorted out after they became rich, not as a pre-requisite to growth.

Pause for a moment in silent thanks to the staff of the GAVI Alliance which works to get immunisation to children in developing countries.

If you pay taxes in Italy, the UK, Canada, Norway, or Russia, pat yourself on the back.  Your government has contributed to a market-based financing mechanism called the Advance Market Commitment, or AMC.  This provides  an incentive for vaccine makers to produce suitable vaccines in the necessary quantities at an affordable price for developing countries. The result is that GAVI has been able to reduce the current price of existing pneumococcal vaccines by up to 90%.

In the past, it often took 15 or 20 years before vaccines developed for rich countries were sold at affordable prices in developing countries.  Because of the Advance Market Commitment, four vaccine suppliers are now offering pneumo vaccines, specifically developed for the the developing world at affordable prices.

This is aid at its best: creating financial incentives for companies to bring their expertise and innovation to the table to solve some of the world’s most pressing problems.  Donors only pay for vaccines that actually get delivered and used. This money will save the lives of about seven million children over the next 20 years.

We owe a debt to Michael Kremer and Rachel Glennerster for the idea, to the Center for Global Development (especially Ruth Levine) for developing a practical proposal, to Carlos Monticelli from the Italian Finance Ministry who steered a group of donors to make it happen, to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for paying for background research, to Orin Levine, Gargee Ghosh, Amy Batson, John Hurvitz, Andrew Jones, Susan McAdams, and many others for making it happen.

And to the countless bureaucrats and nay-sayers who thought it could never happen: yah-booh-sucks.

Here’s a sample:

This common idea that skilled emigration amounts to “stealing” requires a cartoonish set of assumptions about developing countries. First, it requires us to assume that developing countries possess a finite stock of skilled workers, a stock depleted by one for every departure. In fact, people respond to the incentives created by migration: Enormous numbers of skilled workers from developing countries have been induced to acquire their skills by the opportunity of high earnings abroad. This is why the Philippines, which sends more nurses abroad than any other developing country, still has more nurses per capita at home than Britain does.

When is innovative finance good?

Innovative finance can improve the effectiveness of aid spending. There are at least four ways this can work.

First, innovative finance can improve intertemporal optimisation.  Aid budgets are often given from year to the next, which makes it difficult to spend the money at the best time.   For some spending, it makes sense to spend today to save money tomorrow (for example, spending money to eliminate smallpox reduced the need for health care spending later on).   It is not always sensible to bring forward spending – particularly if you believe that there are diminishing returns to some kinds of aid spending. The International Finance Facility for Immunisation is a good example of how spending tomorrow’s aid today can be sensible, because future generations benefit from the increase in herd immunity in today’s beneficiaries.

Second, innovative finance can create a commitment technology.   There are many benefits to being able to make commitments – which is why in normal life we have mechanisms such as contracts and warranties.   We need commitments to deal with dynamic inconsistency and to allocate risks.  But constraints on aid agencies make it very hard for them to make commitments about aid.  A good example of an effective forward commitment is the Advance Market Commitment, which guarantees manufacturers a more lucrative price if they develop and produce a new medical product for developing countries.  Forward commitments enable governments to invest in reforms which have costs over several years, or firms to invest in new products for developing countries.

Third, innovative finance can change incentives both for donors and recipients.  For example, funding schemes that link payments to results may reduce the incentives of donors to micromanage the way aid is used.  If payments to organisations are linked to demand (eg through a virtual voucher scheme) they may improve their services for beneficiaries.

Fourth, innovative finance can improve the allocation of risk.  Insurance pools may diversify risk, and permit rapid increases in funding in the case of disasters.  We can pool medicines, for example, so that they are available to whoever needs them first.  Stabilization funds with automatic disbursement criteria can ensure that finance is rapidly available, without strings, where and when it is needed.

In each of these four cases, well-designed innovative finance can increase the productivity of aid spending.  As aid becomes demonstrably more effective, so in the long run we can make the case for greater investment.

When is innovative finance not good?

While there are excellent reasons to identify innovative ways to give aid, the need to increase funding is not one of them.  I am in favour of a large increase in aid, but not in favour of achieving it by distorting rational decision-making on taxation and spending.   Many development advocates support schemes to tax financial transactions (a so called “Tobin Tax”) or airline tickets, or a new global lottery (a tax on the poor), if these are used to pay for increased foreign assistance.    I understand the desire to get aid any way we can, but I don’t respect this kind of opportunism.

We should determine the structure and level of taxes on the basis of evidence about the most effective (or least damaging) ways of raising the revenues we need; and we should decide the level of spending on the public’s various priorities based on how we will do the greatest good.  Linking a particular kind of spending to a particular revenue  cannot improve choices about spending or tax, and may unnecessarily constrain them.

Conclusion

Some particularly misguided proposals involving introducing taxes on goods or services we would not normally considering taxing (such as investment in information technology).  By linking these proposal to the (rightly appealing) goal of increasing aid spending, we are in danger of being seduced into doing the wrong things for the right reasons.

Innovative finance holds rich possibilities for accelerating poverty reduction by making aid money work better.  If we can find ways to relax the institutional constraints on spending money at the right time, or increase our ability to make rational commitments, we can make aid money work harder.  In time, this may mean that taxpayers and donors are willing to spend more.  But we should not invent mechanisms whose main effect is to bypass our existing processes for making sensible decisions about tax and spending.

But it is  less impressive to see people come to this issue only after they themselves need an organ.  I don’t recall Mr Jobs using his celebrity to promote this issue before.

I think it would be a good idea to introduce the presumption that people who register as organ donors will jump the queue if they themselves subsequently need an organ.  Perhaps that would focus some minds.

For the record, if I should die, please use anything that still works; and sent the rest to med school for dissection training or whatever they do.  I won’t care then, and as a person living today I like to think that I might be useful.

Traditionally it has taken up to 20 years for new vaccines to reach children in developing countries. The AMC can fix this inequity. Through the pneumococcal AMC, and with the support of the GAVI Alliance which administers it, children in Rwanda and the Gambia are benefiting from pneumococcal vaccines even before children in wealthy countries such as Austria and Japan. What’s more, the mechanism is spurring development and deployment of two newer vaccines that extend protection against strains of pneumococcal disease most common in the developing world. Thanks to such advances, the accelerated use of pneumococcal vaccination is projected to save 5 to 7 million lives by 2030.

The idea (which is mainly down to Michael Kremer at Harvard) is simple: donors promise in advance that if somebody invents and delivers a vaccine that meets certain requirements, then donors will  pay for it to be bought in large quantities.  That promise may provide sufficient certainty for the private sector to invest in developing new products, and to build large-scale manufacturing facilities.  Take a look at this video to see what a difference Michael’s idea is already making.

From a public policy point of view, a nice feature of this schemes is that if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t cost anything.  If you make a promise to purchase an AIDS vaccine when one is developed, but scientists are unable to crack the puzzle, then you have not spent a dime.  You are only committed to buying an AIDS vaccine when it is developed – which, let’s face it, you would have done anyway. By making a firm commitment in advance, you change the incentives for the private sector.  (The economics is set out here in an article in The Economists’ Voice.)

This scheme is designed to tackle an economic problem that runs deep in most market  economies. We typically set up incentives for firms to innovate by promising them a temporary monopoly (through patents) if they are successful. This enables a firm to charge a premium for a limited period to recoup its investment and to compensate it for the risk it has taken.  But this scheme only works if the consumers are willing and able to pay that premium.  (And even then, it has a social and economic cost because it excludes consumers too poor to pay the premium).  The scheme doesn’t work at all for products most of whose consumers are very poor – such as people who get malaria or who need cassava plants that are resistant to attack by the mosaic virus.  That’s why firms spend ten times as much hunting for a cure for baldness as they do hunting for a cure for malaria.  The Advance Market Commitment makes investment in those products much more attractive to the private sector, because now there is an opportunity to charge a premium (paid by the donors) even though the ultimate consumers are poor.

We will be in a better position to judge the effectiveness of the pneumococcal AMC when kids are actually getting injections paid for under the AMC. An important test will be whether we see pharmaceutical firms returning to the development and large-scale production of vaccines for developing countries (and there are some early signs that this is happening).

But the Pneumococcal AMC has already taught us that it is possible to navigate the legal, financial, commercial and political waters to put in place a legally-binding multi-donor commitment to buy a future product. This is the result of outstanding work done by the Center for Global Development (in which I am proud to have played a small, walk-on part).  Early nay-sayers complained that an AMC was theoretically attractive but impossible in practice.  CGD played a critical role by developing a practical way of implementing the idea, which opened the door to the implementation of the pneumo AMC.

Now that it has been shown that an AMC is technically possible, we should be looking at:

• designing an AMC for an “early stage” vaccine such as AIDS;
  It is occasionally said that an AMC works for a late stage product – ie one that has already been largely developed but needs incentives to get it produced – but that it would not be appropriate for products still requiring substantial research and development.  There is no logic to this argument. The original modelling for an AMC was done for an early stage vaccine, and I have never seen a cogent case against using the approach (alongside conventional government funding for basic research) for products at an early stage of development.
• how to get the United States involved
  This approach – of providing incentives for private sector entrepreneurship and risk taking  to be involved in products for developing countries – ought to appeal to US policy-makers, and I have never understood why the US stood aside from the first AMC. There are some technicalities involved making commitments in the US budget process but these are not insurmountable.  Let’s hope the US will be part of the next AMCs.
• using the AMC approach for other health products
  In principle, the AMC could be used to encourage the development and manufacture of a range of other health products such as drugs, diagnostics and surgical instruments
• using the AMC to promote other forms of other research and development
  we should consider whether the AMC might be a good approach for donor funding of other forms of research and development for products mainly used in the developing world, such as new agricultural varieties, solar energy products, and ways of providing clean water.
• the possibilities for other forms of “pull” incentive for research and development
  The AMC is not the only possible pull mechanism to incentivise research for products needed in developing countries. For example, donors might set up schemes to buy out patents, prizes or other rewards for success (e.g. payments linked to DALY’s averted or social rates of return). We should look again at the costs and benefits of these different ways of getting the private sector involved.

We are a group of dedicated animal lovers, and atheists. Each Eternal Earth-Bound Pet representative is a confirmed atheist, and as such will still be here on Earth after you’ve received your reward. Our network of animal activists are committed to step in when you step up to Jesus.  We are currently active in 20 states and growing. Our representatives have been screened to ensure that they are atheists, animal lovers, are moral / ethical with no criminal background, have the ability and desire to rescue your pet and the means to retrieve them and ensure their care for your pet’s natural life.

I wonder if anyone is actually buying this insurance?

There are three questions to answer:

• should we spend more on reducing global poverty?
  (my answer: yes, if we have to)
• should we tax transactions in financial markets?
  (my answer: maybe, though I am not persuaded)
• should we link aid budgets to revenues from such a tax?
  (my answer: definitely not)

My answers are explained below the fold.

I can see why some people are attracted by a combination of extra money for the world’s poor and a poke in the eye for the unacceptable face of capitalism.  But to support the Tobin Tax on these grounds is at best opportunism, and at worst reveals a hostility to the functioning of markets which will, in the end, not serve the poor.

a. Should we spend more on reducing global poverty?

Regular readers of this blog will know that I believe that aid works, though not as well as it should.  I believe we have obligations to our fellow human beings around the world, and that we have it within our power to alleviate suffering and promote shared prosperity.  Aid is not the measure of our common humanity, but it may be the cost of it.   I would much rather promote the well-being of the world’s poor through more open trade policies, open immigration policies, changes to intellectual property rules, reductions in environmental damage and changes to our policies on peace and security.  But (a) we aren’t in fact doing any of those things; and (b) we should be giving aid at the same time, especially as it is a natural complement – e.g. to more open markets.   We should spend what it takes to eliminate global poverty – it is easily affordable – and if we can do it with less aid, all well and good.  So yes, let’s spend more on aid, but let’s remember this is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

b. Should we tax financial transactions?

Adair Turner apparently believes that there are financial activities which are “a socially useless activity” and which should therefore be discouraged by taxation. However, the test for imposing a tax on an economic activity should not be whether it is socially useful, but whether it imposes costs on the rest of us.   Presumably somebody wants the financial transactions in question, which is why they are willing to pay for them.  If we want to impose a tax on them to discourage them, we have to explain what harm that does the rest of us.   (Readers may be able to think of other activities undertaken by consenting adults that have no wider social benefit, but also do no social harm: should we tax all these too?)

Tobin believed that a tax on transactions might increase financial stability.  That is the makings of a case for taxation, because financial stability is a public good.  (Tobin explicitly distanced himself from the anti-globalisation supporters of his tax.)  But it is not obvious that a Tobin Tax would increase stability.  Are markets with fewer, larger transactions likely to be more stable than markets with more market players, and more frequent, smaller transactions?

In the end, this is an empirical question. If it really is true that markets with higher transaction costs are more stable than markets with lower transaction costs, then a Tobin Tax looks attractive. If not, not.

c. should we link aid to revenues from a tax on financial markets?

This is where I part company most sharply from those who think that it would be a good idea to use a Tobin Tax to finance international development.

My reservations are part theoretical, part practical.

The theoretical objection is this.  Good public policy demands that governments spend the taxpayers’ money in the most effective ways to increase the sum of human happiness; and that they raise the money in ways which are either beneficial (e.g. by taxing bad things such as pollution) or at worst, in ways that do least harm.   These should be separate decisions: linking a particular form of revenue to a particular form of spending unnecessarily constrains those choices.   We should evaluate the case for aid spending on its merits; and we should evaluate the case for a tax on financial transactions on its merits.   If we link one to the other, we may find ourselves pushed into less effective forms of spending, or less effective forms of tax.

And here is the practical objection.  It has been clear from the current financial crisis that we need aid to be counter-cyclical – that is, we need more of it in a downturn; whereas in fact it is proving to be cyclical – that is, industrialised countries find it convenient to cut back on aid when things are tough.  Turnover in financial markets is pro-cyclical. That means that if a tax on turnover is a primary source of aid finance, aid will become more cyclical, which is the opposite of what we need.

Conclusion

We concede too much ground when we advocate a Tobin Tax to pay for international development.   We have profound obligations to help our fellow human beings, and we can do so at little cost to ourselves.  Our obligation is to see to it that people have the  food, water and shelter they need, access to security, health care and education and to a decent quality of life.    If this costs more money than we are spending, so be it.  The sums are small.  If we can achieve these things with less aid, or no aid at all, all well and good.   This is solid ground which we should defend.  When we argue that the money should come from a Tobin Tax, or an airline duty, we implicitly move the debate to measuring our solidarity by the amount of aid we give, rather than what we seek to achieve, and implicitly concede that aid at the levels required to achieve these simple things cannot be afforded without additional taxation.

Lord Turner, head of the Financial Services Authority, said it was “economic illiteracy” to expect his organisation to be able to dictate to banks what they paid their staff.

He complains that is is beyond the remit of the FSA:

“My message was . . . stop telling the FSA to go beyond its remit and to start imposing limitations on the level of bonuses, which it is neither within our legal power or our practical ability to do,” he said.

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.

It all depends on why you want to curb city bonuses:

• concerns about social inequality
  If inequality is your motivation, Adair Turner is right. This is for the Government to sort out, not the FSA.
• concerns about the cost to the banks
  If you are worried about the cost of salaries, this is for the shareholders to sort out. Again, since the Government is a big shareholder in a number of the banks, the Government could take steps to address it.
• concerns that bank staff have incentives to take unnecessary risks
  But this is squarely the business of the regulator.  If you think that the bonus culture leads city folk to take risks with our money because the bonuses reward short term payback and do not sufficiently penalise long run losses, then this is something the FSA should sort out.

So it is not economically illiterate to think that the FSA should look at city bonuses, if there are concerns that they might create incentives for risky behaviour that we want to avoid. (I have no idea whether the FSA  the legal powers to do so: but that is a different point.)

Imagine that your daily earnings were less than the price of this newspaper. Would you consider buying private education and private healthcare?

Before you make up your mind, here are a few considerations: government healthcare and primary education are free; the private-sector doctors are ignorant quacks and the teachers are poorly qualified; the private schools are cramped and often illegal. It doesn’t sound like a tough decision. Yet millions of very poor people around the world are taking the private-sector option. And, when you look a little closer at the choice, it’s not so hard to see why.

Now there is a dilemma here.

On the one hand, we know that charging even a very small amount massively reduces the take-up and impact of services such as health and education. (This survey by Holla and Kremer summarises the evidence.)  So charges excludes many people from access, and it seems likely that the poorest and most vulnerable will be excluded most of all.

On the other hand, we know that public services in developing countries are often poorly managed and badly delivered. That’s why, as Tim points out in his FT article, many of the very poorest people choose to go private instead.

Apologies if this is anecdotal, but I see this dilemma in practice every day. My partner works for Marie Stopes International, which operates 21 clinics for women (providing contraception and abortion) here in Ethiopia.  They charge their clients for services – a small amount which is just enough to pay for the cost of running the clinics.   The result is that they are very focused on delivering services that will bring their clients into the clinics every day – that is, services that they actually need, at a price they can afford.  My feeling is that, as a result, they are more focused on their customers than most public services in developing countries, and indeed in some developed countries, whether financed by aid or by taxation.

So how can we disentagle ourselves from the horns of this dilemma?  Here are three thoughts:

• First, we should take seriously Tim’s observation that “a little accountability goes a long way” and think  much harder about how we can make public services more acountable.  You have probably heard about the way more funding reached Ugandan schools as a result of greater transparency (though the details have been disputed (pdf)). The work of my team on aid transparency is a modest contribution to this effort.
   
• Second, we should not be ideological about whether the public or private sector actually provides services, as long as the government takes steps to ensure that there is universal access. For example, governments (with the support of donors) might issue vouchers to the poorest, enabling them to choose for themselves whether to use public or private services.
   
• Third, in the long run this problem will be reduced if and when there is equitably shared economic growth which gives people sufficient incomes for these kinds of choices to be more reasonable.

I returned from leave to discover that my office had halved in size: the wall had been moved six feet.  To create a new meeting room for the Permanent Secretary on the other side.

For the first time I can remember, I agree with Danny Finkelstein (and, less unusually, with Alex).  We need special advisers; and if anything we need more of them, not fewer; and we need to give them proper power and authority.

I say this partly for the reasons that Danny gives: we should be glad to have a diversity of ideas and advice to Ministers.  If civil servants can’t stand that heat of competition, they should get out the kitchen.  And as Danny says, the special adviser network can actally enhance effective Cabinet Government, by maintaining political conversations between government departments that do not work as well through the civil service networks.

But there is one other reason why civil servants should be in favour of having more special advisers: they help to prevent politicisation of the civil service.  For as long as we have sufficient, high qality special advisers, they can write speeches, brief journalists, write political strategies, liaise with MPs and the more political lobby groups – which prevents Ministers from having to ask civil servants to perform tasks which brings them into the gray areas at the margins of political neutrality.  So a greater number of Special Advisers does not imply an increasing politicisation of the civil service, as is sometimes claimed, but rather a protection against it.

I have worked closely with many special advisers, some of whom are now quite well known (whatever happened to David Cameron, John Bercow, David Milliband and James Purnell, I wonder?) and I found most of them to be extremely smart, productive, and responsible. Working with special advisers helps civil servants to understand the political context of their advice better.  A good partnership between civil servants and special advisers enables them to design policies and explain them in ways that are politically attractive, helping to introduce better policies which might otherwise be ruled out on political grounds.

I’d like to think that the Yes, Minister days are behind us, but Alex’s recollections suggest that, at least unconsciously, those civil service attitudes are not yet entirely in the past.

Worldwide, there are 19 million unsafe abortions a year, and they kill 70,000 women (accounting for 13 percent of maternal deaths), mostly in poor countries like Tanzania where abortion is illegal, according to the World Health Organization. More than two million women a year suffer serious complications. …

Here in Ethiopia around a third of maternal deaths are the result of unsafe abortions.

Well done to the New York Times for addressing this. Too often this problem is swept under the carpet.

I have a personal interest in this because I travel a lot by air (boo!) but I have not eaten meat for 25 years, nor do I own a car.  I also live in a house that has neither any heating nor air conditioning; nor (unlike many ex pats in Addis Ababa) do we have a generator.  So if we are fixated only on air travel, my carbon footprint looks horrendous; but it looks a lot better if you take account of other aspects of my lifestyle. I am sure I should do more, probably much more, to reduce the damage that I do to the environment: but let’s look objectively at the overall impact of a person’s lifestyle, rather than focus on any single measure.

The fixation with air travel annoys me because I think that there is public good in air travel.  The world would, in my view, be a better place if more people were able to travel and meet people in other countries and learn about other cultures.  We would have a stronger sense of solidarity with other people around the world and a greater willingness to act collectively to solve global problems.  We would probably be more worked up about the need to tackle global warming if we saw first hand how it is already affecting communities affected by rising temperatures and rising sea levels.  Air transport also enables farmers in Africa to grow flowers and beans for sale in Europe, with an overall carbon cost that is much lower than if these products were grown in greenhouses in Europe, and that trade provides livelihoods for more than a million people who desperately need it so that they can trade their way out of poverty.

I do not see a similar “public good” argument for eating meat.  I did not become a vegetarian 25 years ago because of climate change, which hadn’t been invented then, but because I thought then and continue to believe that it is wrong to eat animals purely for pleasure.  As well as being bad for the animals themselves, and for the climate, the meat industry is destroying our health and our countryside.

Yesterday Tristram Stuart Hunt in The Guardian calculated how much we should reduce our meat consumption:

Based on the global food production figures published by the FAO, I did a few preliminary calculations. Global average consumption of meat and dairy products including milk was 152kg a person in 2003. Average EU and US consumption, by contrast, was over 400kg, while Uganda’s was 45kg. In order to reach the equitable fair share of global production, rich western countries would have to cut their consumption by 2.7 times – and this doesn’t include the fact that the butter will have to be spread even more thinly if the global population really does increase by another 2.3 billion by 2050.

However, still further reductions would be necessary because global meat production is already at unsustainable levels. The IPCC among other bodies, has called for an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Since high levels of meat and dairy ­consumption are luxuries, it seems reasonable to expect livestock production to take its share of the hit. For rich ­western countries this would mean decreasing meat and dairy consumption to significantly less than one tenth of current levels, the sooner the better.

So let’s try to focus less on air travel – which has positive benefits for the world – and more on changing our diet, which we should be doing even if there were no impact from livestock on climate change.

I suspect that the environmental movement focuses on air travel partly because it appeals to an instinct for class war. The kind of people who fly several times a year on long-haul flights are the kind of people we love to hate.  This makes a campaign against air travel much more popular than criticising people for eating meat, which would mean taking on “ordinary” people.

Of course, as a vegetarian who flies a lot, I would say this, wouldn’t I?

As well as an interesting way of working, this threatens to be a very interesting topic. David is not starry eyed about the role that microfinance (and other financial services for the poor) can play in development – he’ll bring an unsual degree of rigour and balance to this debate.

What is it about the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious tradition that leads so many of its most prominent spokespersons to make hateful, bigoted, life-diminishing and personal security-endangering statements when it comes to human sexuality?

First the religious right were asked to pray for rain during the Denver Democratic National Convention:

Stuart Shepard of Focus on the Family, one of America’s leading evangelical groups, was shown in a video filmed at Denver’s Invesco Field, where 75,000 are expected to cheer Mr Obama on Aug 28, asking Christians to pray for “torrential” rain.

“I’m talking ‘umbrella-ain’t-going-to-help-you rain,” the former pastor and television meteorologist said. He explained on the video: “I’m still pro life, and I’m still in favour of marriage as being between one man and one woman. And I would like the next president who will select justices for the next Supreme Court to agree.”

Did it rain on Mr Obama’s parade? Did it heck.

But what’s this? Hurricane Gustav has prompted a rethink over the Republican convention. John McCain said:

“But you know it just wouldn’t be appropriate to have a festive occasion while a near-tragedy or a terrible challenge is presented in the form of a natural disaster. So we’re monitoring it from day to day and I’m saying a few prayers too.”

If the Big Guy is sending rain according to which side he’s on, then He seems to be a Democrat.

while Ms. Palin is perfectly entitled to believe that evolution is a myth, that women should be barred from choosing to have abortions, and that global warming has yet to be proven, these views all run counter to the views of mainstream America.

A candidate explanation of why poor countries catch up more slowly now is that rich countries have taken steps which slow down the transfer of technology. By tightening intellectual property rules and expanding those restrictions to an increasing proportion of economic value, rich countries are, in effect, yanking up the ladder behind them.

I see today that James Surowiecki makes a similar point in the May 14 edition of The New Yorker:

The great irony is that the U.S. economy in its early years was built in large part on a lax attitude toward intellectual-property rights and enforcement. As the historian Doron Ben-Atar shows in his book “Trade Secrets,” the Founders believed that a strict attitude toward patents and copyright would limit domestic innovation and make it harder for the U.S. to expand its industrial base. American law did not protect the rights of foreign inventors or writers, and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, in his famous “Report on Manufactures,” of 1791, actively advocated the theft of technology and the luring of skilled workers from foreign countries. Among the beneficiaries of this was the American textile industry, which flourished thanks to pirated technology. Free-trade agreements that export our own restrictive I.P. laws may make the world safe for Pfizer, Microsoft, and Disney, but they don’t deserve the name free trade.

Does this matter? I think it probably does. David Houle wrote last month about the growing economic importance of information in the value of economic production:

In 1975, at the very beginning of the Information Age, 16.8% of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 was from intangible assets. By 1995, that number had grown to 68.4%, and in 2005 it was up to 79.7%, where I imagine it will level off in the years ahead. In the historically short time of thirty years there has been a fundamental shift in the concept of value, not unlike the transition from the land values of the Agricultural Age to the production values of the Industrial Age.

The twentieth century has seen a new enclosure of the commons – robber barons have built fences around the key economic assets of the community, and they have got rich charging people for using them. In the past, when mankind learned how to get more food from the land (e.g. learning about irrigation, crop rotation or seed soaking) these ideas were not protected by patents. When we learned how to improve our health (e.g by improving access to clean water, or using antibiotics) these ideas were not protected by patents. When we learned how to organize factories, or build roads, or design windmills – all these ideas could be transplanted and adapted by poorer countries, so that they too could benefit from them.

Now at the start of the 21st Century, many of the key technologies that drive economic value are locked away by patents and intellectual property rights – agricultural technologies, business software, vaccines to prevent disease. As a result, the poor can no longer simply adopt these techniques and adapt them for themselves.

The cruel irony is that it would do us no harm to allow others to share in the benefits of our innovations. We worry about intellectual property rights because we want to protect our ability to recover the costs of innovation from the rich: the poor (who cannot afford to reward us for our cleverness anyway) are just innocent bystanders.

The transcript of the briefing by US officials on Air Force One going home from Gleneagles says different.