Int’l Development Education in U.S. Universities

A couple months ago I attended a CGD event,“Development Education in U.S. Universities: What’s New & What’s Missing”. I’ve been sitting on these notes for a while, and given that most M.A. development program deadlines are right around the corner (some have even already passed), I thought now would be a good time to share!

My notes from the panel discussion:

David Lindauer (Wellesley College)

• Author of “Economics of Development” textbook and teaches development primarily to undergraduates (18-22 year olds)
• Said it’s really striking how little students know about the world, e.g. few students know that Accra is in Ghana and Dhaka is in Bangladesh
• At the beginning of each undergraduate class he asks students what they think needs to be done in order to reduce poverty. The top answers from students are typically: provide people with education, increase foreign aid and expand microfinance. As Lindauer pointed out, this is all supply-side economics, the notion that we should be giving the poor more of something.
• Students need basic tool set which they don’t have – e.g. when to use PPP, understanding the poverty line…he asked, why are development tools alien to U.S. economic majors? Simple! Because they are studying economics in the U.S. they learn examples relevant to the U.S. context! ex) if they were to study high marginal tax rates in the U.S. they’ll read an oped from Greg Mankiw and learn what it means if the Bush tax cuts expire…what they do not learn is that high marginal tax rates encourage growth of informal sector in e.g. Latin America and individuals there responded by evading taxes, not by working less.
• World is changing fast. He said that “the lines are starting to blur” – when he published the first edition of his textbook in 1993, 50% of world population lived in low income countries; today this figure is ~10%. Shows that there are huge implications for what M.A. development students need to be learning.
• Stories of development are similar to ones we hear in the West e.g. Lancet publication on child morality rates called for next step to be universal healthcare…this is a policy issue we are familiar with in the West.

Carol Lancaster (Georgetown University):

• Said that the interest in development among young people is nothing new; “field that’s exciting, gives back and is challenging”.
• She emphasized the need to understand the “kinds of things that go behind the problems” i.e. institutions and political problems.
• Argued that a big piece that’s missing in today’s programs is students from developing countries! The cost of a U.S. education is steep and there should be more of a focus on raising money for scholarships.
• One of her ideas for future innovations is a greater focus on using technology to teach class. She mentioned the “flipped class” idea, as well as using mobile technology for technically enhanced learning abroad.

David Hirschmann (American University): 

• Stipulated that students wish to study development because of an idealistic/ethical drive to solve development problems.
• Pointed to that the issue that there are more students coming into programs than there are jobs for them once they exit out and into the job market.
• Said programs should “teach them how to do things” rather than just teaching students “about things”.
• Proposed a greater focus on teaching practical job skills e.g. proposal writing, how to conduct research as a consultant, improve their presentation and persuasion skills.
• He also mentioned that schools should teach ethics – he said that keeping your ethical compass and finding both strength and clarity in what you do is a skill set that educators should be teaching students in development programs.

At the time, the event was very relevant for me as I was busy tying up loose ends on my own applications for M.A. development programs. Figuring out what I wanted to study has never been an issue  (I’ve been hooked on development since age 17) but figuring out the steps to achieve this goal was a process. I spent a lot of time Google searching for tips and asking both professors & peers for advice. When I was trying to make my decision, the experiences of others really helped me, so here’s to hoping that sharing my thoughts will be able to help someone as well!

My first puzzle was deciphering which graduate program would be best for my career goals. I was torn between two options: a PhD in economics or a M.A. in international /development studies. The PhD option intimidated me as I’m not a math whiz and a I have no desire (as of now) to teach. I envision my first job out of graduate school to be at an international organization or think tank, where I can be involved in the research and policy analysis process. I solicited advice from professors & professionals I know in the field, and most told me “if you don’t want to be a professor, there’s no reason to pursue the PhD.”

Still not entirely convinced, I found it helpful to look at profiles of folks I admire (and whose careers I envy) in development and see what types of educational paths they took. Many started with M.A.s and then went straight to a consulting or a supporting research role at an international organization. Many later returned to pursue a PhD. To me, this seemed like a good plan! (Sidenote – if you look at enough of them, you’ll definitely notice a pattern of the schools many of them graduated from…)

Once I had narrowed down my decision to pursue a M.A., I looked at the possible programs. Location did matter. Because of my visa situation, it really would be best for me to stay in the U.S., while my personal preference would be to stay in the D.C. area. Having lived here the past few years, I’ve been able to build a professional network, one that I would hate to leave behind. For international work, D.C. is also (in my subjective opinion) the best city to be in. My location preference limited my search down to a handful of programs.

As I was skimming specific schools, I looked for the following list of attributes in the programs (in no particular order):

• The right combination of devt, econ & public policy - b/c development is a mix of economics, public policy and international relations, I looked for a school that combined these disciplines. My top choice school has a focus on languages which was a huge draw, as it’s important that development professionals can effectively communicate with their regions of focus.
• Job prospects upon graduation – the development job market is tough. But some schools still have impressive stats on students going straight to interesting jobs after graduation. Finding schools publications of where graduates were immediately employed helped me narrow my list down quite a bit; even more so, schools that sent students to places of employment that focus on policy, research and consulting. (I’ll be honest here, a big indicator for me was what %age of graduates went onto jobs within the World Bank Group).
• Diversified & experienced student body – Development is a global field, as such, if the student body is international the classroom discourse is enriched. Learning from fellow students is equally as helpful as learning from a professor. And when studying development, learning from a classroom of 60 Americans is not only mundane but one-sided. Being around students of various nationalities and cultures taught me a lot in international high school, so I truly prioritized a graduate program that had a high %age of international students, as well as students who come from a variety of professional backgrounds.
• Possibilities for regional specialization - Another priority was a school with a strong African studies department. This preference narrowed down my search quite a bit.
• Excellent AND available faculty- I would be stating the obvious if I said I looked for good faculty. But it doesn’t matter if a school has renowned faculty if the TAs always teach the class. I know one guy (his name will go unmentioned) who is studying development at one of the top three U.S. universities. Being the nerd that I am, I asked him if he had Professor X, Y, Z (all famous development economists). He said he was registered for all their classes but rarely had the professor in class. What a let down! That alone was enough to deter me from applying to this school’s program. Why pay a lot to learn from the best if these professors don’t actually teach the class?

My #1 priority was a school that approached development practically and sensibly, i.e. faculty that exhibited good understanding of “what’s needed in development” in their work.  I think there is a fine line with graduate development programs. Development is very much a discovery process and no university program can teach students exactly how to make development happen. In most cases, local people need to discover development for themselves. Easterly’s Planners vs. Searchers logic definitely applies to development education.  Universities need to be training innovative, enterpreneurial graduates who will search, through trial and error, for development solutions. I think the best type of program is one that teaches a wide range of tools that will prove useful in this discovery process, such as economic theory, political science and public policy analysis. Such skills facilitate development initiatives and help folks avoid bad policy prescriptions and interventions. And these were all things I looked for.  Additionally,  I prioritized a school that seemed to have an experienced (read: knowledgable) student body.  I agree with Hirschman that many are attracted to development for ethical reasons. But this is a bit of a risky starting point. If there’s one thing the development field doesn’t need more of, it’s more folks who have too many romantic notions about development and how to change the world. I’d prefer to be around students who have had hands on experience in development (either in the field or in research) and will bring interesting insights to a classroom. Being able to discuss ideas with other students is valuable and something I’m really looking forward to.

For more pointers, I’d like to point to Chris Blattman’s graduate advice: asking for recommendation letters, how much economics to study in undergrad, MPA, MPA/ID or PhD? , FAQ on PhD applications.  And, of course, CGD’s page for educators is also helpful for students, especially the growing list of university development programs.

Collier & Radelet on the “Future of Foreign Development Assistance”

Last month, at the USAID Frontiers in Development conference, I attended a panel discussion on the future of foreign aid. The panel had four speakers; however, I only took meticulous notes when Paul Collier and Steve Radelet were speaking. Below are the questions asked by the moderator and the responses given by Collier and Radelet. If anyone wants the full set of notes (including comments made by the other two speakers) let me know and I’ll gladly share :)

                     

(?) Is aid effective? How do we make it more effective?

All panelists seemed to unilaterally agree that Sachs and Easterly are at extreme ends of the spectrum. Aid can be effective and the goal is to figure out when to give aid.

Paul Collier:

• When analyzing if aid is effective, we need to “move beyond polarzied theatrics” and instead look at the real world. The reality is such that aid is increasingly being concentrated on the poorest and most difficult environments.
• The future of aid is not in India – it is in Liberia, Malawi, Sierra Leone (to name a few). It is in the very poor countries, the ones that lack the necessary institutions for development. Engagement in these countries is very risky, and the consequence of engaging in a risky environment is that you deal with both successes and failures.
• Once development works accept that developing countries are high risk environments, they will discover how to properly approach the role of aid in developing poor countries.

Steve Radelet:

• The truth is that not all humanitarian assistance is about growth, e.g. vaccinations. Increasing child enrollment in schools is about growth, but not for another 25 years.
• Think hard about results and monitoring evaluation.
• Overall, evidence from vast amount of research shows that aid has a modest impact on development, with lots of variance.
• There are other factors that are far more important than aid, such as actions countries take on thier own. Aid can help nations with this but it is certainly not a large factor.
• We work in risky environments. Sometimes it is good to invest and fail, because it is part of the process. Failing doesn’t mean that the process is a failure.
• Think of aid as venture capital – we want to be driven by results, see what we do, but also take risks.
• South Sudan is a very risky environment, but with newfound independence, there is an opportunity that South Sudan can get on its own feet. The high risk environment does not mean it is not worth investing; it is not an excuse for us to sit back and to only invest in countries that are sure bets.

(?) What is the role of bad governance & civil war in undermining the effectiveness of aid?

Paul Collier:

• Pointed to Rwanda as an example of success. As it was coming out of the 1994 genocide, there were many negatives in Rwanda, all suggesting that it would become a nation of disaster. It was landlocked, overpopulated, ethnically divided… Yet despite these negatives, aid over the past 18 years has been part of the story of Rwanda’s success. Rwanda has achieved one of the fastest rate of post war poverty reduction ever. Basic institutions of governance were built, so now the government is good at implementing the basic things.
• Aid can help in a post conflict environment. After all, money matters. Rwanda was short on money as it had no tax base.
• The point is not that aid money is wasted, it is that it is destructive when it is captured by crooks.

Steve Radelet:

• Aid and time are limited resources.
• Experts have learned that aid can be effective, but what is still needed is clear goals in terms of what development workers are operating towards.
• In development, you focus your attention between long term goals (what development is) and the need to achieve short term progress (what tax payers want to see).
• Development folks must be transparent about what works and what hasn’t worked.
• We need to be forward looking – the world is changing very fast and this is why we need to change our ways at approaching worldy problems as well. Whatever worked in the past, we need to approach now with innovation and creativity. He spoke of 4 examples:

1. Private sector flows are morphing foreign aid as they keep growing.
2. The West is facing funding constraints and needs to be clever with its aid money in the future.
3. There are more democracies in the world today, than there have been in the past, which means there are more responsible governments to partner with. The West needs to change its relationships with these countries. And not just change relationships with democracies, but also with interaction of all types of governments, as different types require different mechanisms for development.
4. There are many new partners we need to evaluate our relationships with, including donors e.g. China, Saudi Arabia, India, and there are new foundations e.g. Nike, Gates, etc. that did not exist in the past.

• He said “if we continue with old models, I’m not sure we’ll be successful in the future.” He gave the example of China – a model that is more commercially oriented than the U.S. and he urged the need for the U.S. to adapt to this.
• He also said: “sometimes I think we burden ourselves with too many conditions.”

Paul Collier:

• Use the Tim Bergen rule  in development – however many objectives you have, you will need just as many instruments. If you have more objectives than instruments, you cannot achieve your objectives. Development assistance is full of objectives yet we only approach it with one instrument – where do we allocate x amount of money?
• Our instruments are: how much money we use and in which ways we deliver aid.
• We need to slim down our objectives.
• He said, “what works in Ghana will not work in Sierra Leone. Ghana is a good model, but the future is Sierra Leones, this is what most countries are like today. What works in Sierra Leone might not work in Yemen.”

Thoughts on DRI’s “Debates in Development: Search For Answers”

Exactly one week later, here’s my collection of notes, understandings and thoughts from the DRI 2012 conference:

[1] “Finding Answers or Answer-Finding Systems?”

Following Yaw Nyarko‘s introduction, Bill Easterly gave a talk on two different approaches to exploring answers in development: smart scientific solutions vs. dumb solution finding systems. I found that his talk set the stage nicely for the remainder of the day, as the two categories were good umbrellas for the topics (and speakers) that shaped the conference –

[*RCTs to an extent]

Easterly explained that scientific experts are scarce resources. He argued that in the production process,it is most cost efficient to use resources that are abundant and cheap. His supporting example was Kleenexes made of paper (not of gold), which reminded me of my favorite Mises example of the platinum railroads. Mises points out that gold and platinum are expensive resources because they are scarce, and for this reason, they are inefficient means to use when constructing a railroad. Because the price of platinum is so high, it would be irrational to build a railroad from that resource when vast amounts of steel are readily available at a lower price. Similarily, when applied to Easterly’s development context, it is irrational to base the entire development system off of the limited, small number of scientific experts in development, as their efforts are costly and scarce. Randomized Controlled Trials, experimentation in the field and Millennium Villages are expensive. Banking on a few golden experts to find scientific answers to development may be too costly, and as Easterly himself pointed out, “there are only so many Esther Duflos to run around, so you can’t run the whole aid program on her.”

He presented “dumb solution finding systems” as a cheaper alternative. Unlike the smart scientific solutions, the dumb solutions are found through a discovery process, where researchers and social entrepreneurs uncover solutions through trial and error. Easterly stressed that, because individuals do not possess perfect knowledge of what works universally, context matters. RCTs and development projects do not come in a one size fits all model. Since contexts change, the dumb solution searchers are often surprised by the results of their efforts – sometimes their projects yield successes, other times, they are failures. His example was Banerjee’s and Duflo’s success in incentivizing teachers to show up to class, but when the same method was applied to nudge nurses to go to work at their clinics, the efforts were a failure as the clinics were surprisingly made even worse off.

Easterly concluded with some inspiring thoughts on entrepreneurship. He played three different segments of a string quartet and asked the audience to raise their hands if they recognized the melody. The first two were failures, the final was successfully recognized. Easterly concluded,

“…to work your entire career and only produce one thing is not sad. I’d rather celebrate the entrepreneurs, the artists, the creators as the heroes. [The composer] worked so hard and he did succeed, he broke through and reached some level of inspiration, artistic vision, he’s amazing inspiration for what entrepreneurs can achieve when they do succeed. Eventually, as you keep trying, you reach something of great value, that makes the lives of everyone in development better. That’s what we have hope for in our dumb solution finding systems.”

Andrew Rugasira, Founder and Chairman of Good African Coffee, was the keynote speaker and his stories of African entrepreneurship resonated perfectly with Easterly’s closing remarks. Rugasira’s work is living proof that successful development is feasible when market solutions are explored by motivated entrepreneurs. Unlike the scientific experts, social entrepreneurs in developing countries are abundant and they are eager to supply demands. Rugasira emphasized that the focus should be placed on letting these small actors trade, rather than giving them and their communities aid money. He said,

“The key is in the markets…not in handouts.The key to serious solutions will have to be based in business and trade.”

[2]“Development Goals, Evaluation and Learning from Projects in Africa”

Michael Clemens kicked off the second panel by presenting two current movements in development:

Michael explained that the goals movement sees development as a process of scaling solutions that are ‘known to work’. The individuals in the goals movement often work for big organizations in development that can provide adequate funding for any and all projects. They claim to know what to do and they have the money to implement their scientific solutions. On the other hand, the evaluation movement is deeply rooted in academia, and relative to the goals movement, their resources are limited. As a result, they divert their scarce resources towards solutions they have found (through testing, trial/error) work and divert them away from failures. Michael used the analogy of a physician (the goals expert) prescribing curable medicine to the sick (the poor).

Most importantly, I found, was Michael’s explanation for why these two movements currently cannot work together.His key example was the Millennium Village Projects. He explained that due to transparency issues, it is difficult to quantify the benefits that directly resulted from the cost o used project implementation and evaluation. It is tricky to attribute growth and development to the interventions, and because of this difficulty in distinguishing the degree of the projects’ success, the programs are costly. Stewart Paperin presented an alternative view: that MVPs are investments. He seemed eager to invest Open Society Foundation’s $8 million in projects that seem to work. Clemens shocked the audience by showing that there is no clear way to tell to what to what extent its wise to invest in projects like the MVPs. He presented a graph that showed an increase of an indicator under the MVPs -and this exact same indicator improved at the same rate in a nearby rural village. This evidence raises the question: can economic improvement solely be attributed to the MVPs? Bernadette Wanjala shared many of Michael’s concerns when she presented her experiences with evaluations in Kenya. She explained that although large impacts through the programs are conceivable, it is difficult to contribute these impacts directly to the interventions. Finally, she emphasized the difficulties in assessing whether or not the programs are sustainable in the long run.

[3]“Searching for Answers with Randomized Experiments”

The final panel of the day was a discussion on randomized controlled trials between Abhijit Banerjee and Angus Deaton. Banerjee presented the ideas explained in his book Poor Economics and Angus Deaton followed up by critiquing the book and highlighting his concerns with RCTs. I found that overall, Deaton echoed Easterly’s and Clemens’ call for solution finding through trial and error. I really enjoyed Deaton’s presentation; in particular, because his points were incredibly relevant to a conference I attended the following day at the IRC (on RCTs in Northern Uganda). For this reason, I’ll save most of my thoughts on Deaton’s points for my next post, which will be on my notes from the IRC conference.

As Easterly said, few can put their concerns with RCTs as eloquently as Deaton; thus, I figured it’s best to share Deaton’s NBER paper on the subject of RCTs and development, rather than to attempt to summarize his points myself.

What I Walked Away With:

Optimism. And a reminder to be patient.

Throughout the conference, the speakers repeatedly reminded the audience that although they are questioning some of the most highly regarded initiatives in development (MVPs, MDGS, etc.) they are not Debbie Downers. They emphasized that there is reason to be hopeful. As Michael pointed out, the MDG expiration date is just around the corner and “for the second time in history, the central idea of foreign aid is up for grabs”. New ideas in development can be shaped by the current generation. Throughout our “search for answers” we should rely on the discovery process, not just on scientific experts, and we should not be afraid to fail. When we truly care about bettering the life of the poor, we should remember that the desirable outcome should be to accomplish sustainable, long term development. Development work can be frustrating and it can be tempting to divert all efforts towards carefully planned projects that promise results in the short term. But in reality, time is a scarce resource as well. Playing it safe with so-so projects can mean foregoing opportunities to discover groundbreaking solutions through the ‘risky’ process of trial and error. The bottom line is,I think , is that it is arguably more fruitful to spend years discovering one remarkable solution that works really well, rather than spending the same amount of years on implementing fancy solutions that we aren’t entirely sure work well at all.

*Here’s a link to the DRI Conference By The Numbers post from DRI.

What Role Can the U.S. Play In Pakistan’s Development?

Last week I attended an event at one of my favorite development centers, the Center for Global Development (CGDev). The event was 2 panel discussions and a reception to launch CGDev’s recent report titled “Beyond Bullets and Bombs: Fixing the U.S. Approach to Development in Pakistan”.

The Overarching Issues

Why is the U.S. Extending Aid to Pakistan? As with most bilateral aid, the relationship between the Western donor (the U.S.) and the recipient developing country (Pakistan) is asymmetrical and has become nothing short of a bureaucratic mess. The U.S. has a vested interest in Pakistan for security reasons. Threats of terrorism are still high on America’s radar. Pail Cruickshank recently found that 1/2 of the 21 most serious terror plots planned against the West had direct roots in Pakistan. Furthermore, it is no secret that Pakistan remains somewhat of a hotbed for extremist ideas. With the majority of the Pakistani population being under the age of 25 (young, uneducated, often unemployed, upset with the current system), a recipe for disaster is not out of the question. Some of the problems in the current USAID approach that were highlighted in the report were:

• Hefty requirements and overbearing oversight by the U.S. are essentially hindering innovation within the institutions. Lack of accountability and decision-making is discouraging USAID and Pakistani government staff members from being creative and exploring alternative approaches to development questions.

• U.S. aid to Pakistan has tripled ($500 million to $1.5 billion) under the Obama administration) but no direct results have been seen yet.

A few necessary ingredients for a Pakistani success story:

1. Maintain a stable state that serves to protect and deliver justice to all citizens equally.

2. The development programs need to clarify their missions. Experts need to practice humility and patience in their approaches.

3. They need to become more forward looking and focus on long run opportunities for growth rather than fall subject to short run political pressures. They need to be well aware of the unintended consequences that short run aid projects may have on Pakistan’s development. Shuha Nawaz pointed out that the West is “talking long term but acting in the short run”. Such a mindset has adverse consequences for the principal receiving the aid.

4. Focus should be placed on private sector investment, rather than Western spending of aid money in public institutions. Wise, carefully considered slow investments will signal to Pakistan that the U.S. is a worthy business partner. Hasty, fragile aid projects that end up  failing will give the exact opposite message. As Nawaz rightfully said, “Development is the area where you have to think long term with patience.”

5. Rewarding of successful projects. Domestic and foreign investment should be emphasized for projects and businesses that are already working. Successful initiatives should be rewarded with outside investment; not crowded out by a swarm of new, miniscule aid schemes.

What I Took Away From The Event

It’s far too easy to lump Pakistan into the  Big Bad Wolves of the Middle East category. But that is not at all fair! This is an incredibly unfortunate misconception. I find that the majority of  the problem in foreign policy, aid and international relations between the West and the developing world lies in attitude. In the case of Pakistan, so much can be gained if the West looks at the Middle Eastern glass as half full rather than half empty. Pakistan should not be viewed as a ticking bomb threat ; rather, it should be looked at for what it is – a mecca of golden business opportunities!

The report writes:

Pakistan is not Yemen or Somalia; form a development perspective, it is not Afghanistan either. Pakistan has a large middle class, an active and engaged civil society, a free press, and a fledging civilian government that is making some progress strengthening democratic institutions.

I have been intrigued by Middle Eastern development, military aid and the West’s war against terror for quite some time now; hence, why I decided to attend the event. My knowledge of these issues is limited so I learned quite a lot!

First off, I had no idea that Pakistan has such a flourishing textile industry. Pakistan is also quite resource rich. In other words, Pakistan’s producing industries have a lot to offer to the West. I think it’s fantastic that the visiting panelists and CGDev are encouraging a reduction in trade restrictions and increases in foreign and domestic investment. In the report, CGDev asks that:

“Congress and the administration should work together to develop and pass legislation for duty-free, quota-free access to U.S. markets for all Pakistani exports from all of Pakistan for at least the next five years.”

Yes! This is very important. Pakistan appears to hold a comparative advantage in textile that the West could potentially benefit from. However, if trade barriers are high (tariffs, quotas, etc.) the incentive for outsiders to trade with Pakistan is severely crippled. True, Pakistan borders Afghanistan and is home to extremist groups, but let’s not forget that Pakistan also shares borders with two of the rising stars in economics: China and India.Cross border trading can make nations better off AND help Pakistan develop. In addition, a false picture is painted of the Pakistani marketplace, and this creates a grim image that discourages foreigners to invest. I’m a firm believer that trade, investment and saving are crucial to peace, growth and prosperity.

One of the panelist particularly impressed me: Masood Ahmed, a department Director at the IMF. Ahmed emphasized investment, private sector development and entrepreneurship. He stressed that the problem in Pakistan is one of the political economy. He shared the belief that good economical approaches in Pakistan will take political economics into consideration and focus less on picking apart at trivial economic technicalities.

*Source: http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1425136