It is easy to snark and criticise. It is also fun, which is why many so people have blogs. It is harder, especially in development, to praise big popular causes. But I have written a number of negative pieces (‘indices aren’t perfect’, ‘dead aid is dead wrong …) and wanted to even out the material a little. If you feel the post is missing snark, then you can always add some yourself by commenting (I guess this is like the crisps I used to get as a kid where you used to have to add your own salt).
So which demagogue of the development community do I want to criticise praise? The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Bill Easterly has been rude (really?) about their continuing misuse of a dodgy statistic and their approach more generally (see articles in huffington post and wsj). And they were criticised for not doing anything about education (co-written by an education consultant). But I think they have some points that are very worthy of recognition.
First, they have a clear focus. They (more or less) do vaccines. It is easy in development to want to work in every sector in every country. Even small NGOs have projects in different continents (snarks might say this is to get a Latin, Asian and African face in the promo materials. Fortunately this post is a snark-free). On the sector front, if you work in education you might see that some kids need glasses. While getting the glasses to help the kids read, you notice there is a problem of river blindness in the area. While combating river blindness you discover calorie intake is crucial. While providing rice you notice the lack of jobs and provide micro finance. My point? The Gates foundation has avoided the Christmas tree effect: where the number of pretty decorations means that the tree falls over.
Second, they’ve chosen an area where they have a comparative advantage. Vaccines need money and scale. If you can negotiate with the drug companies using your huge size, then you can get a lower price. A coalition of small NGOs wouldn’t be able to get discounts, but the Gates foundation does. It is also an area where money undoubtedly matters.
Third, there are measureable outputs. They’ve chosen an area where they have a clear aim and measureable indicators of both inputs (immunisations) and outputs (death rates).
The most impressive thing about Bill Gates is he’s giving his time to think about the issues. He’s got years of time to devote to this, and he’s chosen something sensible to do with his money. The organisation makes plenty of mistakes (as anyone that does something inevitably does) and receives valid (and invalid) criticism. But I’m glad they didn’t start a thousand small NGOs, focus on 15 key sectors, go into education or some such alternative. And if the Gates are willing to devote time and effort to this, they should be able to improve over time.
Further reading: a positive article from Forbes, Gates and Easterly were both at this discussion of philanthropy …
Edit 1 - Nicholas Kristof (nyt) is taking questions for Melinda Gates, and links to some articles he’s written on the Gates foundation. h/t nathanyaffe on twitter
