Quite possibly you don’t want to know what I really think

Unless you’re a saint, an already transcended practitioner of a transcendental religion, or not actually undertaking any development related fieldwork yourself, it’s likely that at some point during your data gathering you are going to end up feeling at least a little frustrated with at least a few of your research subjects.

I certainly do from time to time. Although it turns out I’m not even in the big league. The following excerpt comes from Paul Theroux’s book ‘The Happy Isles of Oceania.’ He’s writing about Bronislaw Malinowski, one of the founders of modern Anthropology.

I was reminded of how Malinowski, the most sympathetic of anthropologists, would spend a day among these laughing people [the Trobriand Islanders of PNG] and then go back and scribble vindictively in his private diary.

“The natives still irritate me, particularly Ginger, whom I would willingly beat to death,” he wrote. “I understand all the German and Belgian colonial atrocities.” Or: “Unpleasant clash with Ginger…I was enraged and punched him on the jaw once or twice.” Or: “I am in a world of lies here.”

If you’re lucky, development field research will afford you profound insight into human nature. Even if it doesn’t, as a consolation prize, you’ll almost certainly end up afforded insight into a very important aspect of your own nature: the grouch within.

In praise of…

…William Easterly.

I know I criticise them (particularly him)  a lot, but there’s no escaping the fact that Easterly and his co-blogger Laura Freschi are bright, knowledgeable people, and their blog is a great place to learn. Some days that learning is limited to the perils of polemic. Others, like today, it’s not. It’s simply a really useful education about development. Bill and Laura, thanks for your post on the HDR.

Easterly v Singer

William Easterly debates Peter Singer on bloggingheads.tv.

Surprisingly – given Singer’s support of aid and Easterly’s non-stop critique – it’s a civil enough affair.

Easterly does an admirable job improving Singer’s drowning child metaphor, but fails elsewhere. In particular, it’s odd how little he seems to know about the actual world of development practice, and of efforts to reform it. After implying that there’s an absence of campaigns to improve aid he waxes lyrical about the need to increase the participation of aid recipients in aid projects. Good idea. But hardly new. Next time he’s in England he should stop through Sussex, and maybe see if he can get hold of these two, almost out of print, books by this, nearly unheard of, author. (He could also read this critique while he’s at it, and possibly this follow up too.)

He also condemns tied aid. Great. But once again not new. Same with fragmentation. Campaigns such as One and Make Poverty History have been raising these issues for years, and they’re at the heart of the Paris Declaration (the donor nations’ own statement of intent).

Of course, none of the issues above have been resolved yet – so all power to Mr Easterly in his efforts to keep the flame burning. But it would be nice – given his propensity to ridicule aid practitioners (the One campaign in particular) – if he acknowledged that he isn’t the only one pushing for change.

More generally, Easterly’s comments are symptomatic of a larger issue – it’s surprising how few academics working on development related work really understand the work of aid agencies and NGOs: the trade offs involved; the role of politics and ideology; and the long, winding road towards (we hope) better practice. Which is a pity, because the two communities – practitioners and academics – have a lot to offer each other.