I am not posting much these days because USAID’s expectations of what I am supposed to achieve in three weeks in Tanzania are completely unrealistic. So instead of witty insight from me today, you can read this.

In my early twenties, I spent two years traveling around Latin America and the Middle East. I lived on a shoestring budget, slept in horrible hotels, and worked the most menial jobs. I thought it was great.

In my late twenties, I worked on foreign aid for the US Department of the Treasury. I went to Africa often and stayed at the nicest hotels. It was a big step up from the days of hostels with cold showers, broken locks on doors, and putrid bathrooms. I appreciated my good fortune.

These days, I consult on aid policy to Africa from time to time. I still stay at the nicest hotels on the continent. The big difference is that I no longer appreciate the hotels, but moan whenever the wireless internet or satellite TV isn’t working.

Take it from me, aid corrupts.

Because foreigners sitting in the fanciest hotels in the recipient country make the policies without spending much time outside said hotels. How do I know? It’s what I am doing in Tanzania right now.

I had a great meeting today with a very dynamic Kenyan who is using mobile phone technology to address all sorts of development issues in developing countries. The short version is that he is creating a low-tech mobile phone version of google through SMS. Very cool stuff. The funniest part of the meeting was when he talked about foreign aid organizations. He said that because donors are such a pain to work with (e.g., they move very slow, they have ridiculous and onerous requirements), dynamic social entrepreneurs in developing countries don’t want to work with them. A true laugh out loud moment.

Economist Paul Romer, best known for his work on Endogenous Growth Theory, is floating the idea of “charter cities” as a way to spur development in poor countries. Romer argues that charter cities in developing countries can help get around the political roots of poverty, such as weak adherence to the rule of law, rampant corruption, and predatory bureaucracies:

How would such a city work? Imagine that a government in a poor country set aside a piece of uninhabited land. It invites a developed country to enter into a new type of partnership, in which the developed country sets up and enforces rules specified in a charter. Citizens from the poorer country, and the rest of the world, would be free to live and work in the city that emerges…

And the new zone created need not be ruled directly from the developed partner country – residents of the charter city can administer the rules specified by their partner as long as the developed country retains the final say…

Read the rest of this entry…

I recently came across a monumentally stupid program the US Agency for International Development (USAID) is implementing in Afghanistan, the Regional Afghan Municipalities Program for Urban Populations (RAMP UP). It’s a $600 million, three-year program for about 50 local governments in Afghanistan. I would call it the Fiscal Reform and Urban Development project or the FRAUD project.

Read the rest of this entry…

As I have written before, I am a fan of Al Jazeera. However, a recent report criticizing US aid efforts in Haiti made me pretty angry. The report criticized the US for “taking over,” “deciding who lands in Haiti,” and turning back aid from other nations. The US is pushing its own agenda and is not taking the needs of Haitians into account, according to a former defense minister.

Excuse me, what possible agenda could the US have in Haiti other than aid and reconstruction? It has no natural resources, is one of the poorest countries on earth, and is strategically irrelevant for US national security. What on earth does the US have to gain from aiding Haiti at this moment? Perhaps you say praise. Well, this may be true, but how does the US gain praise if it is turning away aid from other countries? Maybe the US is doing it because it fears mass exodus of Haitians to the US. This is plausible, but if this is the reason, the US agenda is to improve governance in Haiti to reduce demand for emigration. Is this a bad thing? Perhaps you argue the US is attempting to assert its dominance over Haiti. Sure, the US has a history of doing this, but usually for a reason. Why does the US care if Haiti is on its side or not? What does Haiti have that the US wants?

Moreover, I agree that the Government of Haiti should lead the relief efforts. The only problem is that the government doesn’t exist. The president is using a police station as his headquarters because all government buildings have been destroyed. There is no telecommunication infrastructure and Haiti has no army – not a weak army, but no army at all. Sadly, very sadly in fact, the earthquake destroyed the capacity of the Government of Haiti to lead the relief efforts. The UN is a bit better off, but it is in no position to lead the efforts, either.

Finally, I know its not pleasant to hear, but it is important to have infrastructure in place before starting large-scale relief efforts. Currently, the US military is probably the most well-equipped organization on this planet to be able to do this on a moment’s notice. I don’t like the militarization of humanitarian relief efforts and I don’t agree with it, but that is the world we have. Save the moral high ground talk until after the crisis. Just sending food onto the street without some plan for how you are going to distribute it would simply cause chaos.

This report was a gratuitous shot at the US. I am sure the operations are far from perfect, but look at the scope of the disaster. Expecting perfection not very realistic. I haven’t seen any other country offer anything close to the level of assistance the US has and if any other country wants to, let it come forward. Save the criticism for a worthy cause.