The most exciting new idea for tackling poverty and feeding billions around the world has got nothing to do with hydroelectric dams or back-slapping summitry. Instead, this one begins with a story about kung fu movies.
In the middle of the 1990s, Claire Melamed was working in a village in the far north of Mozambique. Nacuca had no electricity, nor running water, and precious few distractions.
As the development economist recalls: “Villagers would ask: ‘We have to live here, but how come you’ve chosen to stay?’”
Then one day visitors came, bearing entertainment.
They were former soldiers from Mozambique’s long civil war and, like the other 90,000 or so demobbed men, they were getting US$15 a month from donors, along with some funding to start businesses. This lot had pooled the hand-outs to buy a TV, a video recorder and a generator.
Oh, and a few old Bruce Lee movies.
The former soldiers toured villages across Mozambique showing copies of Enter the Dragon and Fist of Fury for cash or, failing that, maize and cassava. They went down a storm in the remote rural yawn of Nacuca, staying for days and playing the same films over and over.
What Melamed saw in Mozambique was one of the first major exercises in what is now among the most talked-about new ideas in aid, called cash transfers — or, as a new book title puts it, Just give money to the poor, as those donors did to the former soldiers. The authors, Joseph Hanlon, Armando Barrientos and David Hulme, count 45 countries that hand cash to more than 110 million families. In Brazil, poor families can collect money from lottery shops. Pickup trucks drive across Namibia, bearing safes with cash machines welded on the front, used by old ladies to take out their monthly pensions.
It sounds forehead-smackingly obvious: Isn’t giving cash to the poor what we do every time we shovel change into an envelope, or pledge a donation to a fundraising telethon? But when that money — whether from individuals or governments or big international institutions like the World Bank — gets to Africa or Asia, it’s typically turned into new roads, schools, even community radio stations. The idea is to give poor people the infrastructure and training they need to lift themselves out of destitution.
Or perhaps I should say that was the idea. Looking back over the last few years, we see in retrospect a brief golden period for aid. It was marked in Britain by turning Clare Short into the new secretary of state for international development, and defined internationally by the 2005 pledge at Gleneagles of the G8 richest countries to give more money to Africa. And it appears to be drawing to a close.
Academics and writers such as Bill Easterly and Dambisa Moyo now gain plaudits for books with titles such as Dead Aid. Recession-hit politicians at events such as last weekend’s G20 summit in Toronto avoid even mentioning the Gleneagles promises. Moreover, when official money is handed over, it often ends up on the most useless projects. In 2008, Berlin spent US$500,000 on what it called a “basic nutrition project,” but which turned out to be a scheme to reduce unpleasant smells from food-processing factories in China and (naturally enough) Germany. That would be called a joke, if it was only remotely funny.
Against all that, the idea of just handing over a hefty chunk of the world’s US$100 billion in aid money directly to the 1.4 billion people living on less than US$1.25 a day is pretty attractive. Less funny business from donors and far less waste. In addition, what makes this most remarkable of all is that while the rich countries squabble over how much money to give and in what form, this initiative has sprung largely from the poor nations — usually under pressure from some of their poorest people.
This is the world of aid turned upside down. A couple of years ago, Oxfam tried the idea out in a few villages in Vietnam. Charity workers gave the equivalent of three years’ wages in one go to more than 400 families. When they returned they found that poverty had dropped through the floor, with most of the money spent sensibly on food or fertilizers, seeds and cows. Older people had put some cash toward coffins, explaining that funerals were a major expense. And one group had built a communal house, to practice yoga.
It takes a village to raise a child, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once wrote; on this showing, it takes just a few million Vietnamese dong to raise a village into a bijou Notting Hill.
Findings such as these have led the author Joe Hanlon to call for most of the Gleneagles millions to be shoveled into poor people’s pockets. That’s going too far: Individual donations cannot replace schools or hospitals. It may be that giving cash works best when there are amenities and opportunities — and people who can use both.
As Richard Dowden at the Royal African Society says: “Village communities are often tightly controlled by elders, chiefs and kings. Just handing over dollars to a rural community — even to the supposedly poorest people — risks reinforcing that hierarchy.”
However, qualifications aside, the concept is only going to get more popular. Indeed, New York recently tried the idea with its poor citizens, handing over money if they successfully sent their kids to school.
Cash transfers may first have been made in a poor country, but the idea travels well. A bit like those Bruce Lee films.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers