Comments

Thanks Greg and Terence. Apart from the piece Dame Meg Taylor co-authored, this is one of the best in my view.

No response that I'm aware of (I don't run the blog). But, to be fair to them, these sorts of debates may be the sort of thing they don't want to get entangled in. Most of their work is aid practice, after all.

A positive insight there. The underlying issues of violence in the country needs to be solved by the government. Violence is broad, the cause has to be addressed by the authorities, by then the epidemic be minised. Thanks for the information Mr Kingtau.

When the government provides (tax payer sources) funding support for any program it is guranteed that the government has the greater ability influence the program. Given the experience of the last three years President Ronald Reagan's words on the 9 most terrifying words in the English language ring loudly - https://youtu.be/nCedOQJ0ZEA

So Terence, no response from WV yet?

Hi Ravi, sadly that seems to be the case. I think that reflects US domestic political considerations but you'd know more about that than me! Other countries will likely continue to build alternatives where they are better represented. It is a long-term project, but these US-dominated international organisations will probably fade.

Great post, Susan. One point though: the US, as the largest share holder, will not tolerate a non-US candidate as President of the World Bank. It really is high time that this changed but it does not seem to be on the cards

Thanks Ryan! There's so much on microfinance it's hard to keep up with all the literature. There are indeed some interesting alternative models, still I don't find much evidence of those in the development bank funding I've studied. I've also written about the damaging effects of shame from microfinance, there's still pretty strong evidence that the impacts on interpersonal relations and psychosocial wellbeing are very problematic.

Thank you for your comment, Andrew. Some analysis of the data was undertaken in the early 1980s. Three papers were written in that period, two being for seminars. These presented summary findings and some policy recommendations. The report published in January 2023 provides a more comprehensive analysis of the data, compares the findings to more recent studies, and provides data by household in Excel spreadsheet format for use by other researchers. I agree it would have been better if the more comprehensive analysis had been published earlier. Other commitments, and then a change of career (moving out of academia into the public service) meant I was not available to undertake the larger task. As I mention in the report, I had always hoped I would be able to come back to the project, but I didn’t have the time until after I had retired.

Thanks for an interesting post. One minor comment. The introduction to that AEJ special issue with the microfinance RCTs is now a little outdated---and, at best, a limited frame to think about the role of credit---so I wanted to flag this recent review which gives a slightly different overall picture: https://voxdev.org/sites/default/files/MicroFinance_Issue_1.pdf This paper by Breza and Kinnan in the QJE is particularly important: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/136/3/1447/6266467

Just to elaborate on my earlier comment as it relates to NGOs (from local CBOs to NGOs to INGOs): it seems that when they repeatedly unite and patiently collaborate together around the same goals as citizenries articulate and come to share (which are also enabled/enableable processes), evidence points to their increased and at times, critical importance as interlocutors (in solidarity with others sharing these goals - eg media; officials , traditional & religious leaders ..) in fostering synergies between government and citizenries to which I referred. (eg see also evidence from IDS, ISS/Alan Fowler's and mine) As already emphasised, this process of enabling & giving collective voice to citizenries is (or need not be) aid-intensive and in strengthening governance (eg of health systems) and its fruits, tends to have democratising outcomes . Part of such voice needs to have an objective basis, such as institutional 'inputs'. Part needs to be subjective (drawing on and translating lived experiences of failed/failing institutions) and through deliberation/dialogue part needs to be intersubjective, with local citizenries triangulating all three. Such synergies can be scaled up. The point is NOT that media etc automatically share the shared goals of citizenries (they dont necessarily do so), but that within them (as within governments, starting locally) are often allies willing to increase such goal-sharing. Rather that it is possible to create more inclusionary 'virtuous cycles' of change where local institutions important to local citizenries are blocked, or worse (eg 'zombie' or 'ghost' institutions) - which collective counter vicious cycles of poor governance, into which external donors, whether INGOs or official donors, otherwise (eg if unaware of these cycles or complacent about them) are locked and have become complicit. (eg collectively their funding of or towards services allows governments at all levels to free-ride, when it is disconnected from accountability to local citizenries; who, unsurprisingly, are reluctant to pay taxes for 'blocked institutions' (examples of these are public schools, clinics, water supply systems, child protection systems, social protection systems, systems for PLWD, with low levels of accessibility, availability, acceptability and quality)

Angel was a great man with unique personality. He was my manager when I was working in Afghanistan with GRM/Palladium 10 years ago. He had good sense of humour, very passionate about what he was doing. Very supportive, encouraging and caring. May his soul rest in peace.