re-making Aid Watch

@bill_easterly asked me to expand on my criticism of the Aid Watch blog.

I’m coming at this from the perspective of a student. While I work in the development industry, I have neither the responsibility nor knowledge to place myself as an expert or a well-placed critic.

As a student, I am always looking for information to build on my relative lack of experience. William Easterly, along with other top names in development, is a logical choice. He has explored alternatives to traditional development and, along with people like Dambisa Moyo, has injected some much-needed self-criticism into development overall.

His popular book, White Man’s Burden, as well as articles and public appearances have all helped inform the development debate. However, his blog does not do the same service.

Perhaps Aid Watch was meant as an outlet for shallow satire among the occasional interesting link and comment. There are probably many reasons why it took this form. Easterly is busy and there is no time to expand on the cloaked-criticism he makes; satire gets more hits and requires less thoughtful (time-consuming) writing; drawing on positive examples of development (or private sector, for that matter) as a way to showcase where development should be does not sell etc.

Whatever the reason, I personally (along with others and others) find this approach to critiquing the aid industry (which sometimes seems lazy) not terribly helpful and rather discouraging. Posts like this (a fictitious situation that highlights the oddness of poverty porn) and this only leave me wondering: What we could be doing better? What changes are necessary? What alternatives are there?

I get that a sense of humour is necessary and refreshing, but without combining humour and new information/suggestions/inspiration etc. I fail to see the value of the Aid Watch blog.

What frustrates me the most is that William Easterly undoubtedly has the knowledge, contacts and audience to make a regular impact in the development field by offering new ideas and well-argued criticism on Aid Watch that underline the basic structural and ideological problems of development in a mature fashion.

Others with equal time constraints (but unfortunately more limited audiences as they are not as widely published or read as Easterly) manage to do it. Take Alanna Shaikh, Texas in Africa (whose regular insight into Rwanda is fantastic), Aid Thoughts and Owen Barder as examples of what Aid Watch could be offering.

There’s a fine balance between retaining an audience that enjoys regular, limited commentary and those that want some new, in-depth information. To achieve this, I would suggest integrating some of the following in a 500-word + format:

1. Deconstructions of particular development projects. Tearing it apart and re-building an improved model or simply explaining how finances could be re-directed to have a more tangible impact;

2. Features on “positive” development/private sector initiatives or approaches that can be integrated into mainstream development.

3. Features on successful initiatives developed and run by those living in harsh conditions that have lifted communities out of poverty.

4. Highlights of private-sector projects that have impacted low-income communities (other than micro finance!).

5. More guest posts from inspiring development or private-sector individuals that are invested in changing the development status quo (or are simply well versed in being successful in any environment).

6. Better informed highlights of projects like this one that are truly revolutionary to communities. Giving these guys encouraging publicity is also important.

7. Maybe a bit too time-consuming (hire another co-author?) but regular weekly or monthly Q&A sessions via Twitter or other mediums about the aid industry and/or recent articles. This gets the audience engaged in some of that low-blow satire.