I recently conducted a very simple experiment. It is by no means a model of academic rigor, but interesting nonetheless. I conducted a search on Google Scholar of “Millennium Development Goals” for a few specific years. The results hint at a growing tendency to overemphasize specific goals.
First I searched for “Millennium Development Goals” in 2003. The results show a slight emphasis on poverty reduction and capacity building. However, overall a number of themes are evident, including health, education, gender equality in addition to discourse on the MDGs in general.
Next I searched for “Millennium Development Goals” in 2007. This time the results were very biased toward health related issues. In fact, of the first 40 hits, only about 4-5 concern non-health related issues.
As I’ve mentioned, this can hardly be considered a scientific experiment, but the results do raise questions about the attention given to the different MDGs. It is especially interesting to compare these results with recent reporting on MDG progress. In the UN’s 2007 Millennium Development Goals Report, many of the positive examples of the impact of the MDGs would fall under the poverty reduction, education and gender equality goals, while most of the current “key challenges” would fall under the health related goals. However, the report does acknowledge that while progress has been made in poverty reduction, education and gender equality, it has been spotty, at best. So, I wonder whether the form of reporting on the MDGs may have the inadvertent effect of prematurely diverting attention from some issues leaving them unresolved in the most problematic areas. I might even suggest that the tendency to focus on progress concerning specific goals, rather than adopting a more holistic view of the MDGs, exacerbates the problem. But, I would only seriously do that if this was a rigorous scientific experiment. But, still there’s that nagging feeling…

Several weeks ago I had planned to post about a two year old interview that I came across with Kenyan economist James Shikwati that apeared in Der Spiegel. I don’t remember how I came across that interview, but apparently others did as well because this circulated around a few blogs around the same time that I first saw it. The significance of the interview is that here is a noted expert in economics, from an African country, asking developed countries to stop sending “aid” to the continent. Now, this issue has come up again after the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference that was recently held in Tanzania. There, this issue was again brought up, this time by Ugandan journalist, Andrew Mwenda. According to reports that I have read, celebrity do-gooder Bono jumped up to defend “aid” and “debt relief”, mentioning relief following the Irish potato famine and the Marshall Plan as two successful examples of such interventions. These are not only poor examples of what was being talked about, but Bono’s mention of them also illustrates the superficial knowledge on which some celebrity do-gooders seem to base their well-meaning intentions.
Before I get into debunking Bono, I want to just mention what I had intended to post in response to the Shikwati interview in Der Spiegel. The problem with Shikwati’s criticism (and Mwenda’s) concerns the definition of “aid”. They both obviously refer to as “aid” direct and indirect financial contributions to developing countries’ governments. However, I prefer a broader definition that also covers foreign investment, collaborative initiatives (e.g. in education, research, etc.), and so forth. The reason for this is that the narrow definition makes it possible to categorize activities in developing countries as not being development oriented if they do not involve direct financial contributions, thereby allowing active parties to justify measures that may be not in accordance with ethical concerns and values that are more commonly related to delivery of development assistance. For example, an Icelandic power company, Reykjavík Energy (RE), has just launched a project in Djibouti with the goal of eventually establishing geothermal power plants in the region (in Icelandic). When asked whether this was a “development project”, Þorleifur Finnsson, director of foreign projects and innovation, responded that it was not, rather that it is a commercial venture (Intel has made similar statements regarding their “Classmate PC”, but I can’t find a link). If successful, the project will provide cheap and reliable energy to a large region in a severely under-developed region. Obviously, this will have a significant impact on development in the region. So, how is this not a “development project”? And, what does Þorleifur mean by claiming that this is not a “development project”? Does this mean that RE is free to profit from the venture and export those profits out of the region? I really don’t know, but would like to.
Back to Bono’s statements at the TED conference in Africa (which, following from the preceding paragraph, I would suggest is a meaningful and potentially effective contribution to development in the region – the conference that is):
Now, I know that Bono is Irish and I am not, but to suggest that relief after the Irish famine was entirely, or in large part, due to financial contributions to the Irish is very simplistic. Financial contributions were only one of a wide range of measures that were implemented in Ireland after the famine, and not necessarily the most important. Some of the significant measures included, better transportation systems to deliver food to the hardest hit areas, numerous legislative changes to reduce tariffs and trade barriers, legislative changes that made it possible for Irish farmers to diversify their crops, increased jobs, etc. The common denominator in all of these actions – the Irish had more opportunities to help themselves.
To liken the Marshall Plan to the types of financial contributions that Shikwati and Mwenda criticize borders on the absurd. I suspect that Bono knows very little, if anything, about the Marshall Plan. The differences are numerous. Some obvious ones:

• U.S. economic interests in, and related to, Europe had to be reestablished and protected (the U.S. knew that it needed European countries to buy their goods and much of the Marshall Plan funding went to purchasing goods from the U.S.),
• for the most part, the European countries involved devised the plan themselves (although the U.S. Congress had to agree to it and the plans were presented to the U.S. and the final structure negotiated),
• most of the funding ended up going to small and medium-sized enterprises,
• the plan included, and was supported by, a number of initiatives, e.g. counter-part funds (converting to local currency), what became the OECD, the Technical Assistance Program (sort of industrial/technical exchange program – my grandfather spent a year in the U.S. through this program),
• reconstruction funded by the Marshall Plan was closely monitored.

Again, the common denominator – creating opportunities to help themselves.
There is an overwhelming amount of literature on both the Irish famine and the Marshall Plan. What I’ve posted here is from memory and therefore I haven’t put in any citations. Considering the scholarly attention that both of these have received, finding literature is very easy and ignorance therefore inexcusable.
Nevertheless, Bono and others have done a lot to raise awareness of development issues and to open the dialogue to the general public. But, these are complex issues and it is doubtful that there are any simple solutions. That is a message that celebrities, with the influence that they can have, should be delivering.