Cash transfers and more - an interesting debate is brewing

Over the past few months, there seems to be an avalanche of studies and debates discussing cash transfers to the poor as a new paradigm in aid financing. 

A recent (refreshingly well balanced) article in the Economist entitled Pennies from heaven  summarized the topic nicely in its sub-headline:  "Giving money directly to poor people works surprisingly well. But it cannot deal with the deeper causes of poverty".

It makes reference to some of the evidence around, which in a nutshell shows that unconditional cash transfers do work well in SOME circumstances.  The most cited case, GiveDirectly's work in Kenya (see here and here) is important for a number of reasons, not least bring the issue - supported by rigorous evaluation - to the forefront of the debate on what should be the minimal benchmark for financing development work - the so called "better value than cash" requirement that would be the onus of future development projects.

On the other hand, the conditions that enable it (including a good spatial proxy for intra-village poverty, high mobile money penetration, etc etc.) would not be easily found in most places.  More importantly, UCTs do not seem to succeed in generating great development outcome in every context (and frankly, we shouldn't expect them - or anything - to):  Despite Chris Blattman explicit mention in a recent post entitled Is it nuts to give money to the poor? not to quote him on it yet, I'll do just that: "One is a tough case: street youth and petty criminals in Monrovia. The early signs are that the cash ran through them (but don’t quote me yet, since I haven’t seen half the data). The other is a tough case too: a horserace between getting a factory job and getting a grant to start your own business, both compared to neither intervention. The early signs on cash transfers are not promising, but again, less than half the data are in. So maybe I, and GiveDirectly, will prove ourselves wrong."

The issue is of course more nuanced, as pointed out in the article, as well as many other commentary's  - notably Berk Ozler's posts on the matter (see a good summary here) - and we basically do not know enough (yet) about when Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCTs) would work at all, and work better than other interventions - such as Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs).   One of the best reviews of UCTs and CCTs so far is a Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review on the Relative Effectiveness of Conditional and Unconditional Cash Transfers for Schooling Outcomes in Developing Countries (link).  It main finding is that "... both CCTs and UCTs improve the odds of being enrolled in and attending school compared to no cash transfer program.  ...   programs that are explicitly conditional, monitor compliance and penalize non-compliance have substantively larger effects (60% improvement in odds of enrollment). Unlike enrollment and attendance, the effectiveness of cash transfer programs on improving test scores is small at best. More research is needed that looks at longer term outcomes such as test scores, as well as on evaluating UCTs more generally."    So, clearly, we are witnessing the early days of this debate - and what a potentially important one it is.  Chris Blattman believes it will remake the charity map in his lifetime.  Here's hoping.  As someone working for a (largish) organization in the periphery of the debate - the wonderful world of research on agriculture for development - where we are (still, for now) discussing funding cycles of 10-15 years within a "contribution instead of attribution" paradigm, I am fascinated by this debate's potential impact and am so happy to see it brewing up a storm. 

On a similar vein, and something to blog about in the future, is Development Impact Bonds.  The next big thing in this aid financing debate.  If you're curious, have a look at the (always excellent) Center for Global Development page on the topic (here) and this nice short blog post entitled Who Has First DIBs? 

The Westgate attack in Nairobi - focusing on the positive.

Tragic events often bring out the best in people.  In the aftermath of yesterday's #westgate attacks in Nairobi, am very touched by the outpour of messages of concern and sympathy from all over the world – I am certainly lucky to have such wonderful people amongst my family, friends and colleagues. 

My immediate family was not harmed, and it seems to be the case for the ILRI/CGIAR families in Nairobi.  Many others were not as fortunate – and the scars will surely take time to heal.  Those in Kenya wishing to help can see the campaigns run by the Kenya Red Cross (http://twitter.com/KenyaRedCross) and/or donate via M-PESA to 848484.

With all the pain that such attacks bring about, am seeing a lot of positive emerging, with Kenyans and others coming together to support each other and reaffirm their conviction in the values that make this a great place.  This is the most united I’ve seen this country – the #WeAreOne messages and donations are heartwarming.

Let's focus on the positive and reaffirm our way of life. 

Emerging Educational Technologies - very far from being applied in development

My (soon to be) colleague Diana Brandes just shared an article about 10 Specific Examples Of Emerging Educational Technologies by  Teach Thought.

The list provides some (heavily US-centric) examples about how some educational institutes are applying technology.

Cloud Computing, Mobile Learning, Tablet Computing and MOOCs are all listed in the "12 months or less" category, implying they are pretty much here already.  From where I'm sitting (well, standing most of the time, but that's the topic for another post one day), which is thinking how technology can revolutionize learning in a developing context (think large scale application of agricultural research in developing countries)  - this is still much more of a distant dream than reality.

Of all of these, the one I hold most hope for is mobile learning - but let's unpack it for a minute.  The article gives examples of a school in Australia using tablets for math applications, another use of tablets, this time in Switzerland, to create music on ipads, and finally a US school creating an iOS app for digital storytelling.  All very neat.  And very far removed from the reality of the vast majority of mobile users at the BoP.

Despite a lot of promise for (entry level android) smartphones about to boom in many Asian and African countries - the reality in my host country of Kenya - considered a hub, perhaps even the epicenter - of mobile innovation is that most users are still not on smartphones, and if you want scale in rural areas, you better think of the old school (Nokia) entry level phones.  None of the innovative applications mentioned in the article are mobile-compatible in this context. As far as timelines are concerned, I think we're certainly more than 12 months' away from any of these making a dent in mainstream applications of education, let alone in a development context.

The article's most exciting prospect for me personally is "Games and Gamification", slated at 2-3 Years away.  I think there's so much potential for engaging adult learners with games that we're not tapping into - it would hopefully take "only" one or two killer applications to come out to turn the tide and focus the world's attention to gaming for development.  Who knows, by then it might be a mobile app that does the trick?

Mobile learning - some initial thoughts.

I recently blogged about MOOCs, which prompted an interesting Twitter exchange with Guy Pfefferman of the Global Business School Network and Dan LeClair of The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).

The starting point was Guy's recent article in BizEd, which focuses on mobile learning.

I have to admit, my first reaction was (and is till) skeptical.  When we talk of mobile learning in a developing country context, we're not talking iPads or iPhones.  We're not even talking basic android phones (yet).  Remember your Nokia handset from 1997?  Most times, that's the closer cousin to what you'll find.  I haven't researched the topic enough to make any kind of statement with certainty, but instinctively, this doesn't seem to be a great learning platform to me, with the obvious limitations of screen size etc.

Sure, it can work for many things - especially practical areas where you need a conrete piece of information.  Think market prices, medical consultation, etc.  These are not new, and there are lots of examples around.  For instance, my employer, the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)  joined hands with others on such projects  - for instance mfarmer - where we provide agricultural value added services (Agri VAS) for smallholder farmers in emerging markets.  The purpose of these mobile services is to bridge the information gap faced by smallholder farmers and to improve poor farming households’ resilience and decision-making as a result of better access to relevant agricultural information.  You can read more about similar initaitves on the GSMA Mobile for Development website.

These are great initiatives, and I think they can make a real difference, and we are just scratching the surface.   But this is not mobile learning in the sense of what MOOCs are projected to do to classroom learning.  It is no substitute for traditional classroom education - at least not yet.  As Guy points out - we're still missing business models for mobile learning. A recent UNESCO conference touched upon aspects of this - including a mobile MOOC - have a look for yourself, some interesting stuff.  Still, not a game changer as far as I can see - and certainly no business model yet.  

At this early stage of thinking about the topic, I feel what we really need is to look at how technology (and with all the mobile hype, radio is still the king of rural) can be combined into blended learning that prepares youth for starting business or finding jobs.  Technology alone will not be a panacea.  

This said, I still need to do more reading and thinking about this exciting area.  Very much looking forward to ICT4Ag conference in Kigali, where I hope to pick up the thread. 

What MOOCs Will Really Kill Is...

Came across an article in Forbes today who's headline read "What MOOCs Will Really Kill Is The Research University".  

Nice article, with the gist of it basically saying 

"...time to get a little Adam Smith on this professor. The sole purpose of any production is consumption: and we should listen and consider the interests of the producer only to the point that said interest is essential to the interests of the consumer. And I’m afraid that if MOOCs do indeed produce the technological revolution which lessens our demand for professors then that’s just too bad for professors. Our only concern here is and should be the interests of the students. If they can get a better education through technology, the same but cheaper education, or even a worse and much cheaper education and that trade off seems acceptable to said students then that’s just the end of the matter. The students’ interests win."

MOOCs are the most significant technological revolution in higher eduction in a long time (as in several generations) The established higher-ed industry has not come to terms with it yet (a bit like the very early days of digital photography).  In fact the biggest players are either Universities (e.g  edX) or emerged from universities (e.g. Coursera who's founders hail from Stanford).  Despite lots of hype and money being invested in the idea, the business model isn't clear or proven yet - but what a potential...   In any case, the trend is already  giving way to a wave of innovative startups looking to tap into this technological disruption.  For instance, Spire Kenya is about to launch a new model for undergraduate education that harnesses MOOCs, and combines them with placements in companies, mentoring and peer-leaning, to produce graduates that are better suited to match the needs of employers.  With a degree from an accrediated US university, and at a fraction of the price of private universities (e.g. less than $1000/year) - one could see that if such startups get it right, we could really have an appealing alternative model on hand.

To be sure, societies looking to get ahead will need to keep investing heavily in R&D, and universties will certainly continue to have a place in that picture.  So am not convinced the Research University is about to go the way of the dinosaurs.  However, many (in some contexts most) students in higher education are not on track for research careers.  Yet becuase of the way academics (prof.) are hired, promoted and remunerated - essentially based on their publications record - advances in teaching and learning have suffered.  It is this academic caste system whereby prof. in mainstream subjects (e.g. business, social sciences etc) shy away from great teaching (which sometimes pays less than janitorial work in the same institutions) in favor of often irrelevant research that's likely to be the first to go.

That might be a very good thing for most students.