David Hulme at Japan International Cooperation Agency
Yoshito Dobashi and David Hulme
On Wednesday, 27 July 201, Professor David Hulme, Executive Director of the Global Development Institute spoke at the Japan International Cooperation Agency. His presentation focused on the ideas detailed in his latest book, ‘Should Rich Nations Help The Poor?’ You can view his presentation in full below,
Listen | Professor Sam Hickey at Australia National University
Effective States and Inclusive Development (ESID)Research Director Professor Sam Hickey delivered this seminar to The Development Policy Centre at Australia National University on ESID’s research. Which forms of politics matter most, how can these be conceptualised and what kinds of policy implications flow from thinking politically about development?
A Research Agenda for Data-Intensive Development
Richard Heeks, Professor of Development Informatics
In practice, there is a growing role for data within international development: what we can call “data-intensive development”. But what should be the research agenda for this emerging phenomenon?
On 12th July 2016, a group of 40 researchers and practitioners gathered in Manchester at the workshop on “Big and Open Data for Development”, organised by the Centre for Development Informatics. Identifying a research agenda was a main purpose for the workshop; particularly looking for commonalities that avoid fractionating our field by data type: big data vs. open data vs. real-time data vs. geo-located data, etc; each in its own little silo.
A key challenge for data-intensive development research is locating the “window of relevance”. Focus too far back on the curve of technical change – largely determined in the Western private sector – and you may fail to gain attention and interest in your research. Focus too far forward and you may find there no actual examples in developing countries that you can research.
In 2014 and 2015, we had two failed attempts to organise conference tracks on data-and-development; each generating just a couple of papers. By contrast, the 2016 workshop received two dozen submissions; too many to accommodate but suggesting a critical mass of research is finally starting to appear.
It is still early days – the reports from practice still give a strong sense of data struggling to find development purposes; development purposes struggling to find data. But the workshop provided enough foundational ideas, emergent issues, and reports-back from pilot initiatives to show we are putting the basic building blocks of a research domain in place.
But where next? Through a mix of day-long placing of Post-It notes on walls, presentation responses, and a set of group then plenary discussions[1], we identified a set of future research priorities, as shown below and also here as PDF.
The agenda divided into four sub-domains:
- Describing/Defining: working out the basic boundaries, contours and contents of the data-intensive development domain.
- Practising: measuring and learning from the practice of data-intensive development.
- Analysing: evaluating the impact of data-intensive development through various analytical lenses.
- Resisting: guiding practical actions to challenge potential state and corporate data hegemony in developing countries.
Given the size and eclectic mix of the group, many different research interests were expressed. But two came up much more than others.
First, power, politics and data-intensive development: analysing the power structures that shape DID initiatives, and that are inscribed into data systems; analysing the way in which DID produces and reproduces power; analysing what resistance to data hegemony would mean.
Second, justice, ethics, rights and data-intensive development: determining what a social justice perspective on DID would mean; analysing what DID can contribute to rights-based development; understanding how ethical principles would guide civil society interventions for better DID.
We hope, as a research community, to take these and other agenda items forward. If you would like to join us, please sign up with the LinkedIn group on “Data-Intensive Development”.
[1] My thanks to Jaco Renken for collating these.
Alumni profile: Chris Foster
We heard that one of our alumni was coming back to Manchester to attend the Big and Open Data Workshop this month, so we sat down with Chris Foster to talk about how why he chose to study at the University of Manchester and what he’s been up to since he graduated.
Why did you choose to study at the University of Manchester?
There are a lot of great experts at the University of Manchester who look at intersection of ICT, digital technology and development, and that really attracted me – the opportunity to work with these world renowned experts. I’m also a big fan of Manchester, I really like the city!
What did you do after graduating?
I spent a little bit of time at the University of Manchester, developing some of the work I had done for my PhD. I then got a postdoctoral position at the University of Oxford, doing research in a similar area for nearly two years, before finding a lecturer position at the University of Sheffield.
What are you doing now?
I work at the University of Sheffield’s Information School, which explores social science around information, information technology and data. I’m really interested in how digital technologies are being used in various contexts, but particularly around firm contexts, and how firms are globalising, how they’re using digital technologies to help them globalise, and what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of that. I think this is an important research area at the moment as the internet and digital technologies are becoming more prevalent.
How has your University of Manchester degree helped you?
In two areas: first of all, in terms of thinking critically. When I first came to the University, I was interested in technology and development but I don’t think I had really understood or explored these topics in a critical way – the Master’s degree definitely gave me that. When I moved on to do the PhD, being able to plan and put into action an innovative programme of research was something that I was able to learn how to do with the support of the staff at GDI, and that has been a very valuable skill to learn.
What’s your best memory from the University of Manchester?
There were a couple of really fun memories: it was great when I finally submitted my PhD after all that time working on it, what a relief! The graduation itself was really good fun – there were four or five of us who had been together in the department for a few years, and we were able to come together to celebrate what we’d been able to achieve, which was a really nice experience.
What advice would you give to students?
Often when you finish you PhD, it can be quite a struggle to figure out what to do next – you’ll have been doing your PhD for quite a number of years so working out what to exactly to do after it can be difficult. This is particularly true when you’re looking to work in academia: it can be hard to move up that ladder to go from your PhD to become a lecturer, so there may be a period when you perhaps move around a bit to find something that fits suitably to what you’re interested in.
Another good piece of advice is that whilst you’re doing your PhD, there’ll have been a great number of academics and colleagues you’ll have interacted with, and these are great people to stay in touch with and possibly work and collaborate with in the future
Parliamentary book launch asks, “Should Rich Nations Help the Poor?”
Professor David Hulme with Rory Brooks CBE of the Global Development Institute’s philanthropically-funded Rory and Elizabeth Brooks Doctoral College
Giving a gathering of over 20 development professionals, journalists, alumni and MPs a reminder that 1.2 billion people went to bed in extreme poverty last night, Mike Kane MP opened up Professor David Hulme’s book launch at Westminster for a frank but positive discussion on how and why rich nations should help the poor.
Introducing the Global Development Institute (GDI) and its Rory and Elizabeth Brooks Doctoral College as a world leading research institution, the MP handed over to Professor Hulme who talked about his new book – Should Rich Nations Help the Poor? – within the context of Brexit and the decisions that need to be reached which will influence UK international development policies.
“It is a moral responsibility for rich nations to help the poor and, additionally, it is in their self-interest. If we are thinking of our own future, and our children and grandchildren, then we need a prosperous and stable world,” said Professor Hulme.
Addressing the issue of how we can help, Professor Hulme talked about how the traditional answer of foreign aid is not enough. We are now in a “post-aid world” where aid is still important, but makes up a smaller part of the answer. Instead, he argued for the need to reform international trade policies, so poor people and poor countries get a greater share of the benefits derived from trade; stopping illicit financial flows that siphon off income and assets from poor countries to rich countries by corporations and national elites; and, rapid action to reduce greenhouse emissions from rich countries and the provision of adaptation finance and technology to poor countries.
Mike Kane MP hosted the book launch at 1 Parliament Street
Another topic covered was the rise in inequality in many countries. This slows down poverty reduction and social progress and increasingly threatens to give political control to ‘the 1%’ who benefit excessively from economic growth and wealth creation. In many rich countries people have a diminishing belief that the lives of their children would be better than their own – this is a sentiment which has been fanned by populist leaders to blame ‘migration’ for problems that are actually caused by inequality. Global inequalities will have to be tackled if the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are to be achieved by 2030.
“If you are worried about economic migrants from Africa then you have to address inequality. If you consider the pay and opportunities of people living in Africa, then why would they stay in poverty and not move for a better life? We need to worry about job creation and pay in Africa.”
You can buy a copy of Professor David Hulme’s Should Rich Nations Help the Poor? now.
See live tweets from the event below
#ShouldRichNations Tweets
Call for Postdoctoral Fellowships as part of the Global Challenges Research Fund
The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the North West Doctoral Training Centre (NWDTC) have issued a call for Postdoctoral Fellowships as part of the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF).
This career opportunity emphasises impact and stakeholder engagement activities which build on candidates’ prior PhD research. Key points to note are:
- At the time of submission, applicants must either have a PhD or have passed their viva voce with only minor corrections, and have no more than three years of active postdoctoral experience.
- The proposed fellowship activities must be ODA compliant.
- The call is open to those who have completed a PhD within any institution of the North West DTC, i.e. Lancaster, Liverpool or Manchester Universities.
- The deadline for applications is 9 September; fellowship start dates are between November 2016 and January 2017.
- If you are interested in applying for this opportunity with the Global Development Institute as a hosting institution, please let us know by e-mailing judith.krauss@manchester.ac.uk – we will run a support session in early August.
Please find more details here.
Call for abstracts/presentations on ‘Mobile Technology for Agricultural and Rural Development in the Global South’
A call for abstracts/presentations on ‘Mobile Technology for Agricultural and Rural Development in the Global South’ has been issued.
The aim of the 20 October 2016 Workshop is to share research and practice on current trends in ‘Mobile Technology for Agricultural and Rural Development in the Global South’: specifically to bring together researchers from diverse disciplines with practitioners who have experience of implementing mobile applications and agriculture information systems in differing country contexts. We hope the workshop will shape a research agenda and form the basis for future research and practitioner partnerships.
Prospective presenters should submit an abstract of 200-400 words outlining their proposed paper or presentation to: mobileagworkshop@gmail.com with a deadline of 31 July 2016.
If you have any questions, please contact the workshop organiser: Dr. Richard Duncombe, Centre for Development Informatics, University of Manchester, UK richard.duncombe@manchester.ac.uk
Event: Should Rich Nations Help the Poor?
Join Professor David Hulme and Mike Kane MP for the launch of Should Rich Nations Help the Poor? in Westminster, 16.00-17.00, 18 July.
Professor Hulme’s new book explores the moral and practical arguments for why rich nations should help the poor. He contends that while aid is necessary, it is not sufficient to lift the 1.2 billion people around who remain trapped in poverty and calls for a radical rethink in the policies and priorities of rich nations.
If you’d like to attend, please register here.
If you’d like David to speak about his new book at your event, please drop an email to gdi@manchester.ac.uk
“Life is random”: Dr Hubert Escaith, Chief Statistician at World Trade Organisation visits the GDI
Judith Krauss, Post-doctoral associate and Aarti Krishnan, PhD researcher, Global Development Institute
“Let me say the most important thing first: I am the father of three daughters.” This memorable sentence kicked off a unique masterclass with Dr Hubert Escaith, the World Trade Organization’s Chief Statistician. His visit, jointly organised by the Rory and Elizabeth Brooks Doctoral College and the Global Production Networks, Trade and Labour research group, encompassed a masterclass with PhD researchers and a public lecture on ‘Global Value Chains, Trade and Development: Evidence-based Policy-Making’. The student-led seminar was to help PhD candidates look beyond academia, both in terms of making links to policy and practice, and regarding career prospects. And look beyond we certainly did, prompted by Hubert’s colourful and generously shared stories, openness, encouragement and inquisitiveness, culminating in the (fortunately rhetorical) question: “What do you want to do with your life?”
Even though Hubert protested vehemently that he was no ‘master’ with insights to share with a ‘class’, his distinguished career in international organisations, joy in conversing and desire to engage with young researchers suggests otherwise. After completing a PhD at Toulouse University in Applied Mathematics, he started working for the United Nations in Baghdad, Iraq. His work has since taken him via senior positions in monitoring and evaluation, statistics and economics across the world, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean, to his current work as WTO’s Chief Statistician, publishing throughout. “Something I have learned is that you don’t manage your life. You just make the most out of what you have.” In opposition to our current era, compulsively planning career prospects from a very young age, he instead pointed to his own experience as a succession of opportunities taken against the backdrop of growing up in humble beginnings, with the first priority always remaining the well-being of his family: “Life can be random.”
In school, Hubert loved history, philosophy and Greek, and was (by his standards) bad at mathematics, English and Spanish. He has since done a PhD in applied mathematics and has spent his working life in English and Spanish-speaking contexts. His very well-rounded outlook on life was a breath of fresh air, with his professionalism as a civil servant complemented by abiding interests in philosophy, literature and music: Hubert credited activities independent of work, such as choir-singing and theatre, with helping him grow in confidence at a young age. “In my time, nobody told you to find a job that you loved. I just always liked the job I had.”
He then turned his attention to his work for the last 10 years – the magical and yet sometimes slightly cumbersome world of DATA, and explained exactly how it can support bridging the academia-impact divide through evidence-based policy. A statement he made shocked academic data junkies like us: “Data is not used for policy-making, whatever gave you that idea – policy is made in parliaments on decisions of politicians.” That left us perplexed and a tad worried! But right after that, he said what was probably one of the most profound words we have ever heard: “Data can change the apriori of an opinion, and this is the power academics have – the ability to use data to change an apriori… a perception… to show policy-makers how things might really work rather than the way they think it does.” That sentence was worth a PhD: it allowed us to understand that data was actually a means to give a voice to the voiceless public, be it through large or small-scale surveys, a way we could build a narrative on what makes this complex world tick and use what we learnt to feedback into theory. Why is this process so important? Because as aptly put by Snepschuet: “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is”.
Hubert Escaith’s career spanning several decades also allowed him to point out the vagaries of dominant thought and the repercussions of it changing, emphasising how in economics, Keynesianism was the order of the day during his studies, to be replaced by monetarist thinking as the dominant paradigm only fifteen years later. What does not change, however, is firstly the need for professionalism, and professionalism trumping ideological inclinations to avoid convictions getting in the way of truthful research and conduct. Secondly, the human condition is such that altruism is not as reliable a driver as self-interest, citing the “Fable of the bees”: bees’ work produces benefits for a wider audience; however, their inherent goal is serving themselves and their community. According to Hubert’s experience, the ‘dark side of the force’ a.k.a. the convergence of enlightened self-interest with public good fulfilment, was a tool to promote development rather than encumber it.
As the day came to a close participants of the masterclass and attendees of the lecture left feeling intellectually stimulated. But what truly left the biggest impression was his pointed question “what do you want to do with your life?” It is guaranteed to stay with all fifteen masterclass participants for a long time to come, highlighting not only that there is (a) life beyond academia, but also the need to think carefully about priorities. However, Hubert also would not have been Hubert had he not ended on a tongue-in-cheek adage: “Take my advice – I don’t use it anyway.”
Can we make anti-poverty programmes better?
By Minna Lehtinen, Communications Officer
One way that governments can help reduce poverty is by implementing social welfare programmes for those with low incomes, but the design of such programmes must be done with great care to make sure they actually achieve their poverty-reducing objectives.
A group of programmes that give cash to households with the expectation of breaking the inter-generational transmission of poverty are known as human development conditional cash transfer programmes. Typical transfer conditions include spending on schooling, going to the doctor regularly, and other investments intended to ensure that the cash is not only supplementing the household’s income and consumption, but also boosting the household’s own productive capacity. This follows the principle that poverty eradication is not limited to helping citizens meet their basic needs, but must also empower citizens to secure their own livelihoods.
In many such programmes, participants are periodically assessed on whether they continue to qualify for the programme, and once they have achieved a socio-economic status above the entry criteria, they exit the programme.
“Exit as entry” results in welfare losses
Juan M. Villa, Honorary Research Fellow at the Global Development Institute (GDI), and Armando Barrientos, Professor at the GDI, examined Colombia’s Familias en Acción programme in a recent GDI Working Paper. They found that current practice using of entry criteria to determine programme exit is not supported conceptually, analytically, or empirically, and can in fact be associated with welfare losses for excluded households. This, of course, is the opposite of what the programme is trying to achieve, and has significant implications for the design and implementation of any anti-poverty transfers programmes (conditional cash transfers, but also social pensions and family subsidies) using socio-economic status to determine when households leave the programme.
Click here to read the Working Paper, or read on below for a summary of the findings.
Exit as entry as a flawed concept
For an agency managing an anti-poverty transfer programme on a fixed and insufficient budget, using entry criteria to determine when households exit is assumed to maximise the programme’s poverty reduction effect by ensuring only those below the critical threshold participate in the programme. But this approach is not compatible with the objectives of a human development conditional cash transfer programme (which uses conditionality to build long-term capacity in households to keep them out of poverty for good). It doesn’t place a value on preventing households above the poverty line from falling back into poverty. Achieving this requires paying attention to how households can exit the programme sustainably, stay out of poverty and therefore, treating entry and exit criteria separately.
Analytical and empirical evidence from Colombia
Villa and Barrientos examined households who participated in Colombia’s Familias en Accion programme by 2006 but were excluded the following year because their welfare score was above the entry threshold. The research compares the households’ actual outcomes to what could have been expected had they remained in the programme, and the findings show that exit from the programme impacted the households negatively in three different ways:
Impact on schooling
Compared with those who remained in the programme, children in excluded households experienced:
- 12 fewer completed years of education
- Male children impacted more than female children (0.147 compared to 0.086 year shortfalls in education, respectively)
- Older children also suffered a higher shortfall than younger children (0.11 and 0.07 years respectively)
- Lower school attendance across the board, of just below 1 percentage point, which is modest but may have significant cumulative effects
Impact on work
As their incomes were reduced, households were forced to re-structure their work lives after exiting the programme, so exclusion resulted in:
- Fewer women going to work (2 percentage points reduced labour force participation)
- More men going to work (1.3 percentage point higher labour force participation)
- More men working in the informal sectors (about 1 percentage point increase)
- Households with children in school while in the programme experienced a more significant net effect from re-allocation of labour (and 4.2 percentage point increase in children under three in excluded households)
Impact on socio-economic status
Households who exited in 2007 were 3.8 percentage points more likely to be eligible for the programme than the households remaining in the programme in 2011, with rural households worse off than urban ones at 4.2 points. This represents a significant drop in the socio-economic status of excluded households, so it is clear that their exit did not happen sustainably.
Ways forward
Agencies implementing conditional cash transfer programmes are paying increasing attention to exit criteria and some have already adopted a range of strategies to address the issues “exit as entry” causes. For example, in 2013, Familias en Acción introduced a guaranteed two years leave to remain in the programme for households with welfare scores above the entry threshold but below a vulnerability threshold. Villa and Barrientos’s findings suggest more innovation in programme design and implementation is needed to better fulfil the programme objective to build household capacity to ensure they are able to exit and stay out of poverty in the longer term.