“Oh man! Look at those cavemen go!”

I’m reasonably certain the Ramble isn’t the only person whose productivity has nosedived during the World Cup. Frank Lampard, for one, has clearly been absent from work in the last couple of weeks.

Of course, passion hasn’t been in short supply. The brawl between the Netherlands and Portugal demonstrated as much. The Ramble hasn’t seen so much brutality and cravenness since the last Management Meeting.

* * *

A combination of incipient football (Ukraine v. Switzerland – that semi-final might still happen!) and a post-budget lull in Government conspire to deliver a shorter Ramble than usual. Not much has been happening at work; a few odds and ends being tied up on the budget, waiting for comments on the strategy I’ve been working on, and the odd meeting.

Governments around the world work like this. We tend to structure the year around big events, and fill the lulls by writing strategies, policies or ‘think pieces’. I love think pieces. At least half of them denote nothing more significant than the author having a couple of days with too little to do.

* * *

One interesting conversation I had this week, though, was with a friend who works on the other side of the aid relationship. He was explaining to me quite how much politics invades the work they do. Now, having been a civil servant in two countries, I know how much of the supposedly technical work that we technocrats do boils down to pleasing a Minister’s desire for votes. But this time, I was hearing how a Minister in some far away land finds it easier to sell spending on distributing drugs to the poor than to sell economic growth and income enhancement. This isn’t news to me, as I’ve been shouting long and loud about this fundamental flaw in the development system for some time now, but it did get me thinking.

There’s a problem, that’s reasonably clear; but how do we fix it? The basic problem is that the politician’s need for votes compromises their role as the head of a development agency: rather than doing what’s best for the poor in the developing world, they need to do what’s best for themselves, pandering to their electorate. In normal circumstances, the electorate are voting on policies that have a direct effect on themselves, so they broadly reap what they sow, and can act to rectify mistakes. In this situation, however, that doesn’t happen. What they vote for affects people in another country, not themselves.

Two kinds of solution immediately suggest themselves to me. Firstly, removing the political element of the development agency; some countries have done this by contracting out the provision of development aid. This could potentially create its own conflicts of interest, but these haven’t been very obvious to me when working with these agencies. Another approach to this is to make development agencies multi-lateral, like the World Bank. This dilutes the influence of individual politicians, making each relatively freer to pursue what’s right, rather than what’s popular.

The other kind of solution is the one I would favour. Educate the electorate. Politics is not a one-way relationship, and the politician has the power to influence the way their electorate thinks. People are tired of being patronised by their representatives, and I think a parliamentarian who was honest enough to say that he put greater stock in increasing incomes than short-term poverty alleviation would be well received. I might be naïve, but I think there is a genuine desire to learn more about what’s happening around the world, and Live 8 isn’t going to satisfy that, with it’s platitudes, slogans and easy answers. It was amazing how so many people had their eyes opened to the problems in the developing world by that event, but a chance was missed, with the lack of real engagement by politicians and the media with an interested and primed public.

* * *

That seems like a good place to stop. Which is another way of saying that kick-off is in twenty minutes.

“He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy…”

This week's Ramble has a confession to make. I was ill on the weekend, but if I’m being honest, the real reason for the tardiness of this week’s nonsense is that the World Cup games start at three and continue pretty much unabated until eleven; not much time is left over for Rambling.

* * *

That’s not to say things are uneventful. I don’t think that’s possible here, but things have been a bit slower since the Budget was more or less finalised. There are still a couple of things to do, including printing and distributing a report I’ve been working on, but the main parts have all been presented to Parliament. Despite gloomy predictions that the opposition parties would team up to sabotage it, the Budget seems to have been received well; civil society, donors, opposing politicians, all seem to be broadly in agreement with what has been pledged. The catch, and you knew this was coming, was how to ensure that what we pledge is actually undertaken. Past Governments have been happy to publish a budget without any real intention of implementing it. That’s no longer the case, but this is one case where good will and honesty aren’t enough. You can’t implement a Budget that you can’t monitor, and you can’t monitor a Budget without an effective way of tracking your spending. This has been a weakness of Government in the past, and it’s something we all recognise the need to improve. Unfortunately, it’s easier said than done: a shortage of qualified accountants in the country makes things difficult.

Of course, we can ask how our development partners can legitimately demand the level of auditing they seek. It’s entirely understandable that they want to see how the money they provide is being spent; but they and their headquarters aren’t usually able to produce the same level of auditing, so how can they really expect a country with far fewer human resources to be able to? The flaw in this argument is that many of our neighbours have managed it, but nonetheless it reveals one of the basic problems in the international development system, namely that the advice given is nearly always of the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ variety. I bang on about it interminably, but if one studies the varied paths of development across the world, I doubt you’d find many that matched the dominant paradigm of development espoused by the many these days. In a nutshell, if so-called ‘Good Governance’ was good for development, as is argued, then you can put a cross next to China, South Korea, even Japan (the seeds of whose rapid post-war development were sown in the repressive ‘30s), the UK (the enclosures movement) and the US (land grabs, widespread corruption in the 19th Century and early 20th). Similarly, free trade – even those countries who claim to engage in free trade these days are just more intelligent about how they market their protectionism.

So, what am I saying? I think the primary criticism I have is not of the development organisations per se, but of the discipline of economics. I’ve spent the spare time between football matches studying both history and economics since I was about fourteen (not telling you how many years that is), and with each passing year, I become more disillusioned with what passes as the mainstream of economics. My primary concern is how economics as a discipline has evolved over the years. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx, despite coming to completely different conclusions, went through a process that looked at the mechanisms of the economy as an interactive part of a wider society, one in which culture, demographics, history and politics occur not in a vacuum, but as parts of an integrated whole. They specified the structures of the economy as part of this, and made it clear in their original writings that they were talking about specific places, specific worlds, even if they were hypothetical sometimes. Where Marx failed, tellingly, is when he tried to create a theory that transcended the specific historical concerns of real societies, a theory of Socialism.

As economics changed over time, it became more and more specialised, with an ever-increasing interest in precision and universality. Both were manifested in a tendency to present economic theories as scientific formulae that purported to give a precise relationship between variables which would, allowing for random variation, hold everywhere. At the same time, as these theories gathered proponents, the whole business of history was removed from economics, to the extent that economic history has become a separate discipline, closer to history faculties than economics ones. Indeed, most these formulae ignored social factors altogether at first; when it became apparent that they weren’t working, especially in the developing world, where the social, political and economic are most closely intertwined, well intentioned and intelligent men like Joe Stiglitz started to look at the ‘omitted social variables’, reincorporating them. But this reincorporation gave them the form of variables in a universal relationship. This economics still works from a theoretical starting point. They are beautifully constructed theories that make brilliant sense; but that doesn’t make them true.

Stiglitz and his contemporaries have taken economics forward from where it was ten years ago, but its still far, far behind where it was one hundred years ago. If you want to replicate a well functioning economy you don’t start by looking at where it is now; you need to look at how it got to where it is now, where it started from and what it used to get there. Until we start doing that, the development policies that are so strongly espoused are based on shaky foundations.

* * *

This Ramble is far too long. But it’s one I’ve wanted to get out for a long time.

And Now for Something Completely Unoriginal...

This week’s Ramble is ill. Very, very ill. You see, I have World Cup Fever (boom, boom).

It’s spreading, too. On Friday, the day it all kicked off, pretty much my entire Ministry* forgot about budgets, aid, poverty and other insignificant matters and turned its attention to the only thing worthy of worry this month. With the budget almost wrapped up, and the final touches being put on our strategy paper before circulation to donors, time should be available to watch most games, and by beautiful circumstance, Wednesday is Freedom Day, the day Malawians voted for a multi-party system. This will allow me to watch Shevchenko rack up his first couple of goals as Ukraine piss on Spain’s parade.

My colleagues have varied predictions as to the eventual outcome. Confidence in the Ivory Coast team is high, and naturally for a country where the vast majority of football fans regard Ronaldinho as a friend rather than an idol, Brazil are hotly tipped. Maybe its bias, but my own view is that England will come good this time.

* * *

Of course, as Anon said in response to last week’s Ramble, goals in Malawi are rather more important than those in the World Cup. So, to stretch a thin analogy thinner, where are we in relation to our aims? More than seven games and one month away, that’s for sure, but it’s still a question worth asking.

First, the aim: Surprisingly difficult to define, especially after some of the conversations I’ve had recently. Two weeks ago, I’d have been asserting my materialist world view here, saying that what matters is income and food security, and these should be pursued above all else. But talking with a friend who has a rather different outlook (and an extensive repertoire of withering put-downs), I’ve been thinking about broader definitions of development. Where do safety, the right to a good education and freedom from persecution for political or religious beliefs fit in? Frankly, it demands more thought than I’ve put in to it, but these are all obviously important components of a high quality of life. The question is one of sequencing – can we pursue these after the material concerns of the population have been assuaged, or need they be pursued at the same time? Most aid organisations these days seem to feel that they are a precondition for improving material living standards, but looking at the way other countries have developed, that doesn’t seem evident to me. I think they can be pursued concurrently, but the first thing is to address those material issues that are putting the lives and livelihoods of the very poorest at risk.

If we accept that the primary aim is improving material livelihoods, Malawi has a long way to go. Food security is precarious; bad rains guarantee starvation unless there is a rapid and large-scale intervention, a situation that just isn’t acceptable in a country whose geography is so dominated by a lake. The Government have made irrigation and reducing the dependence on rain-fed agriculture a priority, but we’ve a long way to go. I’m no agricultural expert, but we can all see the need for a concerted effort here.

Alongside that, there doesn’t really seem to be the kind of vibrant and flourishing private sector found elsewhere in the region. Part of this is down to macroeconomic conditions – high interest rates and the like. But a more fundamental reason is the lack of real substantial entrepreneurial class who can effectively lobby the Government for a system of incentives of the kind found in Korea and Taiwan when they were growing at their fastest. These systems usually foster corruption. I think that’s inevitable, and the focus of Western Governments on reducing corruption is out of all proportion to the problems it causes. What’s more, a cursory glance at the economic histories of Europe and the US will reveal widespread corruption that was only gradually reduced.

And finally, there’s health. The healthcare system in Malawi seems okay, but is massively understaffed, partly due to the Diaspora of the trained. What’s more, basic supplies and medicine are difficult to come by, and expensive for the very low levels of income most people have. Again, outside my area of expertise, but to my untrained eye, we need extensive spending to ensure that hospitals are run, not just built, and if we can encourage the production of generic drugs (campaign, people!), so much the better.

* * *

This is not meant to be a bleak assessment. I see a lot of potential in Malawi’s natural resources, and I’ve met enough people who are capable and passionate about changing things to be hopeful about our prospects. What’s left is for Government to take a leading role, as I believe it must, in ensuring that what is to be done is achieved.

* * *

But back to the football. Angola just went down to Portugal, 1-0. Ivory Coast lost to Argentina, 2-1, but both teams have pretty definitively put to rest those irritating cliches about tactically naive African sides. I hope they manage a couple of wins, maybe even a run to the quarter-finals. And I really hope Togo don't let their shambolic preparations ruin things for them.

* Excepting the three people who are paying more attention to the battle between Dirk Nowitzski and Shaquille O’Neal, and the lone warrior concerned with the relative merits of Nadal and Federer. Truly, our sporting cup runneth over. For what it’s worth, I predict Nowitzski will be triumphant.

“It gets late real early round here…”

This week’s Ramble has had a mixed week. Exhaustion brought on by overwork has been tempered by the warm glow that comes with a sense of accomplishment. All shall be revealed.

* * *

First, the exhaustion. I’ve been working on a strategy paper over the last four or so weeks, which has involved intensive discussions with our major donors, officials from the various arms of Government and representatives from the NGO sector. It’s been brilliant to work on, getting all of these people together to discuss the way aid is delivered in Malawi and how it can be improved. As I’ve said before, there are number of problems with the way donors administer the money they pledge to Malawi, and a number of these problems are in reaction to real or perceived weaknesses in the way Government uses the funding which we manage ourselves.

It’s been instructive to be part of all of this, really getting to grips with the problems on both sides of the aid relationship that need to be addressed, and starting to come up with a way of doing that. The flip side is that it has involved an extraordinary amount of work: organising meetings, writing the various papers that will go on to form the strategy, seeking comments, consulting important colleagues who have been unable to attend meetings, redrafting, briefing senior officials and so on and so on. This all came to a head this week, when we realised that our tentative deadline for producing a draft of this strategy (about five minutes from now) was looming, and senior figures were not willing to countenance a slippage against this deadline. As a result, the Maradona has been spending those hours normally reserved for sleeping and dreaming of football in front of the computer, frantically tapping away at his keyboard.

The strategy will be circulated for comments later this week, and the reaction of stakeholders within and outside of Government is going to be revealing, as it’s the first time we’ve really set down what we want to see from them. They’ve been asking us to do this for some time, and now that we have, it might leave some wishing we’d left it alone. We’ve tried to corner our development partners into committing to improve their practices by also committing Government to undertake the reforms that they say we need. There’s a suspicion that, sometimes, the slow pace of reform is an excuse for non-optimal forms of aid delivery, rather than the reason.

That’s not to say that donors want aid to have a small impact; that wouldn’t be true at all. Donors want aid to have a large and immediate impact. To achieve this, most feel happier when they are spending the money themselves, so they can control what’s happening. I sympathise with this outlook, to an extent. The fact remains, however, that capacity within Government will be strengthened faster if donors used Government systems more. As an example, donors might not use Government auditing procedures because of a shortage of qualified accountants in Government. The problem is that when donors don’t use our audit systems, we have difficulty recruiting or training accountants, as there’s insufficient demand to justify spending scarce resources on them. Catch-22, Mr. Heller described it as.

* * *

And now, the euphoria. Well, euphoria might be a bit strong, but there’s definitely a sense of achievement among my colleagues and myself this week. Readers may remember that we spent quite a lot of energy and time trying to ensure that the support that we get from our donors shows up in the coming budget. Well, last Friday, we finally got a look at the budget, more or less in the form it will go before Parliament in. It’s not perfect, and a lot needs to be done for the next one, but its much, much better than it has ever been before. All those meetings, those arguments, those long afternoons poring over excel spreadsheets and beseeching recalcitrant colleagues to provide information have paid off. We’re all very proud of the effort. What’s left now is to start planning for the next one, to improve and make sure that we do it even better next year.

* * *

Three days until the World Cup. I’m so excited I could cry. Looking at the odds one can get, I’d recommend a modest punt on Ukraine to make semi-finals. They’ve looked superb in their warm-ups, and that’s without the One Who Broke My Heart. A relatively easy group, coupled with the best forward in the world, means that they may surprise us.