Notes on “Nina Munk on Poverty, Development, and the Idealist” vs. “Jeffrey Sachs on the Millenium Villages Project” Econtalk Episodes

Aloha Churchill
4 min readJul 25, 2021

--

After listening to Nina Munk’s interview with Russ Roberts [1], I was interested in the outcome of the Millenium project and Jeffrey Sachs's response [2]. While these episodes and the Millenium project itself were concluded in 2014 and 2015 respectively, the themes and outcomes from the experiment remain important. My hope is that writing about and responding to these discussions will help me think about these concepts more deeply.

Photo by Hu Chen on Unsplash

Led by economist Jeffrey Sachs and followed notably by journalist Nina Munk, the Millienium Villiage Project (MVP) was an initiative to lift impoverished villages throughout Africa “out of the poverty trap” [3]. While both Sachs and Munk were involved deeply in the project, the two individuals emerged with different perspectives on the feasibility of the MVP’s approach to solve extreme poverty.

In all societies from urban centers to small villages, there is a plethora of subtlety and complexity in the culture and economy. Because of this, Munk argues that outside intervention to introduce lasting economic growth is nearly impossible. Through anecdotes like the failure of the introduction of high yield crops into Ruhiira due to the unforeseen lack of storage resources and cultural preferences, Munk provided a convincing argument that intervention to ameliorate poverty unearths more problems than it solves.

These anecdotes reminded me of another Econtalk episode with Michael Blastland on the failures of prediction [4]. Blastland gave an example that shows the difficulty — if not the impossibility of finding a formula for humanitarian aid. In Tamil Nandu, a state of India, money and educational content of how to use this money was provided to mothers of malnourished children and it was a huge success. However, when the same approach was attempted in an area of Bangladesh, it had insignificant results because it was the mother in law who cooks for the family in these regions and consequently who did not get the benefit of the educational training of the program [5]. I think this is a clear and sad example that shows the complexity of giving humanitarian aid, let alone stimulating and sustaining economic growth.

Sachs responds to Munk's claims somewhat evasively yet passionately citing positive outcomes of the project — notably, the decline in malaria deaths in Millenium villages due to the program’s introduction of new malaria technology. However, this, like most of Sachs proclaimed successes of the project seem to be due to money and resources being injected into these villages, not from the market. Providing individuals with income tends to have a positive, if not lasting effect. As Munk puts it, “charity is not the same thing as economic development” [1].

A point of tension that is never really resolved in the Sachs episode is the question of whether the Millenium project takes a “top-down approach.” While Roberts suggests that the nature of the project is top-down approach, Sachs adamantly argues that it is completely the opposite. After hearing both episodes and from a few articles and discussions I read on the follow-up, my point of view is that the Millenium project did take a top-down approach. The MVP website uses language like “community leaders” and “simple solutions” which suggest a bottom-up platform. Ultimately though, when one or a group of individuals has predefined goals for another group a top-down solution is inevitable. This is not to say that a top-down approach is inherently evil — certainly the introduction of better malaria equipment like rapid testing facilities and durable nets helped save lives — but it does come with the precise dangers that Munk presented. Another thing that seems to indicate a top down approach is the MVP’s promise to foster rural development. This is a bit disconcerting because it is possible that migration away from geographic locations might be a better solution than attempting to bolster economic growth within these areas. Indeed, urbinization in Africa is on the rise [6]. In the long-term, migration to cities could lead to socioeconomic development and better routes of transportation between rural and urban centers.

I think a huge difficulty in the quest to end extreme poverty is the balance between short-term versus long-term solutions. Many places where extreme poverty is present require urgent aid. The solutions to provide this type of aid by nature are somewhat contradictory to solutions for lasting economic growth. For example, donation of food packages for hunger relief does not align with self-sustaining agricultural practices. If food packages were donated indefinitely and abundantly, there would be no incentive to grow crops, and, if the source of food packages was cut off in the future, a huge food crisis may occur. On the other hand, if there was no food relief, people in the current food crisis would starve. It is important, but not sufficient, to examine the causes of this theoretical, yet tragically real, food crisis. Perhaps it is due to bad governance, climate, or most likely a mix of many causes. But whatever the reason(s) of the food crisis, a solution to fix it is demanded. Both types of solutions are incredibly important but tricky to balance. In the case of the Millenium project, short-term fixes were in many ways confused with long-term solutions.

Listening to these episodes deepened my appreciation on the difficulty of intervention and the immense subtlety within different cultures and communities. A big thanks to Russ Roberts for his insightful discussions with both Munk and Sachs.

--

--