So I was a little snarky tweeting a couple of days ago about Bono and Geldof on the Globe and Mail. One viewer asked why we still needed White Men (TM) to speak for Africa, to which they responded with some humming and hawing, with Bono professing that he likes Africa so much that he has ‘gone native’ (which I guess makes him an African and thus able to speak for the continent?)

Now I have a great deal of respect for both of them – they don’t have to put all of this work into an important cause. I’ve been a Bono fan since his White House prayer breakfast, and his use of the “J” word. And a lot of the sour grapes that celebs get from development ‘experts’ is just that. On the whole, the two of been good for development.

At the same time, it doesn’t help for them to skirt the question. Why is it that we have two White Guys who specialize in singing editing a special issue of the Globe and Mail on Africa? They don’t have to shut up, but they could use their celebrety currency to turn attention not only to the problems and potentials of a continent, but also to share the stage to African leaders and activists. I don’t follow either Bono nor Geldof closely, but I cannot think of an interview given in a ‘rich’ country by either of them that included an African expert or celebrity alongside them. Why not?

And, no, Jeff Sachs and Angelina Jolie most certainly do not count. Even if they have gone native as well.

Nextbillion.net links to an interview with Harvard’s George Lodge on the topic of a potential World Development Corporation, which he had advocated for over the years.

Lodge feels that MNCs are not involved enough in issues of development, and that their participation will be key to sustained poverty reduction.  He cites the examples of the Asian Tigers as proof that business, and small business in particular, will be the driver for poverty reduction in most developing countries.

–SNIP–

Many big companies are now spending substantial amounts of time and money on being “socially responsible.” I would ask them to think more imaginatively than they have about how this time and money could be more effectively spent. Philanthropy is not the answer. A way must be found to align the profit-making capabilities of MNCs more effectively to poverty reduction, especially in those countries that now have little if any MNC investment.

No company can act successfully alone. The risks are too high. I would ask them first to call a meeting of CEOs of major MNCs concerned with global poverty and explore the idea of establishing the World Development Corporation, proceeding experimentally and in collaboration with carefully selected NGOs and representatives from the UN and the World Bank. Trying a few projects and seeing how they worked would risk little.

–SNIP–

Lodge is calling for increased cooperation between MNCs, NGOs and governments (a good thing).  But his examples of possible programs, inwhich multiple MNCs work with poor regions to deliver services and offer development programs seems a little far fetched.  Corporate philanthropy can only go so far : letting the Nestles of the world into the centre of development programming as ‘partners’ may avert our gazes from the potential wolf in our midst.  This is not to claim that they do not have a legitimate role – but rather that those who promote partnership approaches to development would do well to examine the incentives for all of those who participate, and especially those who may want to keep their motiviations less than clear.
Link 

Amartya Sen has also chimed in or Easterly’s recent critiques of the development world. His recent review of Easterly’s new book, The White Man’s Burden, says that while the critiques are valid, Easterly offers little in the way of solutions:

–SNIP–

In The White Man’s Burden, William Easterly offers important insights about the pitfalls of foreign aid. Unfortunately, his overblown attack on global “do-gooders” obscures the real point: that aid can work, but only if done right.

William Easterly, writing recently in the Washington Post, rightly calls Jeffrey Sachs to task for sensationalizing the problems of Africa and paying little attention to the role of African entrepreneurs in stimulating growth and change on the continent.

Easterly is correct, of course. Bono and Angelina’s trips to Africa and Washington say little of successful Africans, who are little more than victims of an abusive West. That said, in his attempt to be snide, Easterly downplays the very real necessity for aid to build the social and economic infrastructure onwhich his people depend. His example of an acquaintance who founded a successful private university in Ghana is case in point. No, he likely could not receive money from Aid agencies, who channel devote their funds elsewhere. That said, universities are seldom successful in countries with crumbling primary education and health services, all of which unfortunately depend on foriegn dollars.

The return of this simplistic dualistic thinking is not good for Africa. Sachs and his friends are equally guilty on the other side – which I will write about in another post.

Many of my colleagues are divided on the issue of celebrities such as Bono pontificating on the issues of poverty and world affairs. Activism on a private jet, they argue, may be sincere in its own way, but cannot truly promote change. And how does being able to carry a tune qualify you to advise on issues of social policy?

I’m a little less cynical. Last week’s American National Prayer Breakfast speech by Bono was, in my mind, a moving address that could only but do good. Bono stood up in front of George Bush and much of the Administration’s elite and spoke of justice, and the need for change.  He did not talk of charity – and indeed said that charity was not enough.  He couched the speech in his own faith, and did so with grace and elegance.

Those who have developed a political currency, through talent or other means, have the ability to use it to promote good, or to simply purchase more and more expensive watches and host parties in LA.  Bono has committed more time than I (a supposed development professional) to moving the world to deal with poverty in Africa, and he seems to have a grasp of the complexities involved.  Perhaps we need more Bonos.

LINK to mp3 of speech.

LINK to video (via CSPAN)

LINK to text

See the text here

I spent some time this morning at a student symposium sponsored by WUSC on campus here at St. Francis Xavier University. The goal of my little talk and workshop was to see what the various students at the conference knew about the Millennium Development Goals, and how they saw them relating to their own lives. I was pleasantly surprised.

While few of the students could recite the Goals (who could???) they were very reflective and curious about what role they could play. There was a healthy mix of criticism and optimism as they broke into different groups to discuss whether the Goals matter, and if they do, what they can do about it them.

Accepting that these students don’t necessarily represent the norm in most universities, I was still left with the impression that apathy does not, in fact, the rule on Canadian campuses.