How "Big Ideas" Are Actually Hurting International Development

schnell writes: The New Republic is running a fascinating article that analyzes the changing state of foreign development. Tech entrepreneurs and celebrities are increasingly realizing the inefficiencies of the old charitable NGO-based model of foreign aid, and shifting their support to "disruptive" new ideas that have been demonstrated in small experiments to deliver disproportionately beneficial results. But multiple studies now show that "game changing" ideas that prove revolutionary in limited studies fail to prove effective at scale, and are limited by a simple and disappointing fact: no matter how revolutionary your idea is, whether it works or not is wholly dependent on 1.) the local culture and circumstances, and 2.) who is implementing the program.

Comments

Were Hunter-gatherers doing better

[Spy Handler]

than today? Sometimes I think Africa would be doing a lot better if white man had never existed.

(I'm including middle eastern people when I say "white man". They invented a pesky thing called agriculture and allowed populations to grow enormously)

I kinda like the hunter-gatherer lifestyle myself. Agriculture is overrated.

And no I'm not being racist, a noteworthy scholar had commented once that a hunter-gatherer from 100,000 BC lived better than the average man in 19th century London.