Charlie Satow

The data revolution: what's behind the barricades?

A bed net is distributed in the forest and no one is there to track its delivery and use. Does it contribute to reducing the incidence of malaria?

This question gets to the heart of a key issue in development policy and one that is extremely important to Giving What We Can: data. And with the much-heralded ‘data revolution’ demanded by the UN High-Level Panel on the post-2015 development agenda, it seems to be rising up the list of priorities for governments and multilateral institutions. In this post I want to take a look at this ‘data revolution’ and why data are important for tackling global poverty.

But first, the ‘so what?’ question. Why is data important? The first reason comes from an efficiency argument central to Giving What We Can’s mission: you need to gather data 

to judge whether an intervention is having the effects it was supposed to have

, and thus whether it is a success. What we really mean when we talk of investing in data collection is investing in effective school systems, in well-run hospitals or in successful nutrition programmes. That much is familiar. But this can also 

contribute to the democratic political process

, by equipping people with the information they require to hold their leaders accountable.

Claire Melamed, of the Overseas Development Institute, makes a further, ‘equity’ argument for gathering data[1]: 

we tend to have least information about the people who are most marginalised

 (e.g. slum dwellers[2], women, the disabled), which leads them to receive less attention in terms of policy responses**.If we had more information about these groups we would provide better services for them**. These are three compelling reasons for caring about data or evidence.

What are the current problems associated with data collection in developing countries?

The problem is that the current state of data collection in many developing countries is extremely poor - so much so that Morten Jerven has written an 

 about the poverty of GDP statistics in Africa. And here we are not talking about minor mistakes: for example, when Nigeria’s GDP was re-based, the new estimate showed a 90% increase[3]. And to give another example, the High-Level Panel’s briefing document on the data revolution states that every year around 50 million births go unregistered.[4]

Given this situation, some sort of ‘revolution’ seems appropriate. But the term ‘data revolution,’ officially comprising ‘two main objectives’ and ‘four components’[4], is a slippery one. As Claire Melamed discusses on a 

 on the subject, it holds different meanings for different people.

bringing ‘big data’ into the mainstream of measurement and policy

. This could mean using mobile phone data to track refugee movements [5], or satellite imagery of trees to measure rates of deforestation [6].

strengthening capacity in traditional government statistics agencies

: training more statisticians, getting computer systems to work, etc. Perhaps, then, the ‘data revolution’ is simply an aspirational term, 

pushing policymakers to prioritise “more data, better data, disaggregated data, frequent data,”

 as Amanda Glassman of the Center for Global Development expresses it in the same podcast. It has certainly succeeded in drawing political attention.

For Glassman, one of the key issues is addressing the fundamental problem of incentives underlying the poor data. Administrative, government-collected data remain low-quality in many countries partly because of donor actions: they have demanded accurate household surveys to be able to evaluate their programmes, and to track indicators of their interest (e.g. the Millennium Development Goals). This has produced a system of little coherence and with certain types of information prioritised over others, for example at the national level at the expense of more data disaggregated into population groups.

Faced with this situation, one concrete proposal for 

donors is to engage in funding compacts with recipient-country governments to achieve certain standards on data

, following the payment by results strategy discussed in an 

, and with civil society oversight [7]. This could perhaps be nested within what the High-Level Panel calls a 

‘Global Partnership for Development Data’

, which would also help set common global standards for data reporting, reducing fragmentation and double-collecting.

Visible, user-friendly and practical data

What else can be done here and now to improve the data we collect? Melamed identifies some such steps, for example 

, particularly by publicly-funded bodies such as the UN, and also 

 to create a baseline for 2015 by which we can judge progress on the Sustainable Development Goals, the successor to the Millennium Development Goals. These are both linked to the further point that the final packaging of data must be 

 i.e. visible, user-friendly and practical [8]. The UK Department for International Development leads the way on this matter with its 

Whichever particular proposal you favour - making better use of ‘big data’ for development, forming ‘data compacts’ to improve statistics agencies in developing countries, standardising the way data are reported, or any other initiative - the key point is to take advantage of the current political moment to create a list of specific actions which can be taken forward even after attention has moved on from the data revolution (which it will), balancing the need to strengthen existing systems with the potential advantage to be gained from tapping into new and exciting data projects.

Giving What We Can puts gathering good data on an intervention at the heart of its philosophy. The ‘data revolution,’ if successfully translated into a series of concrete measures and integrated into the post-2015 development settlement, can reap the benefits of this approach on a global scale.

The Guardian: The Data Revolution is Coming

Post2015: We need a 'data revolution' for the global poor

Reuters: Nigeria surpasses South Africa as continent's biggest economy

CGDev: Delivering on the Data Revolution on Sub-Saharan Africa

SciDev: How to Engineer a Data-for-Development Revolution

Donating in the face of corruption

Corruption exists in developing countries. Transparency International’s 

 indicates that in a list of 23 countries, including those among the world’s poorest such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ethiopia, 

almost every second person reported paying a bribe for a public service

. In two of these, Sierra Leone and Liberia, this figure was over 75%, while 

This gives rise to justifiable concerns when donating to charities working in developing countries where reported corruption is high, and governance and institutions are weak. Won’t our money, or the goods it buys, just be stolen? Faced with this challenge, how should a prospective donor respond?

Corruption is common in many countries across the world. Source: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2013

First, what do we mean by corruption, and why don’t we like it? Here I’m not referring to ‘grand corruption’, large-scale looting by those taking advantage of their position in public office (e.g. 

 and others); what’s most relevant for Giving What We Can is 

theft of inputs or money designated for improving the lives of the poor

This is clearly a bad thing: the poorest are totally deprived of the benefits of an intervention, and the donation that funds it is wasted. This sort of graft can also undermine confidence in the organisation concerned, and, on a macro level, the “psyche and moral fiber” of local society, according to 

Corruption deprives the poorest of the benefits of an intervention. Credit: futureatlas.com

One response might be to avoiding donating altogether, which certainly ensures zero corruption in the use of your donations. But it also ensures zero impact; ideally we want to find some way of giving responsibly and still contributing to the alleviation of poverty.

Alternatively, you might demand a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to corruption from organisations you support. In fact, this has been the attitude of World Bank president Jim Kim, who in December 2013 

 corruption to be “public enemy number one,” adding, “we will never tolerate corruption, and I pledge to do all in our power to build upon our strong fight against it.”

Certainly, from a practical point of view, it’s a good idea to ensure that the charity you are giving to is aware of the risks of theft and corruption and has processes in place to avoid them. For example, the 

 and places a high priority on ensuring nets are indeed distributed to beneficiaries through 

. It also claims to work only with reputable distribution partners.

all transfers are checked and accounted for

 against a budget agreed jointly with the local Ministry of Health, regularly commissions 

 with those with whom they work in country (as well as having the advantage of distributing a drug with little to no market value). These sorts of procedures, in line with MANGO’s 

 to financial management for NGOs, can help to give a donor confidence in the integrity of a charity’s operations.

a ‘zero tolerance’ attitude is misguided

you can never be certain of eliminating corruption

. If corruption is actually an unfortunate fact of life in all societies to a certain extent (witness ample examples of corruption in ‘developed’ countries like 

, where the cost of corruption may be up to £99bn), then it is fruitless to try to avoid it entirely.

, corruption is not going away anytime soon. In this context, a genuine ‘zero tolerance’ attitude is impractical: the standards would be so high as to render any work on the ground impossible.

 of the Center for Global Development (whose argument is about public sector corruption but is still relevant for our purposes) you recognise that corruption is “almost always a symptom of a broader problem of weak systems of control, entrenched patronage, insider rents and privileges,” then it follows that stringent formal reporting requirements imposed from outside aren’t likely to be totally successful in avoiding the problem.

a single-minded focus on corruption potentially overstates the threat it poses, and is itself a waste of resources

. Above I mentioned that corruption is present in all societies. But that does not mean it is always present: because corruption stories in nonprofits make a good story, they often garner disproportionate press attention, giving the false sense that all charities inevitably suffer immense losses from corruption.

, arguing that, given our ignorance of how representative corruption cases are, stories of corruption in aid organisations are more likely to reflect better reporting of allegations than an actual greater fraud or corruption risk. Likewise but more generally, Olken and Pande, in 

, find that “estimated levels of corruption are remarkably heterogeneous [in low-income countries]”.

Given this uncertainty, Professor Alan Fenwick, director of the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative, 

 “prejudices and fears of corruption and wastage” as a distraction and obstacle to SCI’s work. Corruption is a key concern when working in certain societies, but some organisations may find it less of a problem than others. Witness the Against Malaria Foundation, which, fortunately, has experienced 

no material loss of nets through theft”

This leads to an alternative point of view: as Savedoff 

, ‘how much money is wasted?’ might not even be the right question when we think about aid interventions. Rather, if our aim is to improve school attendance through deworming, for example, 

the first question should be ‘does the money that gets through have the desired impact?’

 This chimes with the increasing interest in 

 approaches to aid in larger-scale bilateral programs, where payment is made by funders to a recipient government or organisation only after there has been confirmed progress towards an agreed-upon goal.

Translating this philosophy to charitable giving at the individual level, it means 

we should look at the good done by an organisation as the principal measure of whether we should support them

working to minimise corruption in practice

; if we make our donations conditional on an organisation’s achieving certain outcomes, then there is less scope for diverting money away from beneficiaries as this will result in reduced achievement of these outcomes. In essence, 

minimising corruption follows on from an emphasis on results

Recognising that, when donating to charities, effectiveness comes first is not to say corruption should not also be tackled head on separately. And here, 

it is to developed country governments and companies that we must direct our attention

for each $1 developing nations receive in foreign aid, $7 in illicit money flows abroad

, depriving millions of public services. 

 suggests, further, that about 45% of illicit flows end up in offshore financial centres, and 55% in developed countries, demonstrating rich countries’ complicity in this. No matter how much effort is put into making aid as effective as possible, without simultaneously addressing this crippling outflow of resources the net effect of rich countries on poor countries will continue to be negative. For those concerned about corruption, then, organisations working to combat it through increased financial transparency like 

 are good places to start informing yourself.

Each year a huge amount of money flows out of developing countries illegally. Credit: Global Financial Integrity

Returning, then, to the issue of corruption and charitable giving, what can we conclude? When faced with corruption, 

credible mechanisms in place to avoid corruption

, and, more importantly, which can demonstrate the biggest ‘bang for the buck’ – which are 

most effective at alleviating poverty according to rigorous evidence

, such as the charities Giving What We Can 

. Meanwhile for those who are particularly concerned about corruption, a promising start to an intervention is investigating illicit outflows from developing countries.

Charlie Satow

Articles

The data revolution: what's behind the barricades?

Donating in the face of corruption