Full Text: Feed the World

Shore: You've put your finger on what seems like a dilemma, which is that there are a lot of things NGO's can do that government cannot: they can innovate, take risks, and be closer to the people they serve (and therefore be more accountable to them) but it seems improbable that even the best NGO efforts will scale to reach all of those who need them without broader public and ultimately government support. And that's when things start to get muddy. I have been encouraged by the degree to which individual anti-hunger leaders in developing countries have been eager to access help on a one-to-one basis. On my last trip to Ethiopia, a young man whose agricultural project we visited followed our Land Rover for about two hours until we got back to our small plane. He walked over and said, "If you know of anyone who could give us just two weeks of training in marketing and communication skills, it would be a great boost to our efforts." You and I, in NY and DC, are only surrounded by about five thousand such individuals. Creating opportunities for people to share their strength this way seems like a huge opportunity.

Easterly: I love the idea of the whole skills assistance thing originating from the local anti-hunger leaders, contrary to the usual UN/World Bank approach of "us" deciding what "they" need and supplying it whether there is any demand for it or not. And of course I agree not everything can be done by NGOs - for example, it's doubtful that NGOs could do the road-building necessary for farmers to get their crops to the hungry at reasonable prices. Having reached agreement on all this, however, I still feel like I haven't gotten a straight answer from you on independent evaluation of your programs. Accountability has to be more than rhetoric-it will only help make programs work if it's concrete. Can you please answer the question: Are you willing to have (or do you already have) a sample of your programs evaluated by an independent third party?

Shore: Yes, of course our own programs have been subject to independent evaluations, most intensively in the case of our nutrition education efforts, which are most successful when they result in long-term and lasting changes in behavior. So we always welcome such evaluation and will continue to invest in it. The same is true for many of the organizations we fund. After all, Share Our Strength is primarily a grant maker, so we know how useful such evaluations can be. There is another type of evaluation also and it comes from free markets--stakeholders, donors and investors who believe we are having an impact and increase their support or believe we are not and decrease it. With greater transparency, and greater commitment to not only measuring outcomes but communicating them, the nonprofit marketplace could begin to act like a responsive marketplace, one in which high performing organization are rewarded and low performing organizations are penalized, and eventually winnowed out. We're not there yet, but the sector is moving in that direction. I'm guessing we can agree on free markets?

Easterly: Yes I think free market principles can be a great source of inspiration for designing aid programs (an approach for which I got pilloried by Amartya Sen, so I'm glad to find a fellow traveler). Of course, an academic always has to say "but…" The buts in this case are formidable but not impossible. The investors in a for-profit company in free markets know whether the company is a hit with the customers just by looking at corporate sales and profits (even then we need rules and honest accountants so that companies don't Enron-ize the books). Unlike private markets, there is no visible bottom line in aid that reflects customer (poor peoples') satisfaction. That is exactly why I am glad you are doing a lot of evaluation, and why I think there should be far more effort at eliciting feedback from the poor for both NGOs and official aid--if this is missing, on what could your angel investors base their faith in your efforts?