Which gives more bang for the buck, deworming or OLPC?
A recent article by Timothy Ogden (Computer Error?) provides a pretty clear answer: forget the glitzy computers, and put your scarce resources into the provision of deworming pills. The One Laptop per Child (OLPC) program provides computers at around $200 a pop, while deworming pills cost between 50 cents and 4 dollars per student per year. All the control trials of computers in classrooms have given—at best—ambiguous results. But the available studies of deworming pills suggest improvements in student attendance in the range of 20-25 percent. I'm glad to see this argument get some publicity since I've been expressing skepticism of the OLPC program for some time.
Perhaps it is a stretch, but I see an analogy with the growing debate around microfinance. Just as Yunus is receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom, more and more studies are casting doubt on the benefits of microlending. (Just to be clear, most of the studies look only at microlending, while microfinance encompasses a wider range of services, e.g. savings, insurance, etc.) So perhaps we need a rule that the more celebrity status a development initiative gets, the more skeptical we should be.
(Hat tip: Michael Trucano)
Update: Allana Shaikh over at UN Dispatch reiterates the point: "It’s time to call a spade a spade. OLPC was a failure."
Comments (4)
Delicious
E-mail
Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Ryan
I suspect the effectiveness of the intervention is uncorrelated with the celebrity of its advocate (rather than negatively correlated).
But you are right that many of the most popular initiatives - especially those that are popular down the West Coast of the US - are not very well supported by evidence.
Owen
Posted by: Owen Barder | Sep 6, 2009 12:31:32 AM
I can say the same thing: "Deworming ain't gonna teach children how to read".
Education in the developing world doesn't have one single solution. OLPC tried to address one, deworming another, training teachers yet another, ensuring children can go to school rather than socially being forced to work in the fields is another.
I agree with you that providing massive laptops to kids is not going to solve the problem. But it attacks one problem. I advocate for integrated solutions where all problems in education are addressed, not a single one.
One organisation can address one problem effectively, the challenge has always been to address the whole spectrum of problems. But that takes different NGOs working together, to synchronize their solutions and implementations. And that does not work thus far. We are competing simply because we are all chasing the same donor money, and advocate for OUR organisation's needs.
Peter
Posted by: Peter | Sep 12, 2009 6:06:23 AM
The point is fair, Ryan, and well taken. But the lessons from prominent reformers (Jaime Lerner in Curitiba, Brasil, springs to mind) shows that there is a great deal to be gained by undertaking reform that has a high symbolic value and high visibility.
In the Curitiba case, the "beacons of culture" project would have (technically) worked just fine if the libraries had not had the red-and-white beacon-like structures atop: but Lerner - rightly, I think - insisted that they stand, representing the city's determination to make good for everyone.
BTW, this is an area where I am really uncomfortable with standard economics as a framework - though I am an economist myself. I think economics does not get people like Lerner: a pretty big fail, for a social science.
Posted by: Alberto Cottica | Sep 14, 2009 3:49:17 AM
This is a purely hypothetical fancy. Thankfully, no either/or Hobson's choice presents itself. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can deworm, and provide micronutrients, and soap for handwashing, and medicated bed nets and we can still yet improve the quality of basic education through innovations like the XO.
All that is needed is the political will to make it happen. Oh, and some vision from donors.
Posted by: Hutak | Oct 18, 2009 9:49:16 AM