Check out Dana Goldstein’s interview with Bill Gates over at The Daily Beast. The discussion touches on a number of topics of interest, including Haiti, companies that are setting a good example in the bonus era, government’s role in meeting social needs, what works in public schools—and a revolutionary “scuba rice” that can help fight poverty. Of course, we’re also extremely pleased that he mentions our affordable irrigation technology work when asked about innovations he’s most excited about! Here’s what he had to say about IDE and the Gates Foundation’s approach to agricultural development:
…Another technology that is meeting with great success is a simple, low-cost treadle pump that enables farmers with limited water supplies to irrigate their crops, utilizing every drop of water effectively. Our grant to International Development Enterprises has allowed more than 100,000 farmers in India to benefit from this technology.
Innovations that are guided by smallholder farmers, adapted to local circumstances, and sustainable for the economy and environment will be necessary to ensure food security in the future. But technology is only one part of the puzzle. Small farmers also need training and resources to grow these enhanced seeds, and access to stable markets that offer them a fair price for their crops. That’s why we invest in each of these areas with our grant-making, to fund improvements across the agricultural value chain.
Our thoughts exactly. What do you think?
Poverty Alleviation Wrong?
A Post from IDE CEO, Al Doerksen…
What’s wrong with poverty alleviation? Well, nothing really, since there are some one billion or more people below someone’s definition of poverty. Without a doubt, poverty is repugnant and abhorrent, just like starvation and hunger is. It invokes a visceral reaction. The trouble with “poverty alleviation talk” is that it sees the world as 1 billion problem cases, and it is our task to (rid ourselves of the associated shame and guilt of this by setting out to) resolutely solve these billion problems. But it is curious that the beauty industry (probably larger than the aid industry) does not go around promoting programs of “ugliness alleviation.” Surely there must be a billion or more of such to be found too! No, the beauty industry responds to their clients’ aspirations of who they would like to be! The beauty industry does not focus (its promotional efforts) on the deficiencies of their clients but rather appeals to their dreams (I have no view on whether these dreams are legitimate or not). Likewise, IDE’s major program was aptly named “Rural Prosperity Initiative,” not “Rural Poverty Initiative.” We did so because we wanted to work on the “hope” side of our clients’ livelihoods, not the problem case orientation. This is more than nuances or mere words. If you are a poor person and I come to you to alleviate your condition, I have immediately turned that relationship into a somewhat paternalistic one. On the other hand, if you are a poor person, and I come to you to offer an opportunity—a partnership which will chase your aspirations for a better life—that is a fundamentally different approach. So we would rather talk about creating (modest opportunities for) prosperity than poverty….and it is so much more gratifying for all concerned, too.
— Al Doerksen, CEO of IDE
4 Comments