I like @owenbarder and admire his campaigning. I disagree with him about foreign aid, which he supports strongly.

But his series of tweets taking issue with a reference of mine about @DFID_UK in an article published today is particularly disingenuous (Thread: 1/17)

Far from reflecting well on DFID, as @owenbarder intends, I think this saga is a good example of the failures of
@DFID_UK and the UK development programme.

Pull up a chair. 2/17

Jeff Sachs had the idea that an integrated approach to aid would simultaneously address poverty, health, education, infrastructure, business development, gender more effectively than if these goals were pursued independently 3/ 17

The Millennium Villages Project (MVP) began in 2005. The declared aim was to prove that chucking cash at some of the planet’s poorest places could end extreme poverty, foster diversification from farming and spark sustainable development in just five years 4/17

Dfid decided to back it on the basis it could evaluate the programme (i.e. test the theory that aid works). It spent £2,906 per household on 35 rural villages in north Ghana, where farmers said they earn £160 in a good year. I visited them before & after the programme 5/17

If you read the entire report ( https://www.itad.com/article/itad-evaluation-offers-verdict-on-millennium-village-project-in-northern-ghana/), you'll see the verdict was scathing given sums spent in this impoverished region - as were views of villagers I heard. Bear in mind, of course, the timidity of most aid evaluations from consultants on the gravy train 6/17

For instance, the report concludes: 'Far from breaking the poverty trap, the project does not appear to have reduced poverty or hunger at all,’ adding that the scheme had ‘fallen short of producing a synergistic effect’ 7/17

The authors said they were surprised to find ‘the project did not improve some of the outcomes explicitly targeted by the intervention, such as child mortality, immunisation rates, antenatal care, access to drinking water and usage of mobile phones’ 8/17

They criticise ‘misguided’ efforts to attract more girls than boys to school and suggest preferential help for some schools drained others of good teachers - a problem seen elsewhere when aid is splashed around. Yet ‘the project did not improve children’s cognitive skills’. 9/17

The evaluation found little difference between villages drenched in aid & others nearby. Although attendance improved at new clinics and schools, while incomes rose ‘probably temporarily’, ‘what has been achieved could have been attained at substantially lower cost’. 10/17

The report also discloses, significantly, that 31% of funds went on management and overheads. It admitted also there was a ‘large-scale’ fraud involving a key local partner. I heard several other claims of corruption during my second visit after the scheme concluded 11/17

I found other issues on the ground: anger that taps were turned on & off; cynicism over box-ticking exercises; failure to listen to locals; abandoned schemes; broken machinery; dismay that 'white people & NGOs came & made lots of promises but they have not been fulfilled' 12/17

Far from showing that aid works, as planned, Dfid's scheme showed many of the failures and flaws in the neo-colonial, top-down approach that is the trademark of the self-serving Western aid industry 13/17

As Owen's former colleague @m_clem told me, the project did not achieve its self-declared aim of assisting poor parts of rural Africa to lift themselves out of poverty in five years. ‘The project failed to do that. Full stop,’ he said. 14/17

He argued rightly that development cannot be imposed by outsiders. ‘If this new evaluation ultimately diverts resources away from such projects and towards longer-term, African-led partnerships, then DFID’s support for it will have done a great deal of good.’ 15/17

So yes, as Michael & Owen argue, Dfid deserves credit for backing this daft project only on basis it could evaluate properly. The report was unusually thorough (which sent shock waves around Dfid). But it is disheartening to see @owenbarder defend Dfid due to this project 16/17

The problem is @DFID_UK swept aside its lessons. They ignored how a project aimed to prove aid works highlighted many inherent flaws. And they simply carried on spending their billions as before with similar misguided, arrogant & wasteful projects around the planet 17/17