Let me share with you my state of mind after finishing a careful reading of the full World Bank report on Latin American remittances, Close to Home: The Development Impact of Remittances in Latin America. On the one hand, it is a closely reasoned, and (as far as this non-economist can determine) a fair-minded analysis of the data. I would expect no less from the Bank, and I applaud the authors.

On the other hand, it leaves me unsatisfied, hungry for more. Why? The conclusions and recommendations are appropriate to the evidence examined, but as the quite extensive and prominent news and analysis coverage of this issue suggests, there is an appetite for more, and one wishes that the authors had not felt so constrained, but rather, had taken a more expansive view of the potential for the study. But, for whatever reason, that was not to be, and one can't really criticize them for "staying within the lines."

That doesn't mean we have to. So, this post is a call to our readers to make the sort of suggestions that the authors of the Bank report did not. Let's design the "manna from heaven" which the Bank does not find today. I for one accept the essential Bank conclusions that countries should continue to encourage the deepening of financial services to recipients, to increase competition among remittance service providers in order to lower costs, and to improve the "doing business" environment. All these are good, but in your view, what are the additional big ideas that are appropriate to the need?

This post continues past the break; click "Read More" to continue.

It is a familiar story: post-college volunteer (Peace Corps, etc.) returns from the developing world with a desire to help the community in which he or she has been staying.  The subsequent projects are also familiar – they often involve selling local handicrafts to first-world markets, or aggregating donations of used computers and cell phones to send back to the community.  I don't question the motivation behind such initiatives, and I applaud some of them for attempting to bolster the local economy or jump-start development with first-world technology.  More often than not, however, these small projects operate much like typical top-down development projects; that is, they depend on human and physical capital that only the donor/benefactor can provide.  In order for such projects to become truly sustainable, they must be able to stand on their own.

Peter Haas knows this story well, having spent years traveling to and volunteering in low-income communities, where well-intentioned development projects often failed without constant donor intervention.  With his first-hand knowledge of the problem, Haas set off to find a solution, founding the Appropriate Infrastructure Development Group (AIDG) in 2004.  The AIDG web site describes exactly what it is they do:

(This post continues past the break; click "Read More" to continue)

New Ventures India is wrapping up its annual Investor Forum, linking some of the country's most outstanding small, sustainable enterprises with the capital and managerial training they need to grow and expand.  Some initial highlights from the event include rousing discussions from Michael Owen and T.C. Venkat Subramanian of the Export/Import Bank as well as a host of panels filled with key representatives from the private sector including Microsoft India and Hindustan Lever (Unilever's Indian branch). 

Ten of India's most promising small entrepreneurs presented their business models to a packed house of 200 investors, corporate leaders and policymakers.  Their products ranged from high growth clean technologies entering the mainstream, such as CleanStar Energy's rural energy production systems, to the offbeat but surprisingly intuitive (I had never heard of Edible Cutlery before BK, but apparently they are in discussions to supply a major Indian hotel chain). 

Elizabeth Economy and Karen Monaghan write in the International Herald Tribune (The perils of Beijing's Africa strategy) that China is quickly creating blowback in Africa despite its purportedly "hands off politics" approach.  You would be hard-pressed to design a more anti-BOP strategy than much of what China is doing - obsessively chasing resources for China's own benefit, without regard for the environment or the interests of local populations; bringing in its own workforce so little money even reaches the citizens of the country where they are operating. China clearly needs some fast education on sustainability and corporate responsibility. Chinese leaders, we're an NGO....and we're here to help.