Daily Archives: 17 May 2012

pirates make UN sexy — but at high price


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-16/war-on-somali-piracy-needs-rules-and-impregnable-citadels.html

key points:

  • pirates (as a topic, apparently, not as guests) make a meeting sexy
  • 219 piracy incidents in 2010 cost  ”the shipping industry, insurers, navies and law enforcement more than $7 billion”
  • speeding may not be the answer but impregnable citadels are (?). shockingly, “it may be futile to expect shippers to run at full speed through an entire danger zone, as recommended in the industry’s current Best Management Practices.” (seriously?)  ”rather, with better information sharing among the various navies in the Indian Ocean and timely assessments of pirate action from risk consultants and shipping companies themselves, ships’ masters can learn what particular areas to avoid or speed through.”
  • “the IMO should support the for accreditation and certification standards of private maritime-security companies, and push for a global convention that would create a legal structure for prosecuting open-water piracy — a Hague for the High Seas. “the guidelines could cover everything from rules of engagement to the management of firearms to training in lifesaving.”

is this how you repay the pirates for jazzing up your organization?

the author notes that “the only “cure” for Indian Ocean piracy will be stability and economic growth in Somalia” but doesn’t say much about increasing piracy “off western Africa, South America and Southeast Asia.”

i know – but couldn’t we have asked, too?

Posted on by hlanthorn

things i know & understand:

  • this is cool research from @poverty_action
  • it’s fun and important to show and know that ‘we’ (development types) have poor assumptions about what will work
  • time and budgets are always constrained
  • this comment is super-predictable coming from me. but…

when i read this:

our results showed that although the consulting intervention caused short-term changes in business practices, these impacts dissipated within a year after the consulting ended. on average, we found no long-term benefit from the consulting, and actually lower short-term profits. we believe some business people hoped the advice would work and thus took it. but better bookkeeping and other business practices potentially took time away from the physical act of sewing clothes. once profits took a hit, enterprise owners likely abandoned the practices and reverted to their previous methods. [emphasis added]

i think to myself, ‘heather, why is it that you so rarely read:’

  • “the respondents believed this program did/not have the intended effect because…” (this would be based on more qualitative research during our at the end of the study)
  • or, something along the lines of, “the respondents felt that future efforts could be improved by…” (more of that open-ended goodness)
  • or, “from our observations during the implementation of the intervention, we believe what happened is…”
  • or, “the implementers feel that x happened, that z presented serious challenges, and y could improve it in the future”
  • or, radically, “the respondents (or implementers) feel that a better way to have approached the same goal would have been…”

i am well aware that absolutely none of these things will provide definitive – or even ‘true’ – answers about what worked and why. but surely other people’s opinions besides the reseachers’ count and should be collected, despite the extra collection and analysis time? wouldn’t it be fun to have more information about why we are seeing the treatment effect that we see? among other sources, see here.