tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189930829940284211.post2208827404616640693..comments2023-09-18T09:55:35.795-04:00Comments on China in Africa: The Real Story: Rubbery Numbers for Chinese Aid to AfricaDeborah Brautigamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10813215294689392170noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189930829940284211.post-12751641308724352672013-05-03T07:50:43.753-04:002013-05-03T07:50:43.753-04:00There is an interesting response on behalf of AidD...There is an interesting response on behalf of AidData to some of Professor Brautigam's criticisms of this database and methodology: http://blog.aiddata.org/2013/05/a-rejoinder-to-rubbery-numbers-on.html?utm_source=buffer<br /><br />Although we can all be sympathetic to AidData's argument that exposing their data to public scrutiny could help to improve on it, I think it is far more likely that these numbers will be misused and misunderstood, despite whatever disclaimers may be given. Scholars may have a good handle on how to use (or not use) this type of preliminary data, but misinformed journalists are often just looking for numbers to support their alarmist views. For example, The Guardian has already written an article about the database with the headline: "China commits billions in aid to Africa as part of charm offensive: Database reveals government has backed 1,700 projects on continent since 2000 in apparent attempt to win favour. The country's financial commitments are significantly larger than previous estimates." http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/interactive/2013/apr/29/china-commits-billions-aid-africa-interactive Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189930829940284211.post-90808626770205608402013-05-02T11:27:04.567-04:002013-05-02T11:27:04.567-04:00I totally agree with Deborah.
We can all agree tha...I totally agree with Deborah.<br />We can all agree that it is important to come up with a clear picture of Chinese investments and aid activities in Africa. However, as murky as most information coming from China tends to be, this methodology particularly stands out as ineffective and counter-productive.<br />There will be numerous projects announced at press conferences which never materialize.Joshua Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189930829940284211.post-51583556441001418342013-05-01T12:47:12.351-04:002013-05-01T12:47:12.351-04:00Hi Alex,
Briefly, read carefully.
(1)My blog does...Hi Alex,<br />Briefly, read carefully.<br /><br />(1)My blog does not give any support for a figure of $700 million as Chinese finance for a demonstration center in Mozambique -- it reports the hopes of a Mozambican minister for this kind of finance, which did not happen. Here's what I wrote: <br /><br />Could [the idea of an $800 million pledge from China] it be related to a request the Mozambicans made for China to help fund the Moambe Science and Technology Park, a pet project of the Minister of Science and Technology? Together with the agricultural research center in Umbeluzi/Boane, the two projects would have cost $700 million (the Chinese agricultural center itself was projected to cost 55 million RMB, about US$9 million) (10). The Chinese did say they would help out with Moambe, but not fund the entire thing. Mozambique later received a mixed grant/credit of $15.8 million from China to support distance education and "science and technology" See: http://www.clubofmozambique.com/solutions1/sectionnews.php? secao=social_development&id=22558&tipo=one<br /><br />(2) As for Sudan, my source, like yours, is the project website, which lists the funders of the dam, the power station, and the transmission lines. The Chinese provided finance for the hydromechanics of the power station, and the transmission lines for Merowe, not the dam. <br /><br />The Building Bridges project data was also media-based and not all of their numbers were fully vetted, or included projects that were not fully confirmed, or offers still under negotiation that were never finalized.Deborah Brautigamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03141925702416939602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189930829940284211.post-69248883963110210202013-05-01T12:17:06.358-04:002013-05-01T12:17:06.358-04:00Professor Brautigam,
Thank you for your feedback,...Professor Brautigam,<br /><br />Thank you for your feedback, I’ve been working on the AidData China initiative for over 18 months now and its great to hear from you. Most of my knowledge on the relationship between China and Africa stems from your previous work, while the rest has come from my experience collecting and vetting media-based data. Have you had the opportunity to read our updated methodology, or look at any of the project records you have labeled as “Mega-errors?” I think you’ll be surprised if you do.<br /><br />Regarding the Agricultural Center in Mozambique, our project page clearly denotes the discrepancy between the $700 million figure and the 55 million RMB http://aiddatachina.org/projects/1215, and actually used your blog as a source to confirm the $700 million figure http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com/2012/01/zambezi-valley-chinas-first.html. Based upon the title alone, it may appear like we’re overestimating, but if you re-read it you may find it’s a combined project record for the center and the “pet-project” you described in your earlier post.<br /><br />Additionally, how do you come to the conclusion that there are no Chinese funders for the Merowe dam in Sudan? Our project page http://aiddatachina.org/projects/178 has 2 independent sources, plus the PPIAF Building Bridges database, confirming the involvement of the Chinese EXIM bank for a commitment of $519 million. Even the official project website lists the “government of China” as a major funder http://www.merowedam.gov.sd/en/funding.html. If you have additional information we don’t that would help improve this project record, we would love to set the record straight.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01045422114691430759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189930829940284211.post-38703612957045652342013-04-30T19:45:45.821-04:002013-04-30T19:45:45.821-04:00I actually don't see much value in projects th...I actually don't see much value in projects that generate wrong numbers, which are then recycled, cited and abused by users who are not aware of the severe limitations of the exercise. The Guardian in the UK also contributing to the spread of these 'numbers' now http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/interactive/2013/apr/29/china-commits-billions-aid-africa-interactive<br /><br />Basically, the outcome of this project will be yet another wave of GIGO analysis (Garbage In = Garbage Out) as it has happened with datasets on land grabs. <br /><br />Thank you Deborah for doing the difficult job of digging out the methodological problems with this project. Carlos Oyanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189930829940284211.post-8195049650658253302013-04-30T14:47:02.803-04:002013-04-30T14:47:02.803-04:00Madame Butterfly
Thanks for the clarification. O...Madame Butterfly<br /><br /><br />Thanks for the clarification. Of course, its fair. Even in official data on AID, there are serious problems. And as you noted, the problem is that others will run with this database and start regressing all kind of nonsense with it! You are spot on! Aggregated data, even when cross checked with similar sources, does not change systematic error - just compounds it!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12599006340469818689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189930829940284211.post-55101608040130178902013-04-30T14:26:32.763-04:002013-04-30T14:26:32.763-04:00Of course, as I said in my comments, I do see valu...Of course, as I said in my comments, I do see value in the project. I think that starting with media reports is a good start. But I don't think they worked hard enough on cleaning this data, which requires experienced people, going beyond media reports. I predict that these numbers will be widely used by researchers who will not clean the data, and that in one to two years we will see a rush of scholarly journal articles using this data and making conclusions about "Chinese aid." Media reports are already reporting these figures as numbers on "Chinese aid" not finance. Deborah Brautigamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03141925702416939602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189930829940284211.post-83692907463243384312013-04-30T13:09:03.831-04:002013-04-30T13:09:03.831-04:00I don't think it's fair to blatantly criti...I don't think it's fair to blatantly criticize what is intended to be supplementary to information that doesn't exist publicly in the first place. Given that China is a non-traditional donor and does not formally report its development finance, this project is an interesting start to increasing Chinese financial transparency--especially considering that public users have the ability to update projects on the open website that was launched yesterday. Do you not see any value to the project at all? For a scholar, that seems rather ignorant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com