Not sure how the Butler/Uconn game got these wheels turning...

Just finished this piece in an old New Yorker (Nadia: 2, Nightstand Reading Stack: 143). Curious what my co-blogger will think from the vantage point of someone studying concepts of leadership and incentives in B school.... [or whatever it was you were reading on my futon in those ginormous, densely titled textbooks this weekend when you should have been reading from this book so that next time you make jambalaya, my apartment doesn't smell like the bayou for the next 3 weeks...grumble grumble grumble]

Basically, in very short sum, Mo Ibrahim, founder of Africa’s first, big cell phone company, created a prize of $5 mill paid out over 10 years (with a 200,000 annual stipend to follow) to award African heads of state who demonstrated excellence in leadership and left their position when their term was up. His general reasoning is that African political systems have been plagued by corruption, dreadful leaders, who stayed in power enitrely too long, don't feel compelled to leave, and in response Ibrahim sought to create an incentive for improved governance and for leaders to actually depart when their term ends. Rulers are evaluated based on an African governance index designed by Bob Rotberg at the Kennedy School.

The awards been praised for simply raising awareness about governance in Africa and prompting a discussion on strengthening leadership. The Kennedy School touts the index as an important step towards “objective data” (versus say for example the World Bankgs Worldwide Governance Indicators which Rotberg has characterized as too “subjective. “)

On the other hand, detractors have noted that the award is simply rewarding someone for doing their job, it’s elitist in that it goes to the powerful but doesn’t directly benefit bureaucrats, citizens, etc. and perhaps, even more obvious, this money is peanuts compared to the funds a despotic ruler can acquire by staying in power and pillaging natural resources and state treasuries.

Further, Ibrahim’s index itself is criticized by others as weighing some factors too heavily (e.g. safety and security) that don’t necessarily correlate adequately to good governance (last year, Tunisia was the 8^th best governed state in Africa and Egypt the 9^th). There’s also that other big question about rewarding a leader based on measuring the state of affairs rather than his/her actual performance. not to mention, the whole rationale behind the financial incentive strikes me as a bit bogus – effective leaders are really incapable of identifying alternative lucrative options on their own once their term ends...?

Regardless, clearly, if some random billionaire wants to fund prizes, most people aren’t going to stop them. Which then had me asking myself -- what will I fund once Jette makes us filthy rich?

Anyways, good read and I’m really curious to read more about the index and how it was conceived beyond what this article says –like are these factors assessing what the government should be delivering from the point of view of citizens or assessing what citizens want according to Harvard professors. You also have to wonder about the data collection of the indicators – are they based on perception (e.g. do you feel safe) or hard facts (e.g. crime stats) and if it’s the latter, who is reporting the final tally of things like homicides in each country - is it the central government? Because I mean, if Baltimore cooks the books favorably, I wouldn’t be surprised if Kigali does (Thank you David Simon for my first real lesson in corruption)… AND I kept wondering is Sirleaf eventually going to win this being an HKS grad and all…. so many questions!

ooooh and it’s also interesting to note that the Ibrahim Foundation didn’t give it out last year for lack of deserving candidates.

i promise to abdicate if you give me all your thingamabobs and whatsits galore