Letters

Trust But Verify

How important is representative data in human rights work?

There is an urgency to humanitarian response that Tina Rosenberg ("The Body Counter," March/April 2012) and her subject, Patrick Ball, do not seem to appreciate. Representative numbers are important in the human rights field, but only to the extent that they actually improve people's lives. The U.S. Marine Corps used the SMS data mapped on the Ushahidi-Haiti platform to save hundreds of lives after the 2010 earthquake. Something is wrong when self-styled human rights defenders attack lifesaving volunteer work.

Ball does not typically work with representative samples. He simply applies methods that assume he has nicely behaved random samples. Validation studies are needed to demonstrate that a technique can perform well despite substantial real-world violations of its assumptions. Validation works by applying the technique to a case with an already known answer to test whether one gets the right answer. There are, unfortunately, few validation studies in Ball's area of work. Many of his studies therefore ride entirely on assumptions.

In the case of Haiti, we actually have a strong validation study. This research was produced independently by the European Commission's Joint Research Center and survived a peer-review process, which is how scientific work is validated. The Ushahidi data provided a truer guide to the damage in Haiti than Ball's alternative -- a map of buildings -- would have. (Note that no such map existed at the time anyway.)

Ball and Rosenberg also appear to be confused about the Ushahidi platform, which is simply an information collection and visualization tool that is equally usable for either representative or nonrepresentative data. Columbia University researchers Macartan Humphreys and Peter van der Windt, for example, used Ushahidi to collect and visualize representative cell-phone data in their Voix des Kivus project in eastern Congo.

Finally, Rosenberg states that I "ultimately retreated to a narrower set of claims" after defending the European Commission's analysis. Absolutely not. I fully stand by my original arguments.

PATRICK MEIER
Director of Crisis Mapping, Ushahidi
Nairobi, Kenya


Tina Rosenberg replies:

Patrick Meier is incorrect in thinking I am attacking Ushahidi's lifesaving work. The information Ushahidi collects is invaluable for first responders during times of man-made or natural disaster. The question is whether Ushahidi can go beyond this core mission to map a disaster accurately.

Meier contends that the Ushahidi platform can be used to collect and visualize representative cell-phone data. But it is almost never used this way, and the Voix des Kivus project he cites shows why. It tries to create a representative sample by pre-positioning cell phones and pre-training villagers who are selected because they are members of different groups.

Most disasters, of course, do not wait for this kind of preparation. In the vast majority of cases, then, Ushahidi's data can pinpoint reports of violence or destruction, but cannot reliably describe their pattern or multitude.  


As Tina Rosenberg's profile of statistician Patrick Ball details, measuring suffering is a complex endeavor. And the International Rescue Committee (IRC) agrees with Ball that practitioners must use the best available data and scientific methods in obtaining numbers. We disagree, however, with his suggestion that the IRC erred in its estimation that 5.4 million people died from conflict-related causes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo between 1998 and 2007.

Over a seven-year period, the IRC partnered with leading epidemiologists to conduct five mortality surveys in Congo. To estimate the number of war-related deaths, our experts needed to know the prewar mortality rate. The best source available was Congo's official crude mortality rate of 1.3 deaths per 1,000 people per month, based on the country's most recent national census.

Ball is quoted as saying that the prewar rate we selected was "far too low," leading to a higher excess death estimate. In fact, to be conservative in our calculations, the IRC deliberately used a baseline rate for sub-Saharan Africa that was 15 percent higher than Congo's official rate and 20 percent higher than that used by UNICEF. Using this higher rate resulted in a lower estimate of conflict-related deaths.

We also disagree with Ball's claim that a "correct" baseline estimate would have resulted in "an excess death figure that is only one-third or one-fourth as high." To arrive at such a low figure, one would need to assume that the prewar baseline mortality rate for Congo was 2.85 deaths per 1,000 people per month -- more than double the rate used by Congo's government and UNICEF and higher than any rate ever reported for an African country. This is simply not a plausible baseline figure.

Prior to the IRC surveys, the world made wild guesses about Congo's war-related mortality. Today, there is hard evidence that millions died. Like Ball, we believe that "measurement matters."

EMMANUEL D'HARCOURT
Senior Health Director, International Rescue Committee|
New York, N.Y.


Tina Rosenberg replies:

In its Congo studies, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) compared the death rate during the war with a prewar baseline death rate and then calculated the excess. Obviously, if the baseline death rate is too low, then the excess will be too high.

What was the IRC's baseline? The average death rate in sub-Saharan Africa. But by any measure, conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- even before the war -- were worse than those almost anywhere else on the continent. The death rate in Congo was likely much higher than the African average.

While the IRC's figures have been widely cited in the media, they are controversial among demographers. One study by two Belgian demographers using a higher baseline came up with an estimate of 200,000 excess deaths due to the war between 1998 and 2004. For the same period, the IRC estimated 3.9 million excess deaths -- 20 times as many.

Letters

Balance of Power

In the face-off between companies and countries, don't underestimate the growing power of the state.

David Rothkopf ("Inside Power, Inc.," March/April 2012) points out that ExxonMobil spends six times more money than Sweden spends on its defense. Is it reasonable, however, to extrapolate from this and an impressive list of other company vs. country statistics that some private corporations may now have a larger impact than some states "on the outcome of global climate talks"?

I don't think so. Here's another Exxon-related statistic that throws Rothkopf's larger argument into question: There are 15 energy companies in today's world that own more oil than Exxon, and all but one is at least partially state-owned. National oil companies like Saudi Aramco, Gazprom (Russia), CNPC (China), NIOC (Iran), PDVSA (Venezuela), Petrobras (Brazil), Abu Dhabi National Oil Co., Kuwait Petroleum Corp., and Petronas (Malaysia) own about three-quarters of the world's crude oil reserves. Private international oil companies, meanwhile, hold just 7 percent, and ExxonMobil less than 1 percent. When it comes to energy and the environment, this is a more revealing indicator of the balance of power between companies and countries.

These are not the only sectors of the global economy where privately owned companies face a new generation of challenges. Ideas and information continue to cross borders at high speed, but China and other states are developing new ways to build walls in cyberspace. What happens if China succeeds in its attempt to create "one world with two Internets?" What does that say for the future of Facebook, Google, and Twitter as they compete with state-empowered competitors like Renren, Baidu, and Sina Weibo?

I couldn't agree more with Rothkopf that a balance between the public and private is best for the global economy and those who participate in it. But his assessment of that balance sharply underestimates the lasting (and growing) power of the state.

IAN BREMMER
President, Eurasia Group
New York, N.Y.


David Rothkopf replies:

Ian Bremmer's core point -- that some states still have considerable power and can make life difficult for corporations -- is hard to dispute. I don't attempt to do so in either my article or the book on which it is based, Power, Inc. But to suggest that states have considerable power is not to demonstrate that private power has not grown with the rise of giant multinational corporations, which are designed to operate nimbly on the global stage in ways countries -- especially small- and medium-sized states -- cannot.

That a few giant state-owned enterprises exist in the oil sector is simply an exception, as is the ability of states such as China to control the Internet (though I am virtually certain these efforts will fail because international market pressure will quickly turn web censorship into an unsustainable competitive disadvantage). As far as nationally owned oil companies are concerned, most depend on private oil giants to bring their products to market, which certainly compromises their leverage -- and was intended to do so, because this system was cooked up by big oil companies in the first half of the 20th century.

The core question, acknowledged by Bremmer, is balance -- seeking to ensure that the benefits of democracy and markets exist in ways that ensure society's greater goals of equity, opportunity, justice, and a higher quality of life for all. History shows that when the needle swings too far toward either public or private power, imbalances and disruptions sometimes occur. Americans find themselves in such a moment in the United States, where the political system has granted extraordinary power -- greater in some respects than those accorded to average people -- to the artificial persons of the corporate world, and money plays a dominant and corrupting role in the political process.