PlayPumps International was an immediate sensation. The idea was this: instead of the typical hand-pump, found in many developing-world villages to provide water for the community, PlayPumps International would install playground merry-go-rounds that would pump up water from deep underground as children played on them. The children would get often their first playground amenity, and the village would get clean water — it was a clear win-win.

Soon, Playpumps International was raking in awards and accolades — a $10 million grant from the US Government, announced by First Lady Laura Bush, a World Bank Development Marketplace Awared, and even a site visit and sponsorship from Jay-Z. The international media swooped in to report the story, loving both the startling innovation and the opportunity to pun on “pumping water is child’s play” and “the magic roundabout”. At the centre of it all was Trevor Field, the founder of PlayPumps International. He reported: “It really rocks me to know we’re making a difference to a lot of people who are nowhere near as privileged as I am or my family is.”

The only problem with PlayPumps International was that the idea wasn’t actually any good. There were many problems, and I’ll just mention a few.

First, unlike normal playground merry-go-rounds, which spin freely once they’ve gained sufficient momentum, in order to pump water the PlayPumps needed constant force. The kids, understandably, would get tired very quickly, and didn’t want to ‘play’ on the pumps at all hours of the day. So it would often be left to the women of the village, who would struggle to push the additional weight, and would sometimes vomit while the pump was in motion. In one town, children were actually paid by the locals to ‘play’ on the pumps.

The second problem was the lack of consultation and maintenance. When the UN investigated the efficacy of PlayPumps in Zambia, the majority of users said that they hadn’t been asked whether they wanted the pumps and that they preferred the handpump that had been removed to make way for the PlayPump. Most didn’t know who to contact in case the pump needed repair — which a large proportion of pumps did.

Finally, there was the cost. Though initially touted at $6500 per pump, the price rose without explanation to $14 000. Though that might not sound like much, that’s equivalent to 64 years of local wages, and several times the cost of a standard handpump (which could also pump more water per hour). So donors were paying several times as much for a worse product.

In an interview prior to the public realisation that the PlayPumps program had been a disaster, Trevor Fields was asked what his one piece of advice would be. He said: “The best advice I’ve ever received, ever, is to, and everybody says this, but it’s true, believe in yourself. You’ve got to believe in your idea… So the best advice that I’ve ever got was that you’ve just got to do it. It’s like the Nike slogan. You’ve just got to do it.”

Unfortunately, when it comes to helping others “just do it” and “believe in your idea” are probably the stupidest pieces of advice you could offer (rather than, say, “do your research”). Luckily for the world, PlayPumps International was decent enough to admit it was game over and folded in March 2010.

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Relevant opportunities