Great to see Malengo’s work being highlighted! Migration is a fundamental part of the human experience, and expanding access to better education and opportunities for individuals can be truly transformative, especially given the stark differences in outcomes between low-income and high-income countries. I’m particularly excited about Malengo’s rigorous, data-driven approach to evaluating the costs and benefits of their initiatives, as it provides a valuable counterweight to the often unsubstantiated popular narratives on migration.
Thank you for these wonderful stories @Lauren Gilbert. You've clearly had some deep discussions, these conversations feel authentic and reflect the kinds of things I've heard from Ugandan immigrants before. I know stories like this probably shouldn't update me in favour of a program like this, but they have.
Overall I do think the program is probably good, and possibly one of the best, but it does (along with high skilled immigration in general) have some of the highest potential downsides of any GHD intervention that remain largely unacknowledged, which irks me a little. I've harped on these 2 potentially large downsides a few times, and have yet to receive any response.
1. The best country-builders leaving the country. "You know when you meet someone and you can just tell they’re a leader? That’s how I felt meeting Jasmine". Often the best and most enterprising people take the opportunites to leave. People that could have been country-changing business leaders, civil society leaders and politicians end up working an office job in Germany. There are potentially large down sides from pulling abroad even a few irreplaceable potential country-builders.
Its debatable whether Malengo targets the "merely good, rather than the exceptional". About 7.7% of Ugandans complete high school and about 2/3 of these get the 2x principal passes needed for the program. I would guess Malengo would then selects above-average candidates, so perhaps the top 1-4% of Ugandans academically are selected for this program. Whether that percent counts as exceptional or not I'm not sure. I do like though that Malengo makes an effort not to select the best students.
2. Remainer dissatisfaction could cause large scale reductions in wellbeing. Talking to West Africans I've felt a deep restlessness dissatisfaction when they know friends who have left and done better, while they still remain. In Nigeria it even has a name, "Japa" syndrome. Large numbers of people people spend much time, money and energy trying to leave the country. When everyone is trying to leave, no-one is trying to build their country In Nigeria they call it "Japa" In Uganda , mass emigration is not yet a reality yet so this. If more programs like Mulago grow and immigration becomes more possible, a similar situation could happen in East Africa.
Because of no. 1 above, I'm a bigger fan of low/mid skilled immigration like the Malengo Kenyan nurse program, as remittances will likely be similar-ish and that downside disappears.
A few other points.
1. It's impossible that these families of kids on this program were making only $42 a month on average as Malengo stated. How was this calculated - could it just be a mistake/typo maybe? For family income I would conservatively guess these families would have average 5x-10x this. Unless their kids are sponsored, almost no family Uganda who sends kids to high school would earn only $42 a month. Each year of high school in Uganda costs minimum $700 a year for one person. University is $1500+. Both the first and third family you featured here managed/would have managed university at $130+ a month - and that's just fees for one family member.
Even most families in the poorest, most remote places where OneDay Health works earn more than $42 a month. The World Bank has revised their "extreme poverty" line to $90 a month. I doubt many (if any) of these families earn that little. Its not the biggest deal, but Malengo should probably fix this $42 number as its a long way from the truth.
2. I absolutely love that Malengo have embedded an RCT into this. I suspect the differences will be staggering between incomes and opportunities - there's no real reason to think otherwise. A small caveat is that Ugandan incomes are often extremely low 0-55 years after graduating university, then many can increase quite steeply after that (often 4x - 10x_ more than after university graduation). Many friends here worked for $60 a month after graduating then moved on to $600+ a month NGO/Government/Business jobs later. On the other hand German salaries will likely incrementally improve. Despite this there will still obviously be huge differences 5-10 years after graduation.
3. if the first cohort was 2021 then shouldn't some have graduated by now and be working?
So top 1-4% seems optimistic; top 10% maybe, but not top 1%?
I will also say that the people I interviewed were not randomly selected among Malengo scholars; I did specifically choose people who were particularly articulate *and* wanted to talk to me about the program. I suspect this selected for the leaders among Malengo scholars! (For instance, Jasmine has learned way more German, way faster than average.)
2. I believe I've acknowledged this point before? I think this is a possible downside, though I think in West Africa, it is driven as much as by political dissatisfaction with the government as by the quality of life elsewhere.
But largely - I don't think country concerns should dominate over the wants of the individual. If people want to leave, I think they should be able to do so - it feels weird to privilege what is possibly good for the country over what the individual wants.
3. It's $42/person/month, or $600 a year. This is below average for Uganda, but not impossible. (The refugee cohorts will also pull down this number.) I'll check with Malengo, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't verified in some way.
Again, my interviews weren't randomly selected; a sample of three out of 250 isn't exactly representative. Jasmine also mentioned that there were significant non-cash benefits to her father's job as a clergy member - land to farm, and I think some support for educating his children?
4. The first cohort was seven people, and as noted, many people are taking somewhat more time to graduate. I think the first graduates are expected in December?
1. That's a great point about you probably talking to some of the best students, appreciate that selection bias.
After seeing a wide range of numbers, I did my own calculation from UBOS stats.
- 2/3 of UACE sitters meet the Malengo criteria
- About 110,000 students sat senior 6 each year between 2020-2023
- About 1.5 million people were enrolled in the first year of primary school 2000-2006 (intake years for 2020-2023)
I didn't even take into account that 5-10% of Ugandans never go to primary school at all, so that would bring the numbers down a bit more. That's how I got my 7% and 4% number. It still seems unlikely to me that Malengo doesn't select stronger candidates but it could well be true!
I can't imagine more than 10% finishing UCE even on a high bound - no idea where world bank and Vox get their numbers from. I don't put much stock in those large World Bank datasets which don't give their working.
2. I have huge sympathy for dignity and choice, and I wish the world was not like it is. I think though that country concerns need to have some sway over "What the individual wants". I agree in sentiment with "If people want to leave, they should be able to do so" but unfortunately it can't work in practice.
I see "the country" as the collective good of all the people in it. If we gave everybody the choice whether to migrate, the African continent would be close to empty - surveys are showing most young Africans will actively try to immigrate, and this sentiment increases year by year. Its an interesting philosophical question whether emptying Africa of people is really the way to deal with huge injustice an inequality. My instincts don't like this max exodus idea but I'm not sure...
I'm sure wanting to leave is partly driven by dissatisfaction by the government, but the data shows that the ability to leave likely plays a big part when we put together these factors. Governments aren't in general getting worse.
a) Life has been generally getting better in African countries and yet...
b) More and more people leave each year
c) More and more people want to leave each year
3. On the $42 front, a key factor is that this is a cohort of families sending their kids all the way to the end of secondary school. These families would usually have well above average incomes. Even searching out poorer families, on that low income you just can't afford to pay kids through 6 years of high school - its not physically possible. This I'm confident about from experience and math. The only possibility of people earning $42 per person per month AND sending kids through to Senior 6 is if kids got scholarships.
On the pastor front, I would have counted those benefits (free school and land to farm) as part of income, but I suppose that could go either way.
Per person definitely makes the calculation less absurd, but I still think $42 is an implausible number.
I'll check with Johannes on how they measure consumption, but I did text a funder and the consumption number is verified through home visits.
Re. point 2: I think this is simply a philosophical difference. My primary motivating factor in working on development is that I want everyone to have the same range of opportunities that I did, growing up middle-class and American. Perhaps that is an individualistic take; I will own that I am extremely American.
If I had been born in Uganda, I doubt I would have been very successful. (Not the least because I had extremely expensive medical problems as a child; god knows if I would have even survived.) But I can move to Germany for university (though it seems a bit late for that; I think three degrees is sufficient). I did migrate countries for the right job. (I live in England.)
I got all the things these kids want by being born American, and I don't think that is right or fair.
Thanks Lauren - I love that you're motivated for everyone to have the same range of opportunities you and I did. Your reflection on success is super important as well. I've got no doubt I would have not had much success in Uganda. With my illegible handwriting I might not even have passed primary school. I like to provoke people that if Einstein was born here in Uganda there's almost no chance we would ever have heard of him. He might not have passed P7...
Its not right or fair that we had these opportunities that all my brilliant friends and colleagues here just don't have. Even those who make it through to tertiary education barely get to choose their degree let alone their job. I see so many wonderful artists and philosphers here hustling to make ends meet - they tragically won't get a chance to express their gifts properly.
In my own wee way I try and help Ugandans have better opportunities through providing better healthcare for the very poorest in remote villages, giving them more opportunity to thrive in their lives and hopefully do a bit better at school. If there is even a big philosophical difference between us, it might be that my heart and work is focused on the extreme poor. But we obviously need people with a heart and focus on people from different walks of life.
And on the employment front we've at least provided 80 jobs to nurses who might not otherwise have them. For sure their pay is a tiny fraction of what they would get in Germany nowhere near what they deserve (it keeps me up at night), but its still much better than they would be doing otherwise..
Subscribed to this Substack a few weeks ago and love all the content! My focus is on solutions to employment in Africa and how emerging technologies, climate change, and other factors, such as migration policy and geopolitics, will impact this. All to say that the posts here are extremely interesting as a result!
I came across a post on LinkedIn a few weeks ago that touted "Move to Germany" as a viable solution for young Africans. It felt blithe and not considerate of the psychosocial toll that migration has on migrants (especially to countries like Germany with anti-immigrant sentiment growing in the sociopolitical landscape), as well as the long-term implications of what I sometimes see as reverse colonisation (basically extracting the most prized resources of a place (its people) and fragmenting families and communities without the hassle of ever leaving your land).
The stories shared here are very familiar. There is relief, hope, a feeling of expanding horizons, and a general positive vibe. There is also the point about remittances, etc, and the positive impact(s) on the migrants' home communities. However, in the long-term. I believe the real winners here are the countries that accept the migrants, who essentially control the valve - when to open or bar access to the "greener" pastures of countries like Germany (to zoom out of the individual framing, although you've clarified that this post is an exception).
This comment is running long, so I'll end here. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks Oni - appreciate that perspective. I agree that extracting the most prized resources (people) from a place can be far more harmful than many imagine, I've expressed similar sentiments. My experience of Ugandan immigrants though like Lauren highlighted is that I've seen surprising reslience and positivity. People generally do well and live good lives in their new country. I'm a bit less worried about the psychological toll on individuals than you are - they had plenty of big problems to deal with back in Uganda too.
I'm not sure who the real winners are. The countries that accept the migrants certainly are winners, I think the migrants and their familes generally win. What's not clear to me is whether the home countries will be winners in the long run. There are a lot of factors to take into account pushing in different directions. (remittances, prized resource extraction, personal dignity and opportunity, psychological tolls etc).
Migration is certainly a complicated question, more so than many like to admit both on the pro and anti sides.
RCT is a good approach to measure the programs effect over time. Talent will seek an environment with better competitive governance to help them thrive.
What's your opinion on the broad success of talent migration and the effect of unreliable immigration policy in some developed countries for example, the UK.
Thanks Lauren for sharing our stories and showcasing Malengos good work
Thank you for taking the time to chat with me!
Great to see Malengo’s work being highlighted! Migration is a fundamental part of the human experience, and expanding access to better education and opportunities for individuals can be truly transformative, especially given the stark differences in outcomes between low-income and high-income countries. I’m particularly excited about Malengo’s rigorous, data-driven approach to evaluating the costs and benefits of their initiatives, as it provides a valuable counterweight to the often unsubstantiated popular narratives on migration.
Thank you for these wonderful stories @Lauren Gilbert. You've clearly had some deep discussions, these conversations feel authentic and reflect the kinds of things I've heard from Ugandan immigrants before. I know stories like this probably shouldn't update me in favour of a program like this, but they have.
Overall I do think the program is probably good, and possibly one of the best, but it does (along with high skilled immigration in general) have some of the highest potential downsides of any GHD intervention that remain largely unacknowledged, which irks me a little. I've harped on these 2 potentially large downsides a few times, and have yet to receive any response.
1. The best country-builders leaving the country. "You know when you meet someone and you can just tell they’re a leader? That’s how I felt meeting Jasmine". Often the best and most enterprising people take the opportunites to leave. People that could have been country-changing business leaders, civil society leaders and politicians end up working an office job in Germany. There are potentially large down sides from pulling abroad even a few irreplaceable potential country-builders.
Its debatable whether Malengo targets the "merely good, rather than the exceptional". About 7.7% of Ugandans complete high school and about 2/3 of these get the 2x principal passes needed for the program. I would guess Malengo would then selects above-average candidates, so perhaps the top 1-4% of Ugandans academically are selected for this program. Whether that percent counts as exceptional or not I'm not sure. I do like though that Malengo makes an effort not to select the best students.
2. Remainer dissatisfaction could cause large scale reductions in wellbeing. Talking to West Africans I've felt a deep restlessness dissatisfaction when they know friends who have left and done better, while they still remain. In Nigeria it even has a name, "Japa" syndrome. Large numbers of people people spend much time, money and energy trying to leave the country. When everyone is trying to leave, no-one is trying to build their country In Nigeria they call it "Japa" In Uganda , mass emigration is not yet a reality yet so this. If more programs like Mulago grow and immigration becomes more possible, a similar situation could happen in East Africa.
Because of no. 1 above, I'm a bigger fan of low/mid skilled immigration like the Malengo Kenyan nurse program, as remittances will likely be similar-ish and that downside disappears.
A few other points.
1. It's impossible that these families of kids on this program were making only $42 a month on average as Malengo stated. How was this calculated - could it just be a mistake/typo maybe? For family income I would conservatively guess these families would have average 5x-10x this. Unless their kids are sponsored, almost no family Uganda who sends kids to high school would earn only $42 a month. Each year of high school in Uganda costs minimum $700 a year for one person. University is $1500+. Both the first and third family you featured here managed/would have managed university at $130+ a month - and that's just fees for one family member.
Even most families in the poorest, most remote places where OneDay Health works earn more than $42 a month. The World Bank has revised their "extreme poverty" line to $90 a month. I doubt many (if any) of these families earn that little. Its not the biggest deal, but Malengo should probably fix this $42 number as its a long way from the truth.
2. I absolutely love that Malengo have embedded an RCT into this. I suspect the differences will be staggering between incomes and opportunities - there's no real reason to think otherwise. A small caveat is that Ugandan incomes are often extremely low 0-55 years after graduating university, then many can increase quite steeply after that (often 4x - 10x_ more than after university graduation). Many friends here worked for $60 a month after graduating then moved on to $600+ a month NGO/Government/Business jobs later. On the other hand German salaries will likely incrementally improve. Despite this there will still obviously be huge differences 5-10 years after graduation.
3. if the first cohort was 2021 then shouldn't some have graduated by now and be working?
1. I don't think Malengo does then select above-average candidates?
I'm also not sure where the 7.7% number comes from; World Bank has 17.6% in 2016 (https://humancapital.worldbank.org/en/indicator/WB_HCP_UISCR3) and VoxDev says around 30% (https://voxdev.org/topic/education/expanding-secondary-education-uganda-pathway-womens-empowerment).
So top 1-4% seems optimistic; top 10% maybe, but not top 1%?
I will also say that the people I interviewed were not randomly selected among Malengo scholars; I did specifically choose people who were particularly articulate *and* wanted to talk to me about the program. I suspect this selected for the leaders among Malengo scholars! (For instance, Jasmine has learned way more German, way faster than average.)
2. I believe I've acknowledged this point before? I think this is a possible downside, though I think in West Africa, it is driven as much as by political dissatisfaction with the government as by the quality of life elsewhere.
But largely - I don't think country concerns should dominate over the wants of the individual. If people want to leave, I think they should be able to do so - it feels weird to privilege what is possibly good for the country over what the individual wants.
3. It's $42/person/month, or $600 a year. This is below average for Uganda, but not impossible. (The refugee cohorts will also pull down this number.) I'll check with Malengo, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't verified in some way.
Again, my interviews weren't randomly selected; a sample of three out of 250 isn't exactly representative. Jasmine also mentioned that there were significant non-cash benefits to her father's job as a clergy member - land to farm, and I think some support for educating his children?
4. The first cohort was seven people, and as noted, many people are taking somewhat more time to graduate. I think the first graduates are expected in December?
Thanks Lauren
1. That's a great point about you probably talking to some of the best students, appreciate that selection bias.
After seeing a wide range of numbers, I did my own calculation from UBOS stats.
- 2/3 of UACE sitters meet the Malengo criteria
- About 110,000 students sat senior 6 each year between 2020-2023
- About 1.5 million people were enrolled in the first year of primary school 2000-2006 (intake years for 2020-2023)
I didn't even take into account that 5-10% of Ugandans never go to primary school at all, so that would bring the numbers down a bit more. That's how I got my 7% and 4% number. It still seems unlikely to me that Malengo doesn't select stronger candidates but it could well be true!
I can't imagine more than 10% finishing UCE even on a high bound - no idea where world bank and Vox get their numbers from. I don't put much stock in those large World Bank datasets which don't give their working.
2. I have huge sympathy for dignity and choice, and I wish the world was not like it is. I think though that country concerns need to have some sway over "What the individual wants". I agree in sentiment with "If people want to leave, they should be able to do so" but unfortunately it can't work in practice.
I see "the country" as the collective good of all the people in it. If we gave everybody the choice whether to migrate, the African continent would be close to empty - surveys are showing most young Africans will actively try to immigrate, and this sentiment increases year by year. Its an interesting philosophical question whether emptying Africa of people is really the way to deal with huge injustice an inequality. My instincts don't like this max exodus idea but I'm not sure...
I'm sure wanting to leave is partly driven by dissatisfaction by the government, but the data shows that the ability to leave likely plays a big part when we put together these factors. Governments aren't in general getting worse.
a) Life has been generally getting better in African countries and yet...
b) More and more people leave each year
c) More and more people want to leave each year
3. On the $42 front, a key factor is that this is a cohort of families sending their kids all the way to the end of secondary school. These families would usually have well above average incomes. Even searching out poorer families, on that low income you just can't afford to pay kids through 6 years of high school - its not physically possible. This I'm confident about from experience and math. The only possibility of people earning $42 per person per month AND sending kids through to Senior 6 is if kids got scholarships.
On the pastor front, I would have counted those benefits (free school and land to farm) as part of income, but I suppose that could go either way.
Per person definitely makes the calculation less absurd, but I still think $42 is an implausible number.
I'll check with Johannes on how they measure consumption, but I did text a funder and the consumption number is verified through home visits.
Re. point 2: I think this is simply a philosophical difference. My primary motivating factor in working on development is that I want everyone to have the same range of opportunities that I did, growing up middle-class and American. Perhaps that is an individualistic take; I will own that I am extremely American.
If I had been born in Uganda, I doubt I would have been very successful. (Not the least because I had extremely expensive medical problems as a child; god knows if I would have even survived.) But I can move to Germany for university (though it seems a bit late for that; I think three degrees is sufficient). I did migrate countries for the right job. (I live in England.)
I got all the things these kids want by being born American, and I don't think that is right or fair.
Thanks Lauren - I love that you're motivated for everyone to have the same range of opportunities you and I did. Your reflection on success is super important as well. I've got no doubt I would have not had much success in Uganda. With my illegible handwriting I might not even have passed primary school. I like to provoke people that if Einstein was born here in Uganda there's almost no chance we would ever have heard of him. He might not have passed P7...
Its not right or fair that we had these opportunities that all my brilliant friends and colleagues here just don't have. Even those who make it through to tertiary education barely get to choose their degree let alone their job. I see so many wonderful artists and philosphers here hustling to make ends meet - they tragically won't get a chance to express their gifts properly.
In my own wee way I try and help Ugandans have better opportunities through providing better healthcare for the very poorest in remote villages, giving them more opportunity to thrive in their lives and hopefully do a bit better at school. If there is even a big philosophical difference between us, it might be that my heart and work is focused on the extreme poor. But we obviously need people with a heart and focus on people from different walks of life.
And on the employment front we've at least provided 80 jobs to nurses who might not otherwise have them. For sure their pay is a tiny fraction of what they would get in Germany nowhere near what they deserve (it keeps me up at night), but its still much better than they would be doing otherwise..
Subscribed to this Substack a few weeks ago and love all the content! My focus is on solutions to employment in Africa and how emerging technologies, climate change, and other factors, such as migration policy and geopolitics, will impact this. All to say that the posts here are extremely interesting as a result!
I came across a post on LinkedIn a few weeks ago that touted "Move to Germany" as a viable solution for young Africans. It felt blithe and not considerate of the psychosocial toll that migration has on migrants (especially to countries like Germany with anti-immigrant sentiment growing in the sociopolitical landscape), as well as the long-term implications of what I sometimes see as reverse colonisation (basically extracting the most prized resources of a place (its people) and fragmenting families and communities without the hassle of ever leaving your land).
The stories shared here are very familiar. There is relief, hope, a feeling of expanding horizons, and a general positive vibe. There is also the point about remittances, etc, and the positive impact(s) on the migrants' home communities. However, in the long-term. I believe the real winners here are the countries that accept the migrants, who essentially control the valve - when to open or bar access to the "greener" pastures of countries like Germany (to zoom out of the individual framing, although you've clarified that this post is an exception).
This comment is running long, so I'll end here. Thanks for sharing!
Happy to connect and learn more about your work Tamilore
Thanks Oni - appreciate that perspective. I agree that extracting the most prized resources (people) from a place can be far more harmful than many imagine, I've expressed similar sentiments. My experience of Ugandan immigrants though like Lauren highlighted is that I've seen surprising reslience and positivity. People generally do well and live good lives in their new country. I'm a bit less worried about the psychological toll on individuals than you are - they had plenty of big problems to deal with back in Uganda too.
I'm not sure who the real winners are. The countries that accept the migrants certainly are winners, I think the migrants and their familes generally win. What's not clear to me is whether the home countries will be winners in the long run. There are a lot of factors to take into account pushing in different directions. (remittances, prized resource extraction, personal dignity and opportunity, psychological tolls etc).
Migration is certainly a complicated question, more so than many like to admit both on the pro and anti sides.
This is great! I might start donating to Malengo now thanks to this post :)
How does Malengo embed a RCT into their program? Do they pick some % of people who are 'good' and then randomly choose from that group to provide for?
Correct! They choose randomly amongst people qualified for the program, and then compare outcomes after several years.
RCT is a good approach to measure the programs effect over time. Talent will seek an environment with better competitive governance to help them thrive.
What's your opinion on the broad success of talent migration and the effect of unreliable immigration policy in some developed countries for example, the UK.
Well Said …
Well Said …
Well Said …
Well Said Lauren.