Sorry for the radio silence. It's because I wanted to give the utter awesomeness of my last post (or note, as those of you who follow this publication on facebook are wont to say) time to sink in.
...
Kidding.
Actually, Malawi has been having some serious electricity issues these past few weeks, which has been making it a bit challenging to stay caught up. In my case, 'caught up' means trying to type and email a quarterly progress report and a project update without the benefit of a computer to do it on and support my counterparts at Plan Malawi who have been extremely busy with some budget stuff.
During one of the irritatingly frequent blackouts (for Canadian and Malawian residents alike), I had an idle chat with some of the staff at the field office.
At one point in our chatting, the community development facilitator who was part of our group (CDF or field staffer) asked me what I'd do if I were a donor to help (here in Malawi, specifically) - it was as this point that our chatting became less idle.*
*[no less paraphrased though - this was awhile ago, so my recollection might not be exactly accurate. Anyway, you'll get the general idea]
I didn't have an answer for him, so I made a joke (that wasn't very funny) and spun the question back to him.
The field staffer in question said he'd spend on getting HIV/AIDS under control, as it affects everything, from food security to the growing challenge of orphans in Malawi.
The ICT Coordinator said dealing with HIV/AIDS as well.
The office assistant said nutrition and research - into AIDS as well but also into health and disease more generally. That's interesting enough, but it was the way he put it that was really profound (and caused both of the other members of our chat to agree emphatically). He said that developing countries need to invest in research because their priorities (HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition) are different than those of developed countries (heart disease, cancer). He argued that developed countries devote their time and effort to challenges that affect them, and that it would be really positive if development aid were to go to recipient agencies in ways that stimulated the same.
Intrigued, I asked out of NGOs, the private sector and government, which places (if we were to take this question of research, anyway) donors should direct money to. The CDF said, without any hesitation, that it should be NGOs; because, as he put it, "the money we see given to NGOs at least goes directly to the people." The ICT Coordinator said the private sector, and specifically "those companies at the leading edge of whatever field we mean." The office assistant said "not the government."
Things went sideways then, as we were chatting during the week where Presidential candidates to hand in their nomination papers, officially kicking off election season and the mention of the "g word" of course led to a discussion about that.
A bit later the power came on.
The conversation really left me thinking. Now it can do the same for you (I hope).
Posts
1 week ago
3 comments:
NGOs have the virtue of not being corrupt, and spending such that money actually goes to the people.
Their major drawback are
1. In many ways, they're like western countries—often run by people from the West, and usually run by at least western educated people. They (whether run by outsiders or locals) tend to have their own priorities which don't always jive with what is really needed in the opinion of locals or the local government. In particular, NGOs are tied to the money of their donors. Therefore they'll tend to focus on their donors' priorities which aren't often what is really needed: someone like me who might donate has very little knowledge of development or of the situation on the ground.
2. If money goes to NGOs, the local government never is able to offer much in the way of public services. This prevents the government from gaining competence to manage its own country, and to actually improve the living standards of its people—a core responsibility of government. It also prevents the government from becoming accountable for what it is doing for its people—hard to hold a government to account when it isn't relevant to you, nor capable of being relevant. In this sense, funding NGOs retards political development.
3. If money for good jobs is going to NGOs, people will get jobs that are tied to foreign funding, not local entreprenneurship. This runs counter to economic development goals.
4. When there is a proliferation of NGOs, one can end up with a "too many cooks spoil the broth" scenario and plenty of money is spent, but little of it co-ordinated.
As an example of all this, HIV/AIDS funding is very popular. However, public health experts would argue that it isn't an efficient use of health care funds. Overall health and mortality of a community is most impacted by interventions in maternal health and infant health. HIV/AIDS is part of this, but fighting infections which are treatable by antibiotics and prevented general hygiene and well-being will enable much more economic activity and many more lives than treating HIV/AIDS. Local governments often understand this because they study how a public health system should run. NGOs, however, focus heavily on this because that's what their donors want, and because that's often a priority of NGO heads. The best doctors and administrators will go to better paying NGO jobs robbing the government of the talent to build a good health care system. The end result is heavy spending on HIV/AIDS, the failure of the government to build a health system that will deal with the most pressing health priorities (e.g. maternal health, infant health).
All this is not to discourage spending on NGOs or criticize the work of NGOs—when government is corrupt, NGOs may well be a much more efficient use of money notwithstanding the above. I just think that the cons or NGOs are seldom acknowledged or considered and wanted to throw them out here.
Likely there needs to be a balance between NGO funding and local government aid. Where that balance should fall is not a question to which I have any answer.
- Mustafa Hirji
NGOs have the virtue of not being corrupt, and spending such that money actually goes to the people.
Their major drawback are
1. In many ways, they're like western countries—often run by people from the West, and usually run by at least western educated people. They (whether run by outsiders or locals) tend to have their own priorities which don't always jive with what is really needed in the opinion of locals or the local government. In particular, NGOs are tied to the money of their donors. Therefore they'll tend to focus on their donors' priorities which aren't often what is really needed: someone like me who might donate has very little knowledge of development or of the situation on the ground.
2. If money goes to NGOs, the local government never is able to offer much in the way of public services. This prevents the government from gaining competence to manage its own country, and to actually improve the living standards of its people—a core responsibility of government. It also prevents the government from becoming accountable for what it is doing for its people—hard to hold a government to account when it isn't relevant to you, nor capable of being relevant. In this sense, funding NGOs retards political development.
3. If money for good jobs is going to NGOs, people will get jobs that are tied to foreign funding, not local entreprenneurship. This runs counter to economic development goals.
4. When there is a proliferation of NGOs, one can end up with a "too many cooks spoil the broth" scenario and plenty of money is spent, but little of it co-ordinated.
As an example of all this, HIV/AIDS funding is very popular. However, public health experts would argue that it isn't an efficient use of health care funds. Overall health and mortality of a community is most impacted by interventions in maternal health and infant health. HIV/AIDS is part of this, but fighting infections which are treatable by antibiotics and prevented general hygiene and well-being will enable much more economic activity and many more lives than treating HIV/AIDS. Local governments often understand this because they study how a public health system should run. NGOs, however, focus heavily on this because that's what their donors want, and because that's often a priority of NGO heads. The best doctors and administrators will go to better paying NGO jobs robbing the government of the talent to build a good health care system. The end result is heavy spending on HIV/AIDS, the failure of the government to build a health system that will deal with the most pressing health priorities (e.g. maternal health, infant health).
All this is not to discourage spending on NGOs or criticize the work of NGOs—when government is corrupt, NGOs may well be a much more efficient use of money notwithstanding the above. I just think that the cons or NGOs are seldom acknowledged or considered and wanted to throw them out here.
Likely there needs to be a balance between NGO funding and local government aid. Where that balance should fall is not a question to which I have any answer.
- Mustafa Hirji
I don't disagree with any of your extremely articulate points (and have some reasonably articulate thoughts of my own best left to places other than my blog).
My thoughts after this conversation ran more towards considering how many of my assumptions about the difference between 'donor priorities' and 'on the ground realities' were valid. Granted, the members of this conversation are not representative of Malawi as a whole, as they are educated (in one case, Western educated) NGO personnel.
The other, more amorphous train of my thoughts ran towards the emphasis that came up on knowledge economies and autonomy over research agendas. I haven't exercised critical thought in that vein of 'development' since I lost daily access to a certain Mr. Cliff so I don't have opinions formed that are worth trying to share, but identifying a stronger research sector as a priority to fund was, to my mind at least, an extremely forward thinking and possible even innovative (in the good way) direction to consider.
If I think more about it, I think that cultivating a stronger research/knowledge sector in developing countries, if possible and positive, will require a much more critical appraisal of the points you raised than is currently happening in the sector or in international politics more generally.
-A
Post a Comment