December 8, 2005--Doing Harm . . . With the Best of Intentions
As a former senior director at the Ford Foundation, I can’t tell you how frustrated I was to read Michael Wines’ "Letter from Malawi" in yesterday’s NY Times (see story linked blow). In effect it’s about how foundation-funded non-governmental agencies (NGOs), in spite of being generously supported, are not getting the job done. In fact, since they often work at cross purposes, they may actually be doing harm.
Let me tell you first about Malawi and then broaden things out a bit so you can see that this inadvertent ineptitude is quite widespread and even common right here in the USA where we have our own needs.
Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world and thus is a magnet for Angels of Virtue, to use Paul Theroux’s phrase. Malawi is currently suffering a “hunger emergency,” in Wines’ words. This is not just the result of a persistent drought, but is more because of the colonial agricultural scheme that the British imposed that is still affecting Malawi’s capacity to feed itself. The Brits, when Malawi was called Nyasaland, forced the development of huge tea and tobacco plantations—cash crops to satisfy their own markets back in England. When they left in 1964, the local dictators who seized control of the newly named Malawi continued this ruinous approach, encouraging larger and larger plantations and thus forcing farmers onto smaller and smaller, non-sustainable plots. Farmers then, to support themselves, joined the causal labor force and thereby had less time to devote to their own fields. As a result, compounded by drought, there is a persistent and dangerous lack of locally-produced food.
This sounds like an insurmountable problem; but in fact it isn’t. The International Food Policy Research Institute says that the situation is reversible—“Technically, we know what to do.” So what’s the problem?
Lack of resources? No. Overseas development aid to Malawi, foreign aid from an assortment of donors, totals about $35 per person per year, about $8 out of every $10 dollars available for economic development.
Corruption? Yes, there is government corruption but not at a scale that should impede well-conceived solutions. And sufficent money to pay off officials is built into donors' budgets--it's part of the price of doing business.
Lack of ideas as to what to do? A resounding “no.” The ways and means to solve the problem are available. And this then gets us closer to the heart of the matter. Again, “we know what to do,” but the donors and project managers and NGOs refuse to work together, linking and connecting the projects they fund so as to bring about large scale and effective change. Some funders set irrigation projects as their priority; others supply seeds; some want to pay to train local experts; still other funders focus on infrastructure such as roads and machinery. Each is a good and necessary thing; but since the foundations and NGOs want to see their pet projects acknowledged as the unique and sole solution, it is virtually unheard of for them to work together in site-specific ways—picking specific locations, and by connecting the work of those they fund, bring about a comprehensive, holistic solution.
Again to quote Wines, it’s like “the Salvation Army without a general.”
Closer to home we find the same kind of donor arrogance, the same belief that what we see to be the priority in any given situation is the answer. Foundations are resistant to work collaboratively with other funders in spite of sheafs of rhetoric that this is necessary because there is no single answer to poverty alleviation or improved public schools. The Gates, Rockefeller, Kellogg, and even the Ford Foundation continue to do their own thing at their own sites, paying just lip service to the idea that to truly get the job done, to bring about sustainable, large-scale change, they have to pool their expertise and resources.
If they did work together and things actually did work, who will get the credit? Is it because of Kellogg’s belief that focusing on targeted populations is the answer or Ford’s that strengthening local constituency groups is the answer or Gates’ contention that establishing small schools is the answer? Isn't it obvious that maybe we need to do all three and then some to actually find a solution?
But as long as funders insist on embracing only their own priorities and stay focused on themselves rather than on seeking to fund things that actually produce evidence that they work, Malawi will not grow the corn it needs to feed its children and 15 million of America’s public school children will languish in failing schools.
But the funders will be able to publish their glossy annual reports and their staffs will continue to be able to jet around the world in business class
Let me tell you first about Malawi and then broaden things out a bit so you can see that this inadvertent ineptitude is quite widespread and even common right here in the USA where we have our own needs.
Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world and thus is a magnet for Angels of Virtue, to use Paul Theroux’s phrase. Malawi is currently suffering a “hunger emergency,” in Wines’ words. This is not just the result of a persistent drought, but is more because of the colonial agricultural scheme that the British imposed that is still affecting Malawi’s capacity to feed itself. The Brits, when Malawi was called Nyasaland, forced the development of huge tea and tobacco plantations—cash crops to satisfy their own markets back in England. When they left in 1964, the local dictators who seized control of the newly named Malawi continued this ruinous approach, encouraging larger and larger plantations and thus forcing farmers onto smaller and smaller, non-sustainable plots. Farmers then, to support themselves, joined the causal labor force and thereby had less time to devote to their own fields. As a result, compounded by drought, there is a persistent and dangerous lack of locally-produced food.
This sounds like an insurmountable problem; but in fact it isn’t. The International Food Policy Research Institute says that the situation is reversible—“Technically, we know what to do.” So what’s the problem?
Lack of resources? No. Overseas development aid to Malawi, foreign aid from an assortment of donors, totals about $35 per person per year, about $8 out of every $10 dollars available for economic development.
Corruption? Yes, there is government corruption but not at a scale that should impede well-conceived solutions. And sufficent money to pay off officials is built into donors' budgets--it's part of the price of doing business.
Lack of ideas as to what to do? A resounding “no.” The ways and means to solve the problem are available. And this then gets us closer to the heart of the matter. Again, “we know what to do,” but the donors and project managers and NGOs refuse to work together, linking and connecting the projects they fund so as to bring about large scale and effective change. Some funders set irrigation projects as their priority; others supply seeds; some want to pay to train local experts; still other funders focus on infrastructure such as roads and machinery. Each is a good and necessary thing; but since the foundations and NGOs want to see their pet projects acknowledged as the unique and sole solution, it is virtually unheard of for them to work together in site-specific ways—picking specific locations, and by connecting the work of those they fund, bring about a comprehensive, holistic solution.
Again to quote Wines, it’s like “the Salvation Army without a general.”
Closer to home we find the same kind of donor arrogance, the same belief that what we see to be the priority in any given situation is the answer. Foundations are resistant to work collaboratively with other funders in spite of sheafs of rhetoric that this is necessary because there is no single answer to poverty alleviation or improved public schools. The Gates, Rockefeller, Kellogg, and even the Ford Foundation continue to do their own thing at their own sites, paying just lip service to the idea that to truly get the job done, to bring about sustainable, large-scale change, they have to pool their expertise and resources.
If they did work together and things actually did work, who will get the credit? Is it because of Kellogg’s belief that focusing on targeted populations is the answer or Ford’s that strengthening local constituency groups is the answer or Gates’ contention that establishing small schools is the answer? Isn't it obvious that maybe we need to do all three and then some to actually find a solution?
But as long as funders insist on embracing only their own priorities and stay focused on themselves rather than on seeking to fund things that actually produce evidence that they work, Malawi will not grow the corn it needs to feed its children and 15 million of America’s public school children will languish in failing schools.
But the funders will be able to publish their glossy annual reports and their staffs will continue to be able to jet around the world in business class
posted by Steven Zwerling at
9:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home