Topic: Development
DamselFish puts a finger on some of the many issues with the practice of development that I've been struggling with as I try to figure out what I'm going to do after grad school.
One of the things that I hadn't done much thinking about when I was working in development was the way that governments use aid in their own interests. Sure, I was aware of regulations in USAID grant contracts about flying on US airlines when using grant funding to travel and buying US products, but I didn't really think it all through. This is just one of the ways that governments can use aid to pursue their best interests, and those interests are often understood to be maintaining the status quo in aid-receiving countries, or supporting 'improvements' that donor governments think they can predict the outcomes of. Since governments are major suppliers of aid funding, many NGOs are, therefore, complicit in furthering government aims.
Is this a bad thing? That's the question I haven't resolved yet. It's a situation that, as DamselFish points out, is highly unlikely to lead to radical social change. Most development initiatives function on the premise that Western-style democracy and capitalism are the standard to which all nations should aspire, ignoring the fact that these models are also products of particular historical and cultural developments, and as such, may well be difficult to transplant. Another problematic premise is that 'developing' societies can be brought up to a standard equal to 'developed' societies without the developed societies having to make any substantial sacrifices of their own in terms of power and resource advantages.
Does all of this negate the positive changes that development programs have made in people's lives, though? I've talked to a lot of microfinance clients who were very clear that participating in the program had made important changes in their lives, and who were grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in it. In the face of their testimony, I find it difficult to argue that the programs are not achieving good ends. Whether they're truly having the last impact that aid and development NGOs claim they're aiming for remains to be seen.
And now it has been announced that the Bush administration is forging much closer ties between the US government's aid agency, USAID, and the State Department. A new position, the Director of Foreign Assistance has been created, with the aims of aligning US government aid more closely with foreign policy, and aligning State Department and USAID assistance activities. The Director of Foreign Assistance will serve as the head of USAID and have a position in State equivalent to Deputy Secretary. Although the official word is that USAID's status as an independent government organization will remain unchanged, USAID employees (Washingon Post, may require registration*) don't seem to be entirely convinced.
Oxfam America, which is not a recipient of USAID funding, also has some concerns about the restructuring, which are politely put forth in this statement. Although I might argue that the line between the US political agenda and US humanitarian aid hasn't ever been that clearly drawn, I do agree with Oxfam's concern that blurring the boundaries of US humanitarian, political and military actions would complicate the work of NGOs, both foreign and local, and could place their staff at risk. Any immunity that aid organizations and their staff currently enjoy due to the perception that their activities are separate from the political actions of a particular government would evaporate, and even if violence isn't a risk, if local people are suspicious of aid organizations, it makes their work much less likely to achieve any sort of success.
The nominee to fill the position of Director of Foreign Assistance isn't meeting with universal acclaim either. Ambassador Randall Tobias currently serves in the State Department as Global AIDS Coordinator, a position he was nominated for despite a conspicuous absence of public health expertise in his bio. The title of "Ambassador" comes with the position. I'm not enthusiastic about the idea that USAID could be headed by someone who doesn't seem to have any experience working overseas. Advocates for Youth has expressed concerns about the impact his leadership could have on foreign assistance targeted at HIV/AIDS prevention.
Whether any of these concerns will bear fruit remains to be seen, obviously. One the one hand, I'm skeptical about measures that would make humanitarian and development aid blatant political tools, but on the other hand, I find myself wondering if this isn't just a clearer articulation of a situation that already exists.
TomPaine.com and US Newswire were sources for this post.
Update: More from DamselFish on this topic (although she declines to comment on the USAID situation), with good points about the nature of the national interest and NGOs' moral stances and their alignment with donor government interests and foreign policy.
The point I'd like to elaborate on is 'improvement', because of the link to indicators, which I've posted a bit about before. One of the problems with indicators is that data has to be quantified, 'rationalized' and standardized to a fairly high degree in order to demonstrate 'improvement' or 'deterioration' and to make comparisons across different areas. This tends to lead to the sidelining of the perceptions and values of local people. The improvements that local microfinance clients talked to me about were not ones that were captured in our global indicator reports, which were concerned with aggregate increases in loan sizes and amounts, repayment rates, and value of savings.
This disconnect between indicators and local impact can be remedied, to some extent, by involving beneficiaries in identifying the indicators that they find most meaningful in describing change in their lives, but then you start to run into the problem of how comparable context-specific data is across regions and countries, and the attitude that some take is 'what's the use of having the data if it's not comparable?' Comparable to what? And should anything be more important than what local people think are the benefits and disadvantages of the change in their lives? It might not be an 'objective' measure, but I think 'objective' indicators create the illusion that change is far more controllable and comprehensible than it actually is. Is it possible that the value of indicators is that we can reassure ourselves that we know what's going on? See, we've got the numbers and the timelines, and look at these pretty charts and graphs!
I've got plenty more to say on this topic, but it strikes me that this post is more than long enough already. I also just got invited to go to the beach, so I'll finish here and go pack my beach bag.
*In which case, you may want to use BugMeNot