They Come in the Name of Helping?

I both completely agree and completely disagree with Peter Brock’s movie, “They Come in the Name of Helping”. This undergraduate student from Skidmore took it upon himself to uncover the Truth behind the dynamics that animate Western aid to the developing world. While I applaud Mr. Brock for the courage he displays by trying to answer such a vast, complex question, I unfortunately feel that he falls short of providing a well-rounded perspective. Having studied the same issues and read the same books as an undegraduate and graduate student, and as someone who is actively involved in “helping” the developing world, Mr. Brock’s movie really stirred me. If you don’t feel like watching the whole movie, here is the basic premise, in Mr. Brock’s words:

“The unsettling coexistence of extravagant material prosperity and abject poverty in our world has caused many well-intentioned people in the more prosperous countries to worry about the condition of the poor. This concern has caused private citizens, corporations and even governments to donate their time, money and resources to the cause of development and poverty alleviation. Despite this deluge of support and the vast crop of NGO’s that it spawned and continues to sustain, the western world has faced considerable difficulty in its attempts to translate these copious resources into concrete improvements in the lives of the world’s poor. To explain these shortcomings, the most insightful critics of western development efforts identify our lack of local knowledge and narrow-minded approach as the root of our repeated failure.

Most of the West’s knowledge about the people of the developing world, and Africans in particular, come from heart-wrenching but superficial newspaper articles and TV news stories about genocide, famine and child soldiering. Even those westerners who wish to understand the issues of poverty and development usually find themselves reading reports from the United Nations or the myriad of NGO’s that make it their work to ‘end poverty’. As with the mainstream media, it is outsiders who almost always author these reports, and they are often written to please the donors who sponsored the project in question. While many western scholars have written lengthy critiques of the development industry and recommendations for its reform, I wanted to see what development efforts look like from the perspective of those they are intended to benefit. I wanted to know if we could gain insights into improving and reforming our development efforts by simply listening to those people whose lives we have sought to change.

With this purpose, I traveled to Sierra Leone, the world’s second poorest country according to the UN development index, and began to ask young students about the effectiveness of foreign development programs. As I had expected, the opinions I heard differed substantially from the hopeful and often self-glorifying accounts given by NGO reports and UN documentaries. These are their stories.”

The problem with this introduction – as with the whole movie – is that it entirely fails to operate essential distinctions between different realities. For instance, I agree that

Most of the West’s knowledge about the people of the developing world, and Africans in particular, come from heart-wrenching but superficial newspaper articles and TV news stories about genocide, famine and child soldiering. Even those westerners who wish to understand the issues of poverty and development usually find themselves reading reports from the United Nations or the myriad of NGO’s that make it their work to ‘end poverty’. As with the mainstream media, it is outsiders who almost always author these reports, and they are often written to please the donors who sponsored the project in question.”

But I simply don’t understand what the logical connection is between those people who have superficial knowledge of the complex issues affecting the developing world, and those who make it their life’s work to understand and bring about change in said developing world. Those are two VERY different categories of people. At the beginning of his introduction he discusses “our repeated failure”. This is something that is definitely hard to grapple with – William Easterly (whose book The White Man’s Burden obviously influenced Mr. Brock a great deal!), describes how the billions of dollars spent in the developing world by the West since the end of the colonial era have very little to show for today. While this is the unfortunate and undeniable truth, Mr. Brock fails to distinguish between the efforts of private citizens to make a difference at a grassroots level, and those of government international aid agencies who invest in infrastructure projects – and everything else in between. This comes back to a previous post about the different types of international organizations operating in the developing world – what a gross misconception to consider them as a whole!! Their goals, philosophy, modes of operation and income structures are so varied. We must aim to not fall for the easy shortcuts – USAID, the Chinese government, UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, and organizations such as The Niapele Project, TunaHaki Foundation or Under The Reading Tree cannot be amalgamated and considered similar. That amounts to intellectual dishonesty. In addition, his assessment that international aid has “failed” is rooted in the notion that this type of aid should be “efficient” and that it should show returns on investment.

We need – from this intellectual standpoint – to get some bang for our buck. I actually somewhat adhere to this position, because it is truly shocking that billions upon billions have been spent, and that, comparatively, very little has emerged from this constant investment. But we must really think about if coming to that conclusion leads us to say that we should then limit international
aid – what exactly would limiting or reducing amounts of international aid accomplish? And is “efficiency” the yardstick to be used to evaluate the impact of international aid?

Governments already spend a minuscule fraction of their budget for this (the stated goal is 0.7% of GDP – which is only attained by Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg and Norway. In fact, the average for OECD countries is 0.46%. Source:
OECD Development Cooperation Report 2007) In any case, whether or not that money is effective should not necessarily be the primary concern – it should be one of an array. I discussed this previously, but shouldn’t we be engaged with those whose situation we find intolerable? According to Mr. Brock, I shouldn’t be involved with Liberian refugees because “I do not fully understand the way their society operates” (repeatedly stated throughout the movie by various protagonists.) Should I then only engage with people I understand? I don’t understand Polish culture very well, in spite of the fact that they are part of the European Union, nor do I understand rural French customs and traditions (and I’m from France).

While I will recognize that there are enormous cultural divides between “us” and “them”, this “us” and “them” is a common yet almost meaningless distinction. I might feel closer to a South African, Ugandan or Brazilian who shares a similar global vision, than to my immediate neighbors. To brandish the excuse of “you don’t understand so you cannot help” is just a very convenient way for people to simply remain disinterested from the communities around them. And, personally, I don’t consider my community to be a geographic one… I (and I hope you do too, dear reader!) belong to a community of values and of vision within which racial, national and religious divides can be bridged.

In his movie, Mr. Brock shows NGO workers relaxing on a beach in Sierra Leone to show that they are disconnected from the reality which they are trying to ameliorate. His interlocutors also point out that there is a discrepancy between wanting to help, and then coming to a developing nation to live
in a big, clean house with a cook and maid, and drive around in a fancy Land Rover. I think this is a very valid claim on their part – indeed, it seems that this creates both resentment and breeds misunderstanding in a wide variety of settings. While this is how a number of international NGOs operate, a lot don’t. I’m not trying to “ring my own bell”, but when we work in Ghana, we don’t drive fancy cars and we live in the same type of house the refugees do (sans electricity or running water, let alone A/C!). In any case, it’s very unfair to denigrate the work that NGOs and international organizations perform simply on the grounds that they live in better circumstances. They should certainly attempt as much as possible to understand the conditions of the people which they are trying to help, but I am not sure that this would necessarily occur if they lived in the same conditions. We all aprehend our reality differently – and even if NGO workers renounced all luxuries while they worked in the field, this is not their permanent reality, and will never be. I think understanding the conditions of those you are trying to help really depends on your own capacity to put yourself in the other person’s shoes, whether you live in a mud hut or in a 4 star hotel is (almost) irrelevant.

Also, I’m not sure what Mr. Brock is trying to accomplish here – should we feel bad for wanting to help where we think we can make a difference? Should people who give money to charitable organizations operating abroad stop doing that on the grounds that they aren’t knowledgeable enough? What exactly is the purpose of pointing to all the dysfunctionings of the international aid sector?

There are horror stories – for instance, how the 2004 tsunami catastrophe was met by the international community by an overwhelming response. A lot of NGOs received unbelievable amounts of financial support that they had no capacity to use – a huge budget is ultimately not a
guarantee of success and can most definitely lead to money being wasted. The unprecedented levels of aid that were deployed in the aftermath of the tsunami have not met a match – the 2005 earthquake in the North of Pakistan did not attract a fraction of the international attention, and the continued, chronic plight of billions around the world still doesn’t attract as much attention (we might cynically note that the tsunami affected Westerners, and not just people with a different skin color, but that is a different topic).

In any case, Mr. Brock’s movie makes some incredibly sweeping claims about the nature and the value of international aid, as if it could be considered as a whole. His approach is based on a perception of aid to developing countries as “neo-colonial” – while this might be a correct framework of reference for some international aid, it certainly isn’t for others. I keep referring to Doctors without Borders, but really, how can we accuse them of being neo-colonial? What should DWB do? Should they no longer intervene when governments and the international community fail to do so? This also highlights the fact that Mr. Brock uses the terms “humanitarian aid” and “development aid” interchangeably, which is another amalgamation of two very different areas of international aid. Shouldn’t we be distinguishing between providing medical and food aid to displaced people and providing micro loans to women? Aren’t these two entirely distinct activities?

I had a wonderful professor at Sciences Po, Mr. Rony Brauman, who was the head of DWB (you guessed it) for many years, and who was one of the original founders of the French Doctors movement. He insisted that, as students and practictioners of international relations, we understand the differences between “development” and “humanitarian” aid – one aims to create or induce socio-economic change, the other has to do with providing urgent, necessary aid in times of crisis when a State is no longer able to take care of its citizens.

To go back to “They Come in the Name of Helping”, Mr. Brock and his interlocutors discuss the importance of education, and how it is the only way for the impoverished to ever fix their own problems. This is obviously extremely true – but currently, the quality of education in a lot of developing nations is pathetic. Besides the poor quality of infrastructure, the lack of books, chalk,
pens, educational materials and pretty much anything that makes a school a school, there is also a problem with teachers’ qualifications, overcrowded classrooms, girls being left out of the system, malnutrition leading to poor physical and intellectual development…. Come on, let’s get serious here. I sincerely, honestly, genuinely wish that today, we could leave it up to developing nations to educate their future leaders, but I don’t think that’s fair or realistic. The need for teacher training, for educational resources and improved curriculums is enormous. If we truly believe that education is salvation (I do, and Mr. Brock apparently does too), then why shouldn’t we support efforts towards that goal?

In any case, Mr. Brock’s movie definitely touches on sensitive issues, and, for those of us involved in international aid, it does incite critical thought, which is great. But we must really be wary of generalizations that oversimplify extremely complex realities. While I agree with a lot of the premises that Mr. Brock puts forward in his movie – essentially, that we need to be respectful and work in genuine partnership with developing nations – I think his movie is quick to judge. Perhaps he should interview those who feel they have genuinely benefited from international aid…
I look forward to the day where Western money and efforts in developing nations will be completely redundant and useless. I really do. But are we there yet? In the mean time, let’s be careful not too judge all international aid as misguided, inefficient and patronizing.

“Both [Ben Bella and Boumedienne, Algerian leaders of the 1960s] are victims of the same drama that every Third World politician lives through if he is honest, if he is a patriot. This was the drama of Lumumba and Nehru; it is the drama of Nyerere and Sekou Touré. The essence of the drama lies in the terrible material resistance that each one encounters on taking his first, second and third steps up the summit of power. Each one wants to do something good and begins to do it and then sees, after a month, after a year, after three years, that it just isn’t happening, that is is slipping away, that it is bogged down in the sand. Everything is in the way: the centuries of backwardness, the primitive economy, the illiteracy, the religious fanaticism, the tribal blindness, the chronic hunger, the colonial past with its practice of debasing and dulling the conquered, the blackmail by the imperialists, the greed of the corrupt, the unemployment, the red ink. Progress comes with great difficulty along such a road. The politician begins to push too hard. He looks for a way out through dictatorship. The dictatorship then fathers an oppositon. The opposition organizes a coup.
And the cycle begins anew”

Excerpt from Rysszard Kapuscinkski’s The Soccer War.

Getting the Word Out, part 2

My last post was about NGOs, why they’re important, why we should support them – there are other types of non profits, which also need to be described, explained, dissected…. Too often, for the general public, the non profit sector is considered a homogenous lump of idealists, with similar objectives, motivations and “raison d’être”. However, it is not so at all, and one of the most common misconceptions about this sector is how organizations such as UNICEF, the World Food Program, USAID – to name a random few – are construed.

International Agencies (not-for-profit):
The United Nations has its own more or less “independent” agencies – each is specialized (in theory), and furthers a global agenda. Whether it be UNICEF eradicating childhood mortality, WFP feeding the hungry, UN-Habitat developing an understanding of policy implications of growing urbanization – all of these agencies are fundamentally different from NGOs, per their structure, their mode of operation, how they select projects and partnerships…

While it should be noted that for example 58% of UNICEF’s income comes from governments (source: UNICEF Annual Report, 2006), that also means that nearly 40% is coming from the private sector – there are many NGOs that have a higher proportion of public funding.

Then, you also have agencies such as USAID (United States Agency for International Development), or AFD (Agence Francaise de Developpement), DFID (the UK’s Department for International Development), all of which are ever present in the field. These are very different organizations that are controlled by national governments – not to say that their work is of less importance, but their objectives are often motivated by geopolitical and strategic considerations for foreign policy.

Here is a video of Henrietta Fore, administrator for USAID (note: the US is the largest bilateral donor in absolute terms – not in relative terms)

So international nonprofit agencies, NGOs – “are they similar??”, you must be asking yourself. Well, in a way, yes – they exist to supplement public and State actions, and act where there is a void. A lof ot them have similar income structures as well. So what is the fundamental difference?

The fundamental difference is that UN agencies and national aid agencies are staffed by public servants, who represent their countries’ interest within that organization. Power struggles within these organizations and between them (UNICEF and UNESCO are typically at odds over who should get the most funding for education) are prevalent, and often, these structures operate like large bureaucracies.

Of course, some very large, influential NGOs are also faced with these issues – but to a lesser extent. It is quite difficult to untangle the reality of the global non-profit sector – there is such a large variety of organizations, that operate in myriads of ways, in every corner of the earth.

I mentioned Zoe’s Ark in my previous post (the French NGO which tried to have Darfur orphans adopted in France, except they essentially abducted Tchadian children…) The consequences of their actions negatively impacted all non profits which work in the developing world – both the beneficiaries of aid and financial supporters of nonprofits don’t differentiate between Zoe’s Ark, Doctors Without Borders, and UNICEF.

As I’ve tried to show, the international non profit sector is rich (in diversity), complex and is made up of largely different organizations. Do we compare Shell, Exxon or BP with MTV? Do we compare plastic container makers with Avis Rent-A-Car? We operate essential distinctions between all of these organizations, and the same type of critical approach is needed when assessing the international non profit sector.