Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sections
Personal tools
You are here: Home → Blogs → Beyond Good Intentions → The Challenges of Criticizing Aid

Tori Hogan
 
Document Actions

The Challenges of Criticizing Aid

  

      Since the release of my film series on international aid effectiveness I have encountered a wide range of reactions from viewers about my critical (but hopefully optimistic?) opinions on aid. Most people tend to be enthusiastic and supportive about Beyond Good Intentions and the dialogue we are working to create, but some viewers get extremely angry and defensive about the series’ critical commentary. It has led me to step back and analyze why people get so upset about questioning international aid.

    As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, the aid industry (and, yes, I definitely view it as an “industry”) is one of the few fields that tends to be immune to criticism. There are two groups of people who are particularly sensitive to hearing about the failures of aid: donors and aid workers. Donors, particularly individuals writing checks for small amounts, want to believe that their money is being well-spent, and that their contribution somehow helped change the world. They want to believe the late-night aid infomercials that claim “for the price of a cup of coffee, you can save a child”. So it’s not surprising that most donors would rather not know if only a small percentage of their donation ever made it to the ground or if no child was actually saved as a result of their generosity due to the poor design of an aid project. As soon as that check is written, they want to be able to go back to sleep feeling good about themselves and their contribution. Finding out later on that their hard-earned money was squandered on fancy conferences, over-paid consultants, and ineffective approaches is not so pleasant. From what I’ve seen, donors across the world are desperately trying to convince themselves that their good intentions and willingness to want to help is enough.

    Many aid workers are also extremely sensitive to criticism of the industry, particularly ex-aid workers who have dedicated their lives to this kind of work. At a screening of my films in Seattle I had several angry ex-aid workers in the audience who seemed to feel that my series were personally questioning the validity of their life’s work. Well, maybe it was. And I guess I don’t blame them for not wanting to question something that they can’t go back and redo. But many aid workers who are currently in the field are also eager to ignore any criticism of their work. But if we are ever going to see real improvements in this field, aid workers need to be more willing to receive critical feedback in order to improve their practices for the benefit of their recipients.

    Is there any other industry that avoids scrutiny like international aid? I’m actually having a hard time thinking of examples (send them my way if you can think of other fields that seem to have obtained the “immunity idol”). There is one field that may work as an example: the health industry. Many years ago, it seemed that all of the knowledge in the health field tended to be concentrated in the minds of the nation’s health professionals. Questioning your doctor’s opinion was not the norm for most patients and demanding better care or alternate treatments was not common. There was an information asymmetry and the expertise of healthcare providers wasn’t really questioned. Then came the internet. Now a quick search on WebMD can make almost any patient more informed and capable of advocating for their rights and treatment options. It’s now viewed as acceptable to question your doctor’s advice, to seek a second opinion, and to be critical of the care you receive. Many patients argue that by allowing for open criticism of the health field, outcomes and practices are improving.

      Could the same be true of international aid? If a culture of critical reflection began to permeate the aid industry, would organizations be pressured to improve their approaches, be more accountable to their recipients, and more effectively use donor funds? Looking at what happened with the healthcare system, my guess is “yes”. However, to do so will require a critical mass of people willing to speak out against the current structures. But when so much resistance to critical reflection seems to be coming from two of the most influential stakeholders (donors and aid workers), I start to think that our last resort for a “critical mass” may actually be from the recipients themselves.

Comments: 8

Agree!

Posted by Barticagyal at Jul 06, 2009 01:49 PM
I have worked 9 years with NGOs and abroad in international development and I could not agree with you more. When I was in the Peace Corps I worked so hard to make sure that all of my grant money went to good use (what I requested it for) but there were so many instances where I watched money wasted! I never thought in a million years that I would be going back to school to study business and accounting just so that I can return to the field simply to try to minimize wasted funds!

re: The Challenges of Criticizing Aid

Posted by ReeceM at Jul 09, 2009 12:28 AM
Aid is seldom given from motives of pure altruism, for instance it is often given as a means of supporting an ally in international politics; it may also be given with the intention of influencing the political process in the receiving nation. Whether one considers such aid helpful may depend on whether one agrees with the agenda being pursued by the donor nation in a particular case. During the conflict between communism and capitalism in the twentieth century, the champions of those ideologies, the Soviet Union and the United States, each used aid to influence the internal politics of other nations, and to support their weaker allies. Perhaps the most notable example was the Marshall Plan by which the United States, largely successfully, sought to pull European nations toward capitalism and away from communism. Aid to underdeveloped countries has sometimes been criticized as being more in the interest of the donor than the recipient, or even a form of neocolonialism. In response to aid critics, a movement to reform U.S. foreign aid has started to gain momentum. In the United States, leaders of this movement include the Center for Global Development, Oxfam America, the Brookings Institution, InterAction, and Bread for the World. The various organizations have united to call for a new Foreign Assistance Act, a national development strategy, and a new cabinet-level department for development. I just hope that it will be settled not only the <a href="http://personalmoneystore.com/[…]/">cash today</a> but instead also the way of thinking of people.

I agree, but how?

Posted by Karthik Raman at Jul 09, 2009 12:37 AM
Tori's points are completely spot on. I think the hard part is how do you give voice to the supposed recipients of aid. Essentially, the aid industry suffers from a market failure in that the recipients of aid do not have sufficient voice in how the aid is spent. If we were to follow market principles, the poor would act not as recipients, but as consumers of a product or service. In the current set up, the voters of wealthy countries and some donors act more as consumers at least in the sense that they are able to indicate what the aid priorities should be and how aid money should be spent. Obviously, not all rich country voters and donors know what these priorities should be. My question then is how do we bridge this gap? How can the critical mass of poor align with voters to influence aid patterns?

Not terribly compelling

Posted by Ron Cage at Jul 10, 2009 03:18 AM
While I've approached your pieces with an open mind, I find they lack substance and are predicated on some notion that all feedback - regardless of its validity - must be acknowledged and incorporated by the subjects of your scrutiny. It's as though you've told the Wright Brothers that thing just won't fly and you're upset that they're not listening. Perhaps they simply see things that you don't?

Regardless, the idea that every other industry is friendly to critique defies the reality in which we live. We're awash in lobbyists and marketing and PR firms which deflect, defuse and deflate any movement which may interfere with their masters' ability to make a buck.

With that said, is it at all surprising that you've received a lukewarm reception from those who have spent a career earning modest pay and enduring hard work for causes in which they believe? You've spent a year doing research for a film. They've spent their entire careers living it. Why are you inherently more credible on the topic?

On the contrary, to me this is highly compelling

Posted by Robin Stewart Stephenson at Jul 10, 2009 09:17 AM
Ron

Doubtless a few sensitive souls will be disturbed by the coverage, but I think you (and in fact Tori also) underestimate the ability and willingness of more experienced aid workers to question and criticise their own activity and impact. I for one welcome what Tori is doing. I started as an aid worker and evaluator in the late 1970's and I can assure you that there is very, very considerable room for improvement in system structure, decision-making processes, and the education, deployment, and career management and support of the workers involved.

Many of the constraints are systemic; embedded in the architecture of the current system. The mainstream media remains largely unable or unwilling to provide thoughtful and in-depth coverage of the factors shaping the ground-based reality of international rescue, stabilization and recovery, and the ongoing grinding task of sustaining social welfare. At the same time, NGO media departments, which in fact rarely represent the interests of field workers or beneficiaries, are providing more and more of the material that is broadcast, and are offering increasing amounts of field support to the mainstream media. The task of independent reporting now falls mostly on people like Tori. She has provided a fascinating portfolio of intelligent coverage, most probably at far less cost than the excess baggage charge and the fashion and cosmetics bill for a quick jaunt by just one international prima-donna correspondent.

Your reference to the Wright Brothers is perhaps apt. International aid has been going in one form or another for at least sixty years. In that time, the aviation industry went from wire, canvas, and bicycle parts to the Concorde and the moon landings. If the aid industry, and particularly the UN, had instead been responsible over that same period, I would vouch that you would arrive at the airport to cross the Atlantic and, gazing expectantly at your aircraft under the arc lights on the tarmac, you would recognise a larger, glossier, and perhaps better weatherproofed version of that original Wright flyer.

Let's start being honest

Posted by Daniela Papi at Jul 18, 2009 11:20 AM
I put up a similar post relating to this topic here.

http://pepyride.ning.com/[…]/lets-start-being-honest

Thanks for all of the discussions you have sparked, Tori!

Don't criticize, provide a better alternative

Posted by Samantha Given-Dennis at Jul 28, 2009 12:36 PM
A culture of reflection--you hit it on the nail, Tori. I think that one of the major issues with igniting discussions on venues for revolutionizing international aid is that exposure to such dialogue is not omnipresent, and therefore organizers, funders, and donators alike are not forced to contemplate effect and alternatives.

I know of equally as many people who are starting innovative ventures as those who are raising funds using same-old practices. It is not hard to wrap your head around innovative strategies and structures--what is hard for some is finding discussions like this very one. Many people who are not linked in to the realm of social entrepreneurship and innovation yet still work in the aid space believe that it is their efforts that are lacking, not the structure. Four friends of mine started an umbrella coalition that gave to a greater organization that provides funding for a small village in Malawi that has no immediate access to a hospital. My friends' hard earned funds were supposed to be used to purchase ambulance bikes, but many factors, such as distance and scale, thwarted this goal and the aid money was used for things that did not directly aid the community as a whole. It was an ineffective and non-sustainable venture. Very confused as to why it happened, this group of college students did not once consult a new avenue, but upped their efforts that no doubt would be misused once again. This occurred due to lack of exposure. At a top-tier college it is inexcusable that discourse on social innovation is nil. Given that there are so many other capable people trying to make a difference with nonfunctional programs, we must educate alternatives, we must permeate this population with information on the difference between aid and change, on sustainable economic structures.

I find that many people stumble upon social entrepreneurship--luck is not going to quell defunct aid practices. The more organizations like StartingBloc, Sparkseed (www.sparkseed.org), and Ashoka the better. They educate the next generation of change makers not to contemplate innovation, but create it. If alternatives to conventional aid practices are brewing from all around, their prominence is inevitable.

Good questions

Posted by Peter Donovan at Jul 29, 2009 08:16 PM
Tori, what kind of monitoring would you propose to address these issues? Are donors and volunteers demanding better outcomes, or will they respond to credible monitoring of such?

The absence of a "feedback loop" is a feature of much of the decision making that we use, whether institutional or individual. Whether this lack is a benefit or a bug depends on your motivation.