Humanitarian and International Development NGOs

During our seminar with Duncan Green and Lant Pritchett last Friday, we revisited the question of NGOs providing services that governments are expected to provide – thereby undermining the development of effective states.  This is terrain I initially touched upon in reaction to the Foreign Policy article decrying NGOs as “the new colonialists.”

Lant used a metaphor of NGOs as scaffolding – a temporary structure to relieve an immediate burden of a developing community, as well as a resource to build the wall necessary to hold the burden over the long term.  Problem is, often the wall never gets built, and after a while the scaffolding is dismantled and it’s on to the next project.

I cited examples in my initial post to highlight that this is not always the case.  However, I do agree that NGOs can do a much better job of developing strategies – from the very beginning of a project – to ensure that their intention of transitioning a program or services to local government or authority comes to pass.  There is a need to document and share learning about such efforts, and deepen our understanding about what makes them successes or failures.

Martha Chen of the Hauser Center, who coordinates WIEGO, also offered the example of Bangladesh, where NGOs – BRAC in particular – have essentially created and run an educational system in light of the government’s failure to provide this basic service.  While the intent was to provide education until the government assumed responsibility, there seems to be no end in sight, even after close to 20 years.  She raised the possibility of a hybrid, where the NGO takes over permanent authority and responsibility for what we generally consider a state-provided social service.  Could this work?  What would be the implications?

In Duncan’s thesis, a key element in the relationship between active citizens and effective states is taxation.  As he notes in the book, “until governments depend on their publics for their wages, it will always be an uphill struggle to force them to listen.”

Aid distorts taxation.  When a government receives 60% of its revenue from foreign aid (as, Duncan explained, Uganda did until recently), their leadership is going to spend far more time interacting with donors than their own citizens.  Devising a way to provide aid that insists on creating indigenous capacity so that ultimately aid is unnecessary is a conundrum akin to devising a successful U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, with attendant political dynamics and risk to stability.  Perhaps the first step – as in the much-debated military strategy - is making clear that an exit is going to happen, and sticking to it.

Today the Hauser Center hosted Duncan Green, head of research at Oxfam GB, to discuss his new book, From Poverty to Power.  Lant Pritchett, professor of the practice of international development, offered a response.

Some quick reflections:

Duncan’s thesis is that development is best achieved through (1) active citizenship and (2) effective states.  While instinctively we might place these two in opposition to each other, they can be compatible and complementary.  To be successful in alleviating poverty, the two must combine to redistribute power within markets so that poor people benefit:

The impact of markets on poverty and inequality depends on whether poor people can exert influence over the way they operate.

Working from his thesis, Duncan offered the following pressing issues for NGOs (this is my interpretation):

• Inequality vs. poverty.  NGOs should focus on inequality, which puts their focus on the imbalance of power that leads to poverty, and forces them out of the mindset that poverty is just about lack of income or assets.
• Religious blind spot.  Whereas most NGOs focus on secular policy, much development takes place through faith communities and the influence they hold on people’s lives.
• Focus on urban areas.  NGOs suffer from “peasant romanticism,” focusing efforts on rural villages and communities, when most poor people are now found in urban areas.
• Making states effective.  NGOs may be too small to have much influence on states and make them effective (which begs the question - then who?).
• Migration.  The NGO community is mostly missing on the question of making migration a humane, dignified experience.  They have yet to take a stand in the hot political environment.
• Accountability.  NGOs are often less accountable then the actors and institutions that they accuse of suffering from a lack of accountability.
• Emergencies vs. long-term development.  Emergencies - whether complex political emergencies or natural disasters - are “shocks” that offer significant opportunity for systemic change.  Yet during the brief opening in the aftermath of crisis, NGOs focus on providing and restoring services - putting on the ground experts in providing relief - rather than bringing in the expertise - the economists, the policy analysts and developers - to effect structural changes that lead to successful long-term development.  Time to turn that on its head.
• New global institutions.  This moment of global financial crisis may be one of the few real opportunities to create new global institutions capable of regulating and redistributing power.  Otherwise such processes typically experience enormous resistance and are agonizingly slow.
• Overselling globalization.  Most development remains at the national level.  NGOs may be focusing too much energy and advocacy on international campaigns.
• Understanding change.  NGOs need better models for understanding how change occurs and being able to track progress.

Much food for thought.  I was especially struck by the point that the aftermath of emergencies is an  opportunity to advance social change.  It rang true - the social and government structures are so often unsettled, and those in charge more willing to incorporate new ideas and policies, especially if such policies reduce the vulnerability that the crisis has brought into such relief.   NGOs might make relatively easy changes to their approach and have great impact doing so.

I’m sorry we didn’t get to explore the question of accountability more deeply.  How are NGOs less accountable than they purport?

What jumps out at you?

One thing about taking in more money and becoming responsible for a larger share of international development assistance: you get noticed.

Foreign policy experts have begun to include NGOs in their analysis.  First comes a mention in Foreign Affairs by Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in which he analyzes changes in geopolitical power and includes humanitarian and development NGOs among the list of entities wielding influence.

In the latest issue of Foreign Policy, a trio from the New America Foundation - Michael Cohen, Maria Figueroa Kupcu, and Parag Khanna - call NGOs this era’s “new colonialists.” Their thesis is based on the view that NGOs are providing services and assuming responsibilities that governments in many developing countries are unable to perform, a role formerly played by “colonial masters or superpower patrons.”

I suppose equating NGOs with colonialists is meant to be provocative, but it doesn’t work, even if the role has switched hands.  It’s like calling the Prius the new Hummer.  They both get you from here to there, but the goals and values behind the design are completely different.  And goals and values matter when it comes to colonialism, which the Oxford dictionary defines as “acquiring control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.”

The authors have, however, fingered a critical issue for the field:

Seeing jobs that need to be done, the new colonialists simply roll up their sleeves and go to work, with or without the cooperation of states.  That can be good for the family whose house needs rebuilding or the young mother who needs vaccinations for her child.  But it can be a blow to the authority of an already weak government.  And it may do nothing to ensure that a state will be able to provide for its citizens in the future.

This is undeniably a dynamic that most responsible NGOs recognize and strategically try to address.  It can be precariously difficult to provide high-quality, life-saving services while acting as a catalyst for a more responsive and capable government to take over, rather than creating a cycle of dependence.

But the authors conflate different types of situations and actors in the examples they cite (Booz Allen Hamilton and Save the Children have differing priorities, to say the least) and dismiss out of hand the notion that NGOs are truly committed to strengthening and encouraging governments to rise to the responsibility, simply because they find it “difficult to find examples where these groups have pulled up stakes because the needs they seek to address are no more.”

I don’t think examples are hard to find.  In Afghanistan (where one of the article’s case studies is located), CARE set up and ran a water system in Kabul that they successfully lobbied Karzai’s government to pick up.  In India, they began an integrated health and nutrition program in 100,000 villages throughout 10 states for which the state governments ultimately assumed full responsibility.  These are just two examples out of several for one organization.  There are also cases of NGOs leaving significant money on the table because they felt strongly that the project should be government-led or might weaken local governance and capacity.

It’s true that the danger exists of advantaging self-perpetuation or self-interest over a commitment to constituents and mission, and certainly a few NGOs exhibit opportunism above all else.  But the problem is not so much NGOs paying lip service to their pledge of working themselves out of a job - it’s the tricky strategic challenge of getting the balance right of different imperatives. In fact, some portion of the growth of NGOs could well be attributable to whatever halting success they’ve experienced in building local capacity and transitioning out.  It’s an attractive selling point.  It’s not like anybody else has a better track record.

It’s nice to be noticed.  It’s nicer if the nuances could be more fully developed.

PS.  The online version of the Foreign Policy article lists “The World’s Most Powerful Development NGOs.”  No mention of who picked it or the criteria used.  How does it compare to your list?