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?