Dear Readers: While we at the CIHA blog tend to be critical of aspects of humanitarianism and aid in Africa we also recognize its endurance as well as the goodwill and attempts to find constructive solutions of many people involved. Please see this piece by our friend Nitish Peters on his work and thoughts as a development practitioner.
by Nitish Peters
Because I have been deeply involved with the international development community in Ghana, I recognize the polarized narratives of international development and humanitarian aid that the CIHA Blog often critiques (see “The Great Aid Debate”). On one side, there are those who are attracted to the development sector because of a perceived inherent moral aspiration or responsibility. I strongly agree with this idea that we have a duty to help others in need; however, I think many fail to recognize the paternalistic assumptions that constitute this narrative, given that care for others never occurs between equals. On the other side of the aid debate are those who remain cynical, espousing the complete ineffectiveness of foreign aid and development. They argue either that development should remain the responsibility of local government or that the market and international trade will solve all pertinent issues. Such views obviously do not take into account factors such as historical context, the economic complexities of development, and the necessity of distributive justice. The costs—both economic and emotional—of poverty are real. When the human condition is at stake and the possibility for suffering is imminent, a sense of urgency and the need to find solutions becomes an imperative. As long as many of my close friends in Ghana continue live lives of uncertainty, with continuous doubts about their ability to fill their basic needs, international development aid and support will remain necessary. For them, poverty is still a reality. What is the solution? Are international NGO’s and other international aid and development agencies necessary to eradicate poverty? Or should we expect local governments and business to solve the great issues of poverty and economic development?
William Easterly and other scholars believe that the plight of economically developing countries should be the responsibility of their respective local governments and therefore not the responsibility of various international development agencies including international non-profits, global sovereign funding agencies, etc. While Western institutions, like global sovereign funding agencies, have undoubtedly contributed to great prosperity throughout the world, it is our duty to also articulate the shortcomings of these global institutions. During my conversations with top officials at several global sovereign funding agencies, I noted a common trend in their emphasis on expecting local aid-receiving governments to represent Western-centered institutions and ideals such as democracy and markets, irrespective of whether these ideals were “fit” with local narratives and environment. Many countries in the global south have their own unique cultural understandings of justice, property rights, and market competition. Thus, expecting local institutions and forms of governance to replicate our Western institutions can be a futile and unconstructive aspiration. Such a disconnection in policy aspirations and assumptions with the reality of local culture and norms decreases the effectiveness of international development policy institutions, organizations, projects and aspirations.
Moreover, it is important to analyze the capacity of local governments to be completely responsible for their own peoples and countries’ development. As I have spent more time trying to understand the political architecture and reality in Ghana, I have become fascinated with the extent to which political and legal power remains concentrated in the hands of a few in the central government, rather than with political agents at the municipal or state/province level. While one may view such design as efficient, a centralized government-driven policy agenda lacks both social legitimacy and support in territories where it does not have representation, especially given the social context and the ubiquity of flat local-chieftaincy forms of Ghanaian governance. Furthermore, because government is not held immediately accountable in its duty to create public goods, there remain no short-term incentives for private enterprise or individuals to create public goods (collective-action problems).
Many economists and pro-capitalist development experts, argue that enterprise is the motivator of creativity, an instrument for justice and a vehicle for prosperity. Despite such positive attributes, it is imperative to emphasize the need for certain conditions, without which the market and enterprise can negate any social good. Some of these necessary conditions include the existence of effective private property legislation, incentives for the creation of private goods while the government is responsible for public-goods, social mobility and an environment that values and rewards justice, merit and creativity. Unfortunately, many developing nations are still deeply plagued with issues of nepotism, corruption, social immobility and inequality, leading to the ineffectiveness of enterprise and markets in maximizing social welfare and emancipating people from poverty. Thus, while the market and global enterprise can be powerful instruments for value-creation, the inefficiency of global labor markets, inefficient capital distribution and rising social inequality creates the need for collective action and co-operative leadership, the kind of leadership only development agencies and international NGOs’ can provide and foster.
Additionally, for those who believe that the free-market will solve all problems, it is important to recognize that while the market as an instrument may respond well to human nature’s self-interested drive to acquire private property/profit, there is often no short term profit-incentive for business or the market to alleviate poverty and fix other social problems. Therefore, there remains a dire need for institutions like non-profit agencies or international development agencies that can implement the necessary actions to alleviate the social injustices of poverty, inequality, etc. With no imminent drive for profit or the acquisition of private property, non-profits and development agencies can be more focused on achieving their social outcomes. Some economists claim that non-profits are inherently and inevitably inefficient. Though there is empirical data that exposes the inefficient use of resources by some non-profits, it is important to articulate that non-profits, in principle, do not have to be inefficient or wasteful. While it is true that the success of a non-profit organization does not organically create incentives to attract new players to an industry, effective non-profits do attract other organizations with aspirations to replicate their policy and programs, allowing for a more co-operative and productive approach.
Yet, while the development sector has made great contributions to the alleviation of poverty, it is time we recognize that development is a geo-eco-political dynamic, and should be rigorously analyzed as such. For instance, there continues to be increasing conversation about supporting local NGO’s, an integrative approach that has proven to be more effective in creating social value. However, smaller organizations continue to be constrained by access to capital, competing against organizations with established histories. With the constraints of economic opportunity, larger market shares are imperative for global and western prosperity. It is about time our policy makers looked at evidence and empirical analysis that validates real development. Local organizations have and always will lack risk capital. Our resources are limited, our times are challenging, and we have a duty to put our resources to their best use.
Ideologies about aid continue to exist, but pro-active and enlightened policy makers need to understand how they can put our resources to more optimal use amidst these ideological political divides. A failure to do so will result in a continuation, and possible increase, of poverty around the world– not just in the global south, but even in our own backyards. Consider this our duty to our future generations. We cannot label all international aid and agencies as completely ineffective. Neither can we categorically expect local governments in developing countries or global markets to solve the greatest challenges of our times. A more constructive process would be to understand the empirical capabilities and effectiveness of global funding agencies and international development agencies, especially when they engage in collaborative relationships with local NGO’s and local government. Our imperative is to build capacity, to reduce the great inequalities and to build the infrastructure necessary for global and local markets, entrepreneurs and business to unleash sustainable prosperity.
I recognize that while I write this in the warmth of my centrally-heated room, there are many people around the world that are struggling with poverty, those who continue to lack access to the basic necessities of life. Our objective is to find solutions that can alleviate poverty as effectively as possible, while limiting negative long-term consequences. As it is clear that one cannot rely purely on either business or government for development, there is a great need for NGO’s and other non-profit agencies to produce public goods, to alleviate poverty and work towards global social welfare. Our collective involvement is a necessity, and not just a mere prerogative.
Nitish is a Canadian Entrepreneur, Policy Activist and Development Practitioner. He can be reached at nitish.peters@mail.utoronto.ca