This guest blog was contributed as a rebuttal to Eduardo's guest blog yesterday, which was in response to my voluntourism article. The author has asked to remain anonymous.
I applaud LG for raising some interesting and thought-provoking issues regarding poverty, development and the role of outsiders in the same. Eduardo's post made me think quite a bit. I must say, I have to disagree with some of Eduardo's points. Perhaps I have a bias because I have been a Peace Corps volunteer and chose to make a career out of humanitarian and development assistance and work for an American NGO in the developing world. But Eduardo cites similar claims in his expertise, so I will too. :)
First: In these types of discussions we must distinguish between large scale, macro-level "development" projects involving governments and multilateral organizations and the smaller, grass-roots projects/missions of which LG originally spoke. The large scale infrastructure loans given by the IMF or World Bank are VERY different from the mission trips and NGO projects. A church group from the US is not giving a US$10 million loan to the Honduran Supreme Court! The large scale infrastructure loans rarely have a direct impact on poverty- they are the "trickle downs" of the development world.
Second: I disagree with the establishment of a "Poverty Czar." Another American bureaucracy? Hmmm. I haven't worked on any of the large-scale loans/projects Eduardo refers to, but I can speak to human development funding given by USAID, UN agencies like UNICEF, and EU aid agencies, as I have worked on all at some point. I can tell you that USAID has a reputation for being the most strict in terms of compliance on project funds to NGOs.
To give an example: the director of a local NGO I worked with was found to be stealing from a UNICEF-funded project. When I asked the accountant why the director stole from the UNICEF project and not the USAID funded project (channeled through my organization), she said, "Because he knew he would get caught if he stole from the USAID project." The US government does not need an additional compliance agency when the one it has is effective. I know it is effective because I have suffered through a US government audit or two in my career.
Third: What are the consequences of cutting off all aid − the "tough love" approach? If the recipient country has strategic interests, then someone else will step in. Perhaps in countries like Honduras, it would force the powers that be to respond to the needs of the people. (Although according to Eduardo Hondurans are "sheep-like" so they may just put up with it.)
But if the country has anything of value, then a China-like figure will come along and offer a loan with better rates and no strings attached. Angola is a perfect case in study. The World Bank put the pressure on oil-rich, corrupt Angola to provide transparent accounting of any future loan. The corrupt government was understandably very happy when China came and offered some loans for cheap oil, no strings attached! Angola refused the World Bank transparency conditions and took the Chinese loans. The poverty in Angola is NOT improving.
Again, I'm not saying that multilateral donors are peachy-keen and great, just giving an example of the extreme situation Eduardo advocates. It is simply wrong that "the international lending and donor institutions have been feeding [corrupt systems] with NO demands for results or accountability." They may be flawed, but they do exist and they may have just prevented more damage from being done. I'm only speaking about large infrastructure project. The majority of communities receiving mission trips are already ignored by the government, so I doubt things would change if missions stopped coming.
Fourth: I simply cannot support that "voluntourism" and "international donor" organizations have led to "increases in the poverty indexes." I assume that Eduardo is referring to the Human Development Index of the UNDP. I actually dislike using statistics to prove a point because 95% of all statistics are invented (wink wink). But since Eduardo claims that UNDP reports show that poverty indexes have increased, I decided to look at the UNDP Human Development Report for Honduras (2006).
On page 6 of the 2006 report for Honduras, it shows that in spite of all the difficulties, overall human development has gone up in Central America since 1975. (On the UNDP scale a higher percentage means a higher percentage of development, not poverty. So in this case, it's GOOD to see increases.) IN NO WAY do I mean to imply that things are fine and progressing in Honduras. And I certainly do not support the macroeconomic reforms of the Washington Consensus. But OVERALL, Central American is better off than it was 40 years ago.
To say that a mission group going to an impoverished community and giving some sort of service contributes to increasing poverty statistics is baffling. Have certain poverty indicators gone up over the year? Yes. But I'm not convinced by any means that "voluntourism" and community development projects are the reason why.
Fifth: Eduardo says that "A host organization from Honduras (be it government, groups, individuals or local organization with international contacts) invites a group from the United States to Honduras to help the poor of a specific neighborhood, usually they themselves have done nothing to help these people and NO plans for sustainability are put in place before or after the visit." Really? EVERY single Honduran organization? I have seen irresponsible implementation like this, but it is not the norm. Yes, many organizations focus on one area − because that is what they know. If I want to help XYZ community, wouldn't I go to an organization that know that community inside and out? I don't deny there is some level of corruption in some projects. But from what I have seen on the ground, the level of corruption and mismanagement presented in the post is exaggerated.
And I cannot agree more that those of us that are from countries like the US, Canada and EU member countries should take advantage of the fact that we have representatives that give a darn about what we think. If you don't like the way your government is funding overseas aid projects, then by all means, let it know. "I am a voting member of your district" carries a lot of weight! It is a luxury that those in the developing world don't have.
This is not to say I disagree with everything Eduardo highlights. The elite of the developing world undeniably profit from corruption and entitlement. It is criminal and immoral. NGOs and missions need to be responsible in the selection of project beneficiaries and what they chose to do in communities. (And in my experience, most do.)
And I cannot agree more that those of us that are from coutnries like the US, Canada and EU member countries should take advantage of the fact that we have representatives that give a darn about what we think. If you don't like the way your government is funding overseas aid projects, then by all means, let it know. "I am a voting member of your district" carries a lot of weight! It is a luxury that those in the developing world don't have.
I don't know what the answer is. But I do know it doesn't lie in either extreme. Perhaps I am a hopeless optimist, I prefer to err on the side of too much help than none at all.
Related articles:
The voluntourism original article, Why don't more people help the poor in their own countries? along with the numerous reader responses.
Guest blog article, Honduras, Voluntourism, International Donations and Loans
I applaud LG for raising some interesting and thought-provoking issues regarding poverty, development and the role of outsiders in the same. Eduardo's post made me think quite a bit. I must say, I have to disagree with some of Eduardo's points. Perhaps I have a bias because I have been a Peace Corps volunteer and chose to make a career out of humanitarian and development assistance and work for an American NGO in the developing world. But Eduardo cites similar claims in his expertise, so I will too. :)
First: In these types of discussions we must distinguish between large scale, macro-level "development" projects involving governments and multilateral organizations and the smaller, grass-roots projects/missions of which LG originally spoke. The large scale infrastructure loans given by the IMF or World Bank are VERY different from the mission trips and NGO projects. A church group from the US is not giving a US$10 million loan to the Honduran Supreme Court! The large scale infrastructure loans rarely have a direct impact on poverty- they are the "trickle downs" of the development world.
Second: I disagree with the establishment of a "Poverty Czar." Another American bureaucracy? Hmmm. I haven't worked on any of the large-scale loans/projects Eduardo refers to, but I can speak to human development funding given by USAID, UN agencies like UNICEF, and EU aid agencies, as I have worked on all at some point. I can tell you that USAID has a reputation for being the most strict in terms of compliance on project funds to NGOs.
To give an example: the director of a local NGO I worked with was found to be stealing from a UNICEF-funded project. When I asked the accountant why the director stole from the UNICEF project and not the USAID funded project (channeled through my organization), she said, "Because he knew he would get caught if he stole from the USAID project." The US government does not need an additional compliance agency when the one it has is effective. I know it is effective because I have suffered through a US government audit or two in my career.
Third: What are the consequences of cutting off all aid − the "tough love" approach? If the recipient country has strategic interests, then someone else will step in. Perhaps in countries like Honduras, it would force the powers that be to respond to the needs of the people. (Although according to Eduardo Hondurans are "sheep-like" so they may just put up with it.)
But if the country has anything of value, then a China-like figure will come along and offer a loan with better rates and no strings attached. Angola is a perfect case in study. The World Bank put the pressure on oil-rich, corrupt Angola to provide transparent accounting of any future loan. The corrupt government was understandably very happy when China came and offered some loans for cheap oil, no strings attached! Angola refused the World Bank transparency conditions and took the Chinese loans. The poverty in Angola is NOT improving.
Again, I'm not saying that multilateral donors are peachy-keen and great, just giving an example of the extreme situation Eduardo advocates. It is simply wrong that "the international lending and donor institutions have been feeding [corrupt systems] with NO demands for results or accountability." They may be flawed, but they do exist and they may have just prevented more damage from being done. I'm only speaking about large infrastructure project. The majority of communities receiving mission trips are already ignored by the government, so I doubt things would change if missions stopped coming.
Fourth: I simply cannot support that "voluntourism" and "international donor" organizations have led to "increases in the poverty indexes." I assume that Eduardo is referring to the Human Development Index of the UNDP. I actually dislike using statistics to prove a point because 95% of all statistics are invented (wink wink). But since Eduardo claims that UNDP reports show that poverty indexes have increased, I decided to look at the UNDP Human Development Report for Honduras (2006).
On page 6 of the 2006 report for Honduras, it shows that in spite of all the difficulties, overall human development has gone up in Central America since 1975. (On the UNDP scale a higher percentage means a higher percentage of development, not poverty. So in this case, it's GOOD to see increases.) IN NO WAY do I mean to imply that things are fine and progressing in Honduras. And I certainly do not support the macroeconomic reforms of the Washington Consensus. But OVERALL, Central American is better off than it was 40 years ago.
To say that a mission group going to an impoverished community and giving some sort of service contributes to increasing poverty statistics is baffling. Have certain poverty indicators gone up over the year? Yes. But I'm not convinced by any means that "voluntourism" and community development projects are the reason why.
Fifth: Eduardo says that "A host organization from Honduras (be it government, groups, individuals or local organization with international contacts) invites a group from the United States to Honduras to help the poor of a specific neighborhood, usually they themselves have done nothing to help these people and NO plans for sustainability are put in place before or after the visit." Really? EVERY single Honduran organization? I have seen irresponsible implementation like this, but it is not the norm. Yes, many organizations focus on one area − because that is what they know. If I want to help XYZ community, wouldn't I go to an organization that know that community inside and out? I don't deny there is some level of corruption in some projects. But from what I have seen on the ground, the level of corruption and mismanagement presented in the post is exaggerated.
And I cannot agree more that those of us that are from countries like the US, Canada and EU member countries should take advantage of the fact that we have representatives that give a darn about what we think. If you don't like the way your government is funding overseas aid projects, then by all means, let it know. "I am a voting member of your district" carries a lot of weight! It is a luxury that those in the developing world don't have.
This is not to say I disagree with everything Eduardo highlights. The elite of the developing world undeniably profit from corruption and entitlement. It is criminal and immoral. NGOs and missions need to be responsible in the selection of project beneficiaries and what they chose to do in communities. (And in my experience, most do.)
And I cannot agree more that those of us that are from coutnries like the US, Canada and EU member countries should take advantage of the fact that we have representatives that give a darn about what we think. If you don't like the way your government is funding overseas aid projects, then by all means, let it know. "I am a voting member of your district" carries a lot of weight! It is a luxury that those in the developing world don't have.
I don't know what the answer is. But I do know it doesn't lie in either extreme. Perhaps I am a hopeless optimist, I prefer to err on the side of too much help than none at all.
---------------
Related articles:
The voluntourism original article, Why don't more people help the poor in their own countries? along with the numerous reader responses.
Guest blog article, Honduras, Voluntourism, International Donations and Loans
Welcome to my Blogicito — 
