The Irony of International Development
When I was returning from a 22-month backpacking trip in 2010, I was only sure of one thing – I did not want to go back to the laboratories. My travel experience was so intense that it compelled me to adjust my direction, in the hope of continuing similar experiences professionally. I was thinking of Anthropology, for my passion lies in interacting with human societies, but hesitant about its practicality in addressing challenges of our time. In the end I went to the United Nations University, and was delighted to find out that there are development studies dedicated to alleviating human suffering globally, and my program of ‘Sustainable Development’ integrates all relevant dimensions of environment, human rights, and international relation towards that objective.
The program opened my eyes on the interlinkages between so many different topics. I was genuinely interested in all of them. It is simple – if you concern yourself with human welfare, any aspect, be it social, political, environmental or economics, warrants your attention. But I was simultaneously deeply puzzled. I was not sure most of my colleagues share the same reasons of me being there. They seem to be more focused on their career prospects, and do not show interest in areas other than those they intend to establish their expertise in. Professors, though knowledgeable theoretically, seem to be living in worlds away from the poor and marginalized we are constantly talking about. The discussions never go too radical - few people really want to go down that path and challenge the global order. People are quite tenacious of their world view, despite being in a United Nations entity. There are people offended by open discussion on LGBTQ issue, which until 2014, a year after my graduation, has been finally embraced as a human rights issue through a UN Resolution.
We also have many career talks. The key presenter always talked about networking – perhaps that is the Bible for the field, but never once passion or conviction was mentioned. I also had colleagues who spent 75% time away attending internships elsewhere. The master program itself seems to be a rather low priority of theirs. Later I was told that all students in development studies were encouraged to intern as much as possible to fill up impressive resumes. Yet, most of these internships do not pay so I only see colleagues who can afford them doing so. I went to Sri Lanka for my field research, which was part of a research project in my university. In the 7th week – the last week of my stay, the project coordinator came to join me for a seminar. After 6 weeks of staying with villagers, walking barefoot and eating with hands, I suddenly switched into a 5 star-hotel occupying a room too big for myself. We dined in expensive places every meal, and my companion failed to demonstrate any basic proficiency in the local language despite it was his 5th or 6th visit to the country.
I was little shocked by all these, but it helped to better prepare myself for jobs later in the field of International Development. I still met some inspiring people who are truly compassionate and work for the well-being of others – though they are rather few. I was lucky to be directly working with a UN agency in Kathmandu – much closer to the field where problems are tangible, though still a little away from the most marginalized. The local realities can be frustrating, but often what hurts more is the donor-oriented approach, internal bureaucracy, and the unknowingly ignorant ‘experts’ or ‘expats’.
In international organizations, it is common to see expats being flown in and given secluded living environments too luxurious for local standards, and driven around in private vehicles. They are paid multiple times the amount of local salaries and placed in positions higher than the most senior local experts, even when they are completely ignorant of the local conditions. There are also many security restrictions in the name of safety (I am referring to measures implemented in conflict-free country such as prohibition of long distance bus travel), which to me implies that there is no equality in the values of lives between expats and the mass they claim to serve. They learn about the society simply by observing what is happening on the streets outside the windows of their vehicles, and how their local colleagues or partners behave at work. Their reality in the country is located in exclusive restaurants, hotels and dinner parties - entirely different from that of the commoners. Yet they are expected to make important decisions on local development projects, because they presumably know better. They attribute failures to local bureaucracy, corruption, culture while continue to receive handsome salaries donated in the name of development.
The patronizing attitude can elicit the opposite effects of development and empowerment. Without substantial understanding of local resources, culture and expectations, development agencies often fail to sustain their interventions. There are stories of water pumps being installed for free but abandoned after breakdown, as locals do not know how to repair and unwilling to pay for it; or stories of distributed mosquitoes net becoming fishing nets. The donor-oriented approach also compels some agencies to paint as negative and powerless an image of a community as possible – and ironically called their projects ‘local empowerment’. Certainly some issues are valid and warrant concern in those communities, but it is almost shameless to exploit their vulnerabilities for fund-raising purposes. Others use success stories approach which is more positive but can be guilty of exaggeration. It is also arrogant and lazy to provide standardized, project-based solutions to all disregarding existing local knowledge, resources and long-term future.
Ernesto Sirolli gave a humorous talk on the ignorance in International Development
Many organizations have its core values and often job descriptions explicitly mention the importance of respect to diversity, cross-cultural skills, etc. These all look good on the paper but as we already know, the recruitment process is tightly linked with personal connections. Even when the recruitment is merit-based, people are rarely vigorously questioned on their passions and convictions. The huge difference of salary between the locals and expats, and exclusion created by security measures continue to divorce foreign workers from the local communities. The local staff is not always reliable either, as most of them are from the elite groups, having received sufficient education to pass the recruitment process, or have access to the right people. The word ‘development industry’ is used, indicating a multi-billion dollar business supporting a massive number of development workers. If international development has been successful and communities became independent and flourished, the industry would have been scaled down, and employment of so many would have been at stake. And the fact that the whole industry is supported by donors demands a big chunk of energy by development agencies into appeasing them, rather than serving the beneficiaries. Most of the donations are also tied to conditions, such as the need to employ citizens or purchase products of the donor countries, which would heighten the cost of interventions. The whole system is at odds with its claimed objectives – thus the irony of international development.
Nevertheless, I believe there are already exemplary organizations which can show us how things can be done. For instance, Earth Rights International, through an interview by Simpson, revealed their flat pay scales regardless of positions and origins of employees. In Kenya, Give Directly is piloting the provision of basic income to all with no strings attached, and found that people are innovative in utilizing the cash for life fulfillment – one of them bought musical instruments and formed a band to perform in pubs and bars. There are universities in India which compel development studies students to live and serve in rural areas. Fundamentally, we have to understand our priorities while recruiting people into the development field – values, passions, humility, cultural sensitivity, etc., in addition to ‘expertise’ and ‘experience’, which are nowadays easily exaggerated and misrepresented. We must breakdown the structural barriers and get rid of senseless practices (such as preparing a 5-year detailed project documents based on donor's agenda), and create incentives and arrangement which gear towards serving the poor. Teachers should be themselves informed on the realities of the field and keep their students grounded as well. We have to stop glorifying positions which travel the world, stay in 5-star hotels and attend cocktail parties, but giving reverence to grass root heroes working in difficult circumstances, sharing their insightful stories as inspirations for young people. Such adjustment of underlying values is difficult but crucial to attract the right people with the right intention, forming better institution for greater work.
Give Directly runs a program which gives basic income to the poor with no strings attached.