3 ms·

What kind of oversight do these organizations have? Who are their "investors" or "donors"? It seems like organizations like this are not overseen for their eff

by Pyxl101 11y ago

What kind of oversight do these organizations have? Who are their "investors" or "donors"? It seems like organizations like this are not overseen for their effectiveness. Why is measuring organizations for their effectiveness and striving for effectiveness not a standard table-stakes expectation for an organization of this size?

HillRat 11y ago
By definition member states don't have oversight over the UN, though they can refuse or delay funding (as the US has done in the past). Technically, the UN Secretary General and the Office of Internal Oversight Services are responsible for ensuring effective, efficient and transparent operations. In reality, much of the UN evades oversight due to the highly-politicized bureaucracy. There are plenty of good efforts coming out of the UN -- I've seen the results of UNHCR's work in the developing world, and UNICEF does much good work, even if some of their policies have been, to put it mildly, controversial in intent and implementation -- but much, perhaps most, of the UN's work is of dubious cash value to the international system.
eloisant 11y ago
Their "investors" are all the countries in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding But seriously, how would you measure effectiveness? There is nothing to compare it to, and you can't never know for sure what wars it prevented (because they didn't happen).
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  The organization should set objectives and measures its effectiveness against the objectives. While it might not give you a sense of the organization's relative effectiveness (i.e., the objectives might be nigh impossible and making any progress at all is a miracle), at least you have a general overall sense of what they're trying to accomplish and how effective they are at solving those problems. A data-driven and specific approach to projects will give people a chance to ask questions like: is this problem worth solving? Is the UN the right organization to solve this problem? Is this problem worth the cost we're putting into the UN? Is the UN taking the right strategy? Etc. If my government is funding the UN, I'd want a statement of what the UN is attempting to do with that funding, and which parts of that my government supports and thinks is valuable. I'd also want my government to conduct its own assessment of whether the UN is effective (GAO style) and include that analysis in its recommendation to me of whether to continue to fund them with my tax money.
m_fayer 11y ago
There is significant staff devoted to oversight-theater. Plenty of metrics with scant connection to reality are collected, and plenty of reports that no one reads are produced. Every few years, there's a disaster big enough to attract attention, frequently connected to IT. Then, a sacrificial lamb in upper-middle-management resigns and goes to a new cushy post in a sibling organization or in a big consultancy. Then, some departments are split up or merged and new acronyms are created, with few noticeable real-world consequences.

by Pyxl101 11y ago

HillRat 11y ago

By definition member states don't have oversight over the UN, though they can refuse or delay funding (as the US has done in the past). Technically, the UN Secretary General and the Office of Internal Oversight Services are responsible for ensuring effective, efficient and transparent operations. In reality, much of the UN evades oversight due to the highly-politicized bureaucracy. There are plenty of good efforts coming out of the UN -- I've seen the results of UNHCR's work in the developing world, and UNICEF does much good work, even if some of their policies have been, to put it mildly, controversial in intent and implementation -- but much, perhaps most, of the UN's work is of dubious cash value to the international system.

eloisant 11y ago

Their "investors" are all the countries in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding But seriously, how would you measure effectiveness? There is nothing to compare it to, and you can't never know for sure what wars it prevented (because they didn't happen).

Pyxl101 11y ago
The organization should set objectives and measures its effectiveness against the objectives. While it might not give you a sense of the organization's relative effectiveness (i.e., the objectives might be nigh impossible and making any progress at all is a miracle), at least you have a general overall sense of what they're trying to accomplish and how effective they are at solving those problems. A data-driven and specific approach to projects will give people a chance to ask questions like: is this problem worth solving? Is the UN the right organization to solve this problem? Is this problem worth the cost we're putting into the UN? Is the UN taking the right strategy? Etc. If my government is funding the UN, I'd want a statement of what the UN is attempting to do with that funding, and which parts of that my government supports and thinks is valuable. I'd also want my government to conduct its own assessment of whether the UN is effective (GAO style) and include that analysis in its recommendation to me of whether to continue to fund them with my tax money.

m_fayer 11y ago

There is significant staff devoted to oversight-theater. Plenty of metrics with scant connection to reality are collected, and plenty of reports that no one reads are produced. Every few years, there's a disaster big enough to attract attention, frequently connected to IT. Then, a sacrificial lamb in upper-middle-management resigns and goes to a new cushy post in a sibling organization or in a big consultancy. Then, some departments are split up or merged and new acronyms are created, with few noticeable real-world consequences.