4 ms·

After three years moving through 35 countries in Africa, this sums up my experience and thoughts on aid money. I have spent considerable time with a ton of UN a

by grecy 8y ago

After three years moving through 35 countries in Africa, this sums up my experience and thoughts on aid money. I have spent considerable time with a ton of UN and NGO people in many different countries, and heard plenty of great first-hand accounts of how things actually work on the ground. It sounds great, and the people giving the money really think they're helping. Unfortunately, it's rarely the case.

realusername 8y ago
> After three years moving through 35 countries in Africa, this sums up my experience and thoughts on aid money. I have spent considerable time with a ton of UN and NGO people in many different countries, and heard plenty of great first-hand accounts of how things actually work on the ground. I also worked in Africa (although in a more limited way than you) and I came to the same conclusion, it really was an eye opening. Actually our company which had absolutely zero humanitarian goals (and the CEO himself was very far from those ideals, he was just in for the money) was doing more locally than the vast majority of NGOs there.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  It's not a surprise: when all others give you fish, a company may give you a fishing rod (I don't know if it was what happened in your case, but I wouldn't be surprised).
na85 8y ago
>and heard plenty of great first-hand accounts of how things actually work on the ground. I'm interested: how do things actually work on the ground?
- grecy 8y ago
  UN people are making $1000 USD per day, NGOs spend millions on a project that leaves a town worse off than before, foreigners come in and mess with the local economy in every way they possibly can. Aid money buys foreign rice, floods the African market with it so the locals don't grow any next year, then the problem is worse and the dependence just grows every year. I'll write at least a chapter on all these and more in the book I'm writing about my time around Africa.
  - justaj 8y ago
    Please do! I'd be very interested in reading that. Will you announce that book in one of your links in your profile?
    - grecy 8y ago
      Yes, I will. I'm theroadchoseme.com
  - mcv 8y ago
    It seems to me the most sensible way to provide aid, is to hire locals to do the work. By all means have some people there to check they're doing a good job, but certainly don't replace the work the locals are doing, or you're just creating unemployment. I too heard that African farmers have been going bankrupt due to free rice from foreign aid after Live Aid and similar projects. Better to give locals money to buy rice from local farmers for a better price, and important food if that's not enough. Or use your foreign aid money to buy food from local farmers first, supplemented with foreign food if it's not enough, and distribute that. But keeping it as part of the local economy, rather than completely replacing the local economy, seems like a much better idea. If you want to build houses in Haiti, hire locals to build those houses.
    - v_lisivka 8y ago
      Join Kiva[1]. They do exactly as you say, and they are extremely successful. [1]: https://www.kiva.org/ https://www.kiva.org/
      - mcv 8y ago
        That's microcredits, isn't it? Definitely one of the bigger successes in supporting development in poor countries, all the more effective because they're loans that get paid back and can be loaned out again. But I'm not sure it's a great model for rebuilding after a disaster, which requires money that's not going to be paid back. Or so it seems to me, at least. Maybe you know something I don't.
- fsloth 8y ago
  Not OP but I presume one of the root problems is how the aid is organized. You need lot of grass roots work to actually figure out what works locally. But that's not how you progress in a western organization. You need clear project plans, then you need a budget and follow ups on the project milestones. Which is all paperwork, and not directly related to the actual effect of the project on ground. It's like a re-enactment of the Soviet Union. Big plans, big scopes ...
i_feel_great 8y ago
What then do you think is the right way to help these countries out of the rut they are in? I used to think the Grameen Bank way was the best way, but even that has come under criticism [0]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grameen_Bank#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grameen_Bank#Criticism
- grecy 8y ago
  The first thing I would do is say that someone must spent at least two years on the ground in the country they're trying to "help". They shouldn't "do" anything for those two years, just live with the local people and observe and learn. I honestly think that anyone that doesn't actually live there on the ground doesn't have the faintest clue how to help, or what is even actually needed. Also, the very idea that "help" is even required becomes quite strange after you've lived there a while. Certainly giving money helps nothing, very likely makes it worse. Maybe training. Maybe education (but that will be very church or western oriented, so it's dangerous). Maybe the best approach is to let people figure things out for themselves, and come up with their own solutions to problems. Maybe we could just offer some advice or pointers from time to time, if asked.
tkmunzwa 8y ago
> It sounds great, and the people giving the money really think they're helping. Unfortunately, it's rarely the case I don't think your experience driving around Africa gave you a enough information to adequately support your conclusion (which I could not leave unchallenged). I mean this in a non-disparaging way: you got breadth, but not depth. I, an African, on the other hand, have depth, but not breadth. I have some experience with both sides of the NGO coin: I've seen communities and individuals positively. From disease eradication in whole communities to people regaining their vision. People giving money are helping in most of the cases. On the other side of the coin - I agree that NGOs have a lot of fat they could cut in terms of expenditures that do not directly go to their mission, but this depends entirely on which NGO it is and what their culture is, not all of them are the same. This is an industry ripe for disruption by leaner setups, too bad VCs aren't really geared for this. Donors are helping, but maybe not as much as they think they are (per dollar). It would be great if they would research the org they are donating to to find how many cents per dollar are going to the cause. More transparency in this area is needed.
- grecy 8y ago
  > I don't think your experience driving around Africa gave you a enough information to adequately support your conclusion....you got breadth, but not depth. I, an African, on the other hand, have depth, but not breadth. That's a great point I had not thought enough about, and I think you are correct. Certainly your examples of health (disease and sight) sound very positive. Also examples where NGOs or World Vision or whoever bring in massive quantities of food appear very positive on the surface, though the long term consequences are extremely unhealthy, and just create more of a dependence loop than ever before, until locals are utterly unable to help themselves. > Donors are helping, but maybe not as much as they think they are (per dollar). It would be great if they would research the org they are donating to to find how many cents per dollar are going to the cause. More transparency in this area is needed. More transparency is absolutely the key, but I also think it's really important to take a step back and really think about if and how any donor is actually "helping" at all. We in the west have this funny idea that money is the answer to everything and more money = a better life. Certainly it's important to have healthcare and clean drinking water, but after that a lot of times I saw money degrading African society, not making anything better at all. I'm terrified we'll turn many special countries into "little America" or "little Europe" complete with high cancer rates, stress, 9-5 jobs, pollution, lack of care for our community and neighbors, high crime, rampant greed and inequality ,etc. etc.

by grecy 8y ago

realusername 8y ago

> After three years moving through 35 countries in Africa, this sums up my experience and thoughts on aid money. I have spent considerable time with a ton of UN and NGO people in many different countries, and heard plenty of great first-hand accounts of how things actually work on the ground. I also worked in Africa (although in a more limited way than you) and I came to the same conclusion, it really was an eye opening. Actually our company which had absolutely zero humanitarian goals (and the CEO himself was very far from those ideals, he was just in for the money) was doing more locally than the vast majority of NGOs there.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
It's not a surprise: when all others give you fish, a company may give you a fishing rod (I don't know if it was what happened in your case, but I wouldn't be surprised).

na85 8y ago

>and heard plenty of great first-hand accounts of how things actually work on the ground. I'm interested: how do things actually work on the ground?

grecy 8y ago
UN people are making $1000 USD per day, NGOs spend millions on a project that leaves a town worse off than before, foreigners come in and mess with the local economy in every way they possibly can. Aid money buys foreign rice, floods the African market with it so the locals don't grow any next year, then the problem is worse and the dependence just grows every year. I'll write at least a chapter on all these and more in the book I'm writing about my time around Africa.
- justaj 8y ago
  Please do! I'd be very interested in reading that. Will you announce that book in one of your links in your profile?
  - grecy 8y ago
    Yes, I will. I'm theroadchoseme.com
- mcv 8y ago
  It seems to me the most sensible way to provide aid, is to hire locals to do the work. By all means have some people there to check they're doing a good job, but certainly don't replace the work the locals are doing, or you're just creating unemployment. I too heard that African farmers have been going bankrupt due to free rice from foreign aid after Live Aid and similar projects. Better to give locals money to buy rice from local farmers for a better price, and important food if that's not enough. Or use your foreign aid money to buy food from local farmers first, supplemented with foreign food if it's not enough, and distribute that. But keeping it as part of the local economy, rather than completely replacing the local economy, seems like a much better idea. If you want to build houses in Haiti, hire locals to build those houses.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    Join Kiva[1]. They do exactly as you say, and they are extremely successful. [1]: https://www.kiva.org/ https://www.kiva.org/
    - mcv 8y ago
      That's microcredits, isn't it? Definitely one of the bigger successes in supporting development in poor countries, all the more effective because they're loans that get paid back and can be loaned out again. But I'm not sure it's a great model for rebuilding after a disaster, which requires money that's not going to be paid back. Or so it seems to me, at least. Maybe you know something I don't.
fsloth 8y ago
Not OP but I presume one of the root problems is how the aid is organized. You need lot of grass roots work to actually figure out what works locally. But that's not how you progress in a western organization. You need clear project plans, then you need a budget and follow ups on the project milestones. Which is all paperwork, and not directly related to the actual effect of the project on ground. It's like a re-enactment of the Soviet Union. Big plans, big scopes ...

i_feel_great 8y ago

What then do you think is the right way to help these countries out of the rut they are in? I used to think the Grameen Bank way was the best way, but even that has come under criticism [0]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grameen_Bank#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grameen_Bank#Criticism

grecy 8y ago
The first thing I would do is say that someone must spent at least two years on the ground in the country they're trying to "help". They shouldn't "do" anything for those two years, just live with the local people and observe and learn. I honestly think that anyone that doesn't actually live there on the ground doesn't have the faintest clue how to help, or what is even actually needed. Also, the very idea that "help" is even required becomes quite strange after you've lived there a while. Certainly giving money helps nothing, very likely makes it worse. Maybe training. Maybe education (but that will be very church or western oriented, so it's dangerous). Maybe the best approach is to let people figure things out for themselves, and come up with their own solutions to problems. Maybe we could just offer some advice or pointers from time to time, if asked.

tkmunzwa 8y ago

> It sounds great, and the people giving the money really think they're helping. Unfortunately, it's rarely the case I don't think your experience driving around Africa gave you a enough information to adequately support your conclusion (which I could not leave unchallenged). I mean this in a non-disparaging way: you got breadth, but not depth. I, an African, on the other hand, have depth, but not breadth. I have some experience with both sides of the NGO coin: I've seen communities and individuals positively. From disease eradication in whole communities to people regaining their vision. People giving money are helping in most of the cases. On the other side of the coin - I agree that NGOs have a lot of fat they could cut in terms of expenditures that do not directly go to their mission, but this depends entirely on which NGO it is and what their culture is, not all of them are the same. This is an industry ripe for disruption by leaner setups, too bad VCs aren't really geared for this. Donors are helping, but maybe not as much as they think they are (per dollar). It would be great if they would research the org they are donating to to find how many cents per dollar are going to the cause. More transparency in this area is needed.

grecy 8y ago
> I don't think your experience driving around Africa gave you a enough information to adequately support your conclusion....you got breadth, but not depth. I, an African, on the other hand, have depth, but not breadth. That's a great point I had not thought enough about, and I think you are correct. Certainly your examples of health (disease and sight) sound very positive. Also examples where NGOs or World Vision or whoever bring in massive quantities of food appear very positive on the surface, though the long term consequences are extremely unhealthy, and just create more of a dependence loop than ever before, until locals are utterly unable to help themselves. > Donors are helping, but maybe not as much as they think they are (per dollar). It would be great if they would research the org they are donating to to find how many cents per dollar are going to the cause. More transparency in this area is needed. More transparency is absolutely the key, but I also think it's really important to take a step back and really think about if and how any donor is actually "helping" at all. We in the west have this funny idea that money is the answer to everything and more money = a better life. Certainly it's important to have healthcare and clean drinking water, but after that a lot of times I saw money degrading African society, not making anything better at all. I'm terrified we'll turn many special countries into "little America" or "little Europe" complete with high cancer rates, stress, 9-5 jobs, pollution, lack of care for our community and neighbors, high crime, rampant greed and inequality ,etc. etc.