Like many other large organizations, the UN needs bold reforms. But global institutions cannot be reformed unilaterally by one country, says Prof Mukesh Kapila, a veteran of humanitarian aid and global health. Kul
Interview with Mukesh Kapila
Summary
Interview with Mukesh Kapila
Summary
Professor Mukesh Kapila explains that while the UN certainly needs efficiency reforms, the current approach—driven by political conditionality and reduced contributions—risks turning the international body into a "subcontractor" for national interests rather than a neutral global humanitarian coordinator.
Quotes:
"What the US is doing under President Trump is to try to reshape the UN into its own image... it's really the money will be spent where the US wants it to be spent." [
00:31]
"The tragedy of this is that the UN itself... is being turned into a subcontractor... this is not the UN that the countries of the world have signed up to." [
01:19]
"Inefficiency is partially a consequence of the way the global system works in itself... to tie humanitarian aid... to try and bring about a change [is] guided by a particular political outlook." [
03:45]
"We're seeing a breakup of that global approach to global problems." [
07:26]
Quotes:
"What the US is doing under President Trump is to try to reshape the UN into its own image... it's really the money will be spent where the US wants it to be spent." [
00:31]
"The tragedy of this is that the UN itself... is being turned into a subcontractor... this is not the UN that the countries of the world have signed up to." [
01:19]
"Inefficiency is partially a consequence of the way the global system works in itself... to tie humanitarian aid... to try and bring about a change [is] guided by a particular political outlook." [
03:45]
"We're seeing a breakup of that global approach to global problems." [
07:26]
Sadly , the UN has been a sub contractor for donors long before this. While I disagree with draconian cuts and tied aid - the rapid growth of UN coordination entities has been nothing short of ridiculous. We seem to be unable to reign in ourselves. 35 years ago when we had UN coordination bestowed on the most able UN agency preeence in humanitarian response - were we worse off? I recall it worked very well - and did not add an extra layer of fluff. We had a stake in it and that was important.
ReplyDeleteThe UN’s problem long predates recent donor behaviour. The system is riddled with structural contradictions that make genuine coordination almost impossible.
ReplyDeleteUN agencies are expected to cooperate and coordinate while simultaneously competing fiercely for donor funding. These objectives are inherently incompatible. In any other sector, certainly in business, you do not meaningfully coordinate with your competitors. You seek to outperform them. The incentives are clear and predictable.
This competition encourages agencies to behave as de facto subcontractors to donors, tailoring programmes and priorities to funding streams rather than to system-wide priorities. Organisational growth, budget protection and institutional survival inevitably take precedence over coordination. Even the best professionals respond rationally to a flawed incentive structure.
The proliferation of coordination bodies has compounded, not solved, the problem. Layers of “coordination” have been added without addressing the underlying conflict of interest, producing more process, more meetings and more bureaucracy with no added value.
Reform cannot be achieved merely by adjusting funding levels or imposing conditionalities. Unless the UN confronts its internal incentive contradictions, it will continue to underperform.
There is some truth to this, particularly if you include the NGO aid outfits.
Delete