RAFAH AZIZ commented on "Preliminary Report - 2026 XUNICEF Reunion in Zimbabwe by Susan Muza"
6 hours ago
The Zimbabwe trip felt like a dream gently unfolding—thank you, Susan and Shearwater, for making it so beautifully real. And to all the Xunicefers, my heartfelt gratitude.
Each day was woven with joy, laughter, and moments that will linger long after the journey ends. But above all, it was the warmth of true friendship and the quiet, generous love shared by everyone that made it unforgettable.
I will carry every moment with me. 💛
Each day was woven with joy, laughter, and moments that will linger long after the journey ends. But above all, it was the warmth of true friendship and the quiet, generous love shared by everyone that made it unforgettable.
I will carry every moment with me. 💛
Unknown commented on "In Search of the Perfect Park Bench by Rob Carr"
6 hours ago
Thank you , Rob .. Beautiful write-up and lovely photos .. ....There is something about benches—they evoke a sense of rest after long walks, a quiet pause, and moments shared with loved ones. They are not just pieces of furniture, but places of reflection and connection. Happy retirement
8 hours ago
I recall when I was working with EMOPS in the mid 1990s working with Robert when we had still an Africa section in PD. He was a cool head, a wise gentleman and a pleasure to work with. Sounds like a good read.
9 hours ago
Thanks for these examples Amar. Indeed there are countless examples like this - but in many cases the staff around management collapse and let it go. Good for you for doing that - I am sure it made you quite unpopular. I was working in a country once where DCT (cash advance) to a provincial government department was liquidated without supporting documents. A UNICEF spot check determined this, and audit firm was hired twice and also confirmed this - to the tune of more than 5 million USD over several years. We had to block that government department for any future funds. The section funding that department then laid low for a few years hoping everyone would forget - and tried to send more funds. Luckily, I and others spoke up. Then they went behind our backs and sent the DCT to another provincial department that was not blacklisted and received funds on behalf of the blacklisted one - and the money got to them via the back door. Then one day the country had a flood in the same region as they blocked partner - and this was about the time another audit firm was going to gather more info on the DCT case - conveniantly, the local government department claimed it lost all documents to the flood. The section chief of that section was continuously lobbied by her staff to keep funding this corrupt local department - in spite of all this evidence. They constantly made the claim that the grant was expiring and it could ONLY be spent on that activity with that department. All it took to bypass all the evidence was to sit quiet for enough years that most people in the office forgot the past. I recall the last thing happening was the 2 Deputy Reps went to that province to smooth over our "relationship" with that partner - both of those Dep Reps got promoted the following year one becoming a Rep and one a senior regional advisor.
In Response to a comment by AMAR RAJ Singh Sehmi
20 hours ago
I do have a favorite bench. If everyone sends in one picture of their favorite bench, we can have a collection of benches of the world.
Unknown commented on "Preliminary Report - 2026 XUNICEF Reunion in Zimbabwe by Susan Muza"
7 hours ago
To me it was one of the best reunions and we thoroughly enjoyed all the programme/activities. Susan and her team with support from Shearwaters did an excellent job.
Masood from Bangladesh.
Masood from Bangladesh.
Sree Gururaja commented on "Preliminary Report - 2026 XUNICEF Reunion in Zimbabwe by Susan Muza"
21 hours ago
Congratulations Susan ! Your narrative was most interesting and the Reunion remarkably integrated natural wonders with camaraderie of former colleagues👏🏻👏🏻
Fouad commented on "OBSERVING THE OBSERVERS (by Myra Rudin)"
Yesterday
I liked most the one
Of the perplexed nun,
Like someone pulled a gun
On her and started to run,
She doesn’t think it’s fun.
Why under the sun,
Paint a suit and not a bun?
This is not a pun,
And I think I am done.
Of the perplexed nun,
Like someone pulled a gun
On her and started to run,
She doesn’t think it’s fun.
Why under the sun,
Paint a suit and not a bun?
This is not a pun,
And I think I am done.
Detlef Palm commented on "Plumbers with letters : Ken Gibbs"
2 days ago
Finally I understand why the Englishmen and -women continue, well into the modern days, to have separate cold and hot water taps in their bathrooms.
Fouad Kronfol commented on "Plumbers with letters : Ken Gibbs"
2 days ago
great story Ken; so you got the hot water going, but you did not tell us what happened to the coloration problem. BTW your artwork is wonderful and original and you well deserve the R.A. beside your name.
Mar 25, 2026
It seems the discussion has reached its natural conclusion.
My sycophants have fallen silent, and the intellectual heavyweights, for reasons best known to themselves, have chosen not to deploy. Perhaps the self-reflection cut a little too close to the bone.
Still, no real harm done. Most of us did our bit, or at least what seemed reasonable at the time. And it must be said that the system, for those working within it, had many agreeable features: the lifestyle was comfortable, the salaries respectable, and the pension arrangements, rather magnificent.
In such circumstances, one naturally develops a certain appreciation for stability. Rocking the boat is rarely an attractive option when one is already sitting dry and quite comfortably in it.
The broader problems of development are immensely complex. They will not be solved in a blog thread, and certainly not by a handful of retirees. With that in mind, perhaps the wisest course might be to let the matter rest.
After all, there are only so many years left before we each disappear quietly into the sunset. It would be a pity to spend the last years tearing out the little hair that remains while debating handshakes, management shortcomings, or the faint possibility that development outcomes might occasionally depend on economic growth.
So perhaps we can close here, content in the knowledge that the programmes were implemented, the reports were written, the indicators were met, and the institutional machinery performed exactly as designed. And as for the larger question, how countries actually become prosperous enough for children to thrive, well, that remains within someone else’s mandate.
My sycophants have fallen silent, and the intellectual heavyweights, for reasons best known to themselves, have chosen not to deploy. Perhaps the self-reflection cut a little too close to the bone.
Still, no real harm done. Most of us did our bit, or at least what seemed reasonable at the time. And it must be said that the system, for those working within it, had many agreeable features: the lifestyle was comfortable, the salaries respectable, and the pension arrangements, rather magnificent.
In such circumstances, one naturally develops a certain appreciation for stability. Rocking the boat is rarely an attractive option when one is already sitting dry and quite comfortably in it.
The broader problems of development are immensely complex. They will not be solved in a blog thread, and certainly not by a handful of retirees. With that in mind, perhaps the wisest course might be to let the matter rest.
After all, there are only so many years left before we each disappear quietly into the sunset. It would be a pity to spend the last years tearing out the little hair that remains while debating handshakes, management shortcomings, or the faint possibility that development outcomes might occasionally depend on economic growth.
So perhaps we can close here, content in the knowledge that the programmes were implemented, the reports were written, the indicators were met, and the institutional machinery performed exactly as designed. And as for the larger question, how countries actually become prosperous enough for children to thrive, well, that remains within someone else’s mandate.
In Response to a comment by A.I.
Mar 24, 2026
Thank you, A.I. At the risk of once again being accused of engaging in mutual admiration, your summary is lovely.
That said, it may be time for actors of greater depth and longer experience to step forward. Perhaps Detlef, with the intellectual authority that comes from his association with a distinguished German think tank, might consider taking up the reins and guiding us back onto a more serious track.
After all, the central question still seems to hang in the air: how do we actually move forward?
It would be genuinely enlightening to hear how our programmes relate to the broader economic trajectory of the countries concerned, how jobs are created, how markets expand, and how families ultimately escape poverty. These are, after all, the forces that determine whether children’s lives improve sustainably.
So perhaps this would be a good moment for those with deeper institutional insight to lead the discussion in that direction. I, for one, would be very interested to hear the answer.
That said, it may be time for actors of greater depth and longer experience to step forward. Perhaps Detlef, with the intellectual authority that comes from his association with a distinguished German think tank, might consider taking up the reins and guiding us back onto a more serious track.
After all, the central question still seems to hang in the air: how do we actually move forward?
It would be genuinely enlightening to hear how our programmes relate to the broader economic trajectory of the countries concerned, how jobs are created, how markets expand, and how families ultimately escape poverty. These are, after all, the forces that determine whether children’s lives improve sustainably.
So perhaps this would be a good moment for those with deeper institutional insight to lead the discussion in that direction. I, for one, would be very interested to hear the answer.
In Response to a comment by A.I.
Mar 24, 2026
Reading across these various threads on this blog, one detects an elegant symmetry.
First, we have the debate on equal pay, which would absorb the entire organisational budget. That, in itself, would certainly simplify programme management.
Second, we have Rob’s thoughtful recollection of the ethics discussions, reminding us that corruption in the system apparently manifests itself most vividly in the behaviour of drivers, while senior management largely inhabits a higher plane of morality.
Third, we have Tom's somewhat unfashionable attempt to raise the awkward question of whether development outcomes might, at least occasionally, have something to do with economic growth.
Thinking about it, these three themes may form a neat little model of the global aid system.
We devote considerable intellectual energy to ensuring that our own remuneration structures are substantial, fair and equitable. We demonstrate admirable vigilance in monitoring the ethical behaviour of the lower ranks. And we remain confident that, whatever happens in the wider economy, our programmes can still be declared successful.
Meanwhile, the larger development picture sometimes drifts: population grows faster than incomes, labour markets fail to expand, and economic opportunities remain stubbornly limited. But fortunately, those matters fall within someone else’s mandate.
This arrangement has many advantages. It allows each institution to focus on its own expertise and responsibilities, celebrate its own successes, and maintain a healthy sense of organisational virtue without becoming distracted by the rather messy outcomes of the aid system as a whole.
From that perspective, one could almost describe the development community as a model of institutional efficiency: we look after ourselves conscientiously, monitor minor infractions diligently, and measure programme success carefully, while leaving the questions about whether countries are actually developing and escaping poverty to others.
First, we have the debate on equal pay, which would absorb the entire organisational budget. That, in itself, would certainly simplify programme management.
Second, we have Rob’s thoughtful recollection of the ethics discussions, reminding us that corruption in the system apparently manifests itself most vividly in the behaviour of drivers, while senior management largely inhabits a higher plane of morality.
Third, we have Tom's somewhat unfashionable attempt to raise the awkward question of whether development outcomes might, at least occasionally, have something to do with economic growth.
Thinking about it, these three themes may form a neat little model of the global aid system.
We devote considerable intellectual energy to ensuring that our own remuneration structures are substantial, fair and equitable. We demonstrate admirable vigilance in monitoring the ethical behaviour of the lower ranks. And we remain confident that, whatever happens in the wider economy, our programmes can still be declared successful.
Meanwhile, the larger development picture sometimes drifts: population grows faster than incomes, labour markets fail to expand, and economic opportunities remain stubbornly limited. But fortunately, those matters fall within someone else’s mandate.
This arrangement has many advantages. It allows each institution to focus on its own expertise and responsibilities, celebrate its own successes, and maintain a healthy sense of organisational virtue without becoming distracted by the rather messy outcomes of the aid system as a whole.
From that perspective, one could almost describe the development community as a model of institutional efficiency: we look after ourselves conscientiously, monitor minor infractions diligently, and measure programme success carefully, while leaving the questions about whether countries are actually developing and escaping poverty to others.
Gautam Banerji commented on "Zimbabwe XUNICEF Reunion: Sneak Peak"
Mar 24, 2026
Sorry it should not have gone anonymous! Love, Madhu&Gautam
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Unknown commented on "Zimbabwe XUNICEF Reunion: Sneak Peak"
Mar 24, 2026
The Reunion was amazing. And the SA add-on was no less. Thanks Susan and the team for the awesome memories to cherish. We got back home only yesterday and I am catching up with the posts.
Mar 23, 2026
Even if UNICEF is only one organisation within a larger development ecosystem, it cannot reasonably claim responsibility only for its own successes while disclaiming responsibility for the collective outcomes of the system it is part of.
Development has never been a set of neatly separated mandates operating in isolation. It is a complex system of interacting institutions whose actions inevitably affect one another. If those interactions produce poor outcomes, it is not enough for each organisation to say that the relevant issue fell outside its formal mandate.
Take a simple example. If UNICEF successfully drives major gains in child survival while the institutions responsible for economic growth fail to generate jobs, productivity, and rising incomes, the result is entirely predictable: rapid population growth combined with stagnant GDP growth. In other words, persistent poverty and underdevelopment.
This pattern has occurred in many African countries over the decades. Yet it has rarely been openly discussed within the aid community, let alone UNICEF.
Part of the reason is structural. Aid agencies compete with one another for funding, visibility, and institutional expansion. That competition inevitably weakens incentives for coordination. In practice, the success of one's own organisation tends to matter more than the success of the development effort as a whole, let alone the long-term trajectory of the countries being supported.
The result is a system in which programmes can be declared successful even when the broader development outcome is clearly disappointing.
Seen from that perspective, questioning UNICEF’s degree of introspection is not misplaced. If anything, it reflects a basic reality of development work: no organisation operates in isolation, and none can reasonably ignore the wider consequences of the system it helps sustain.
Development has never been a set of neatly separated mandates operating in isolation. It is a complex system of interacting institutions whose actions inevitably affect one another. If those interactions produce poor outcomes, it is not enough for each organisation to say that the relevant issue fell outside its formal mandate.
Take a simple example. If UNICEF successfully drives major gains in child survival while the institutions responsible for economic growth fail to generate jobs, productivity, and rising incomes, the result is entirely predictable: rapid population growth combined with stagnant GDP growth. In other words, persistent poverty and underdevelopment.
This pattern has occurred in many African countries over the decades. Yet it has rarely been openly discussed within the aid community, let alone UNICEF.
Part of the reason is structural. Aid agencies compete with one another for funding, visibility, and institutional expansion. That competition inevitably weakens incentives for coordination. In practice, the success of one's own organisation tends to matter more than the success of the development effort as a whole, let alone the long-term trajectory of the countries being supported.
The result is a system in which programmes can be declared successful even when the broader development outcome is clearly disappointing.
Seen from that perspective, questioning UNICEF’s degree of introspection is not misplaced. If anything, it reflects a basic reality of development work: no organisation operates in isolation, and none can reasonably ignore the wider consequences of the system it helps sustain.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Unknown commented on "Thomas Ekvall: Adam Smith, Capitalism, and the Arithmetic of Prosperity"
Mar 23, 2026
Tom, I think there’s a basic flaw in your reasoning.
You seem to be holding UNICEF staff—including the people participating in this blog—responsible for the fact that much of Africa has not caught up with the rest of the world over the past sixty years. That strikes me as unfair.
UNICEF’s mandate has always been just one slice of the overall development pie: child health, nutrition, education, and protection. These are obviously critical issues, but they represent only one part of a much larger system. Expecting an agency with that kind of mandate to influence the broader economic trajectory of an entire continent seems unrealistic.
You also keep coming back to economic growth as the central issue. But economic growth has never been UNICEF’s mandate. That responsibility largely rests with institutions specifically designed for that purpose—organizations like the World Bank, the regional development banks, and bilateral development agencies.
Reading through this thread, I’m struck that you haven’t really engaged with that institutional division of labor. If the economic growth agenda fell short—and in many places it clearly did—the question seems to be whether those institutions failed, not necessarily UNICEF. UNICEF was never set up to run macroeconomic policy.
You may well be right that economic growth ultimately matters most for long-term improvements in children’s lives. But holding a child-focused agency responsible for delivering it seems misplaced.
You seem to be holding UNICEF staff—including the people participating in this blog—responsible for the fact that much of Africa has not caught up with the rest of the world over the past sixty years. That strikes me as unfair.
UNICEF’s mandate has always been just one slice of the overall development pie: child health, nutrition, education, and protection. These are obviously critical issues, but they represent only one part of a much larger system. Expecting an agency with that kind of mandate to influence the broader economic trajectory of an entire continent seems unrealistic.
You also keep coming back to economic growth as the central issue. But economic growth has never been UNICEF’s mandate. That responsibility largely rests with institutions specifically designed for that purpose—organizations like the World Bank, the regional development banks, and bilateral development agencies.
Reading through this thread, I’m struck that you haven’t really engaged with that institutional division of labor. If the economic growth agenda fell short—and in many places it clearly did—the question seems to be whether those institutions failed, not necessarily UNICEF. UNICEF was never set up to run macroeconomic policy.
You may well be right that economic growth ultimately matters most for long-term improvements in children’s lives. But holding a child-focused agency responsible for delivering it seems misplaced.
Unknown commented on "Sad demise of Mr. Stephen Umemoto : S. Ramadass, Secretary UPGI"
Mar 23, 2026
Rip Steve. You were a true Unicef trouper
Mar 23, 2026
The Cuba comment might be mildly entertaining, but it risks turning a reasonably thoughtful discussion into a collection of ideological punchlines.
Whatever one thinks of degrowth theories, Cuba’s economic system is the outcome of a very particular political history, not a useful proxy for contemporary debates about climate policy.
It would be a pity if the conversation drifted from the more substantive question already raised above: how development programmes relate to the underlying economic forces that determine whether families actually escape poverty.
Whatever one thinks of degrowth theories, Cuba’s economic system is the outcome of a very particular political history, not a useful proxy for contemporary debates about climate policy.
It would be a pity if the conversation drifted from the more substantive question already raised above: how development programmes relate to the underlying economic forces that determine whether families actually escape poverty.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Unknown commented on "Thomas Ekvall: Adam Smith, Capitalism, and the Arithmetic of Prosperity"
Mar 23, 2026
I have heard rumours of organised study tours to Cuba for those wishing to experience “Net Zero” in real time. If anyone has details, please do share. It might be the best way to explore the economics of degrowth, which is becoming so popular among Green parties in Europe.
Mar 22, 2026
Detlef, if you take a moment to read the thread a bit more thoroughly, you may notice that the anonymous contributors do not, in fact, agree with me on several points, which is precisely what makes the exchange interesting.
Mutual admiration is not really the defining feature of the discussion. Disagreement, however, seems to be a more appropriate definition.
That said, many readers clearly look forward to your interventions, given your well-deserved reputation for profound insight. It would therefore be genuinely interesting to hear your more substantive views on the rather important issues raised: how should our programmes relate to the broader economic trajectory of the countries in which we work? That might be a good start.
Mutual admiration is not really the defining feature of the discussion. Disagreement, however, seems to be a more appropriate definition.
That said, many readers clearly look forward to your interventions, given your well-deserved reputation for profound insight. It would therefore be genuinely interesting to hear your more substantive views on the rather important issues raised: how should our programmes relate to the broader economic trajectory of the countries in which we work? That might be a good start.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Mar 22, 2026
Also, a multi country model under one Rep - could mean national staff could play enhanced key leadership roles in those countries where the Rep in not resident - this could bring about a new cadre of staff and bring some equity of done correctly. But the wheels of UN staff entitlement changes turn slowly and are very risk averse.
Liz Gibbons commented on "OBSERVING THE OBSERVERS (by Myra Rudin)"
Mar 22, 2026
This is a terrific photo montage and will certainly be on my mind at my next museum visit. Thank you!
Mar 22, 2026
I made the first comments anonymous by mistake. The article clearly has a slant that indicated those with "better passports" have had our day and that it is time to spread this around and fix the inequities I agree with Thomas that it would not be affordable to migrate towards one salary scale all at once. We could theoretically spend our entire budget on salaries - and there are any Country offices where salaries reach or exceed half the budget already. I think a more comprehensive look at cost saving measures and configurations of staff and implementation modalities that could be more efficient. While I have questioned it - the new push for more multi country offices - could be a good start. Combining 4 countries under one Rep would mean 3 less Reps, 6 less Deputies (one DepRep Op and one DR programme per country) and however many staff are attached to those posts - that would be a huge decrease in salary burden with streamlined teams in 4 countries under 1 leader. Likewise the move to shrink or remove regional offices and bloated HQ could cut back some of our layers. They are many ways to "skin a cat".
Mar 22, 2026
Very entertaining discussion. Thomas, there seems to be a lot of mutual admiration between yourself and your anonymous friend.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Kutloano commented on "UN Pay Should Be Based on Merit, Not Passport : Shared by Gloria Kodzwa"
Mar 22, 2026
So, I do agree with you Colin that I dont think it's a passport thing
Kutloano commented on "UN Pay Should Be Based on Merit, Not Passport : Shared by Gloria Kodzwa"
Mar 22, 2026
What exactly is a better/stronger passport? I believe many factors were at play when determining these salary scales. There are many international staff from programme countries, some of those countries classified as the so called 'least developed countries'.
In Response to a comment by Colin Davis
AMAR RAJ Singh Sehmi commented on "Memory: Bias in Ethics and Corruption Discussions in UNICEF? By Rob Carr"
Mar 22, 2026
I congratulate Rob for raising this important issue, ably supported by Thomas Ekvall and others. The problem extends beyond unethical practices to include wasteful expenditure within UNICEF—and indeed across the UN system—despite strong advocacy for business-like management and the highest standards of ethical conduct. Good practices must start at the top, yet the principle of “leading by example” has too often been overlooked when it comes to enforcing both accountability and ethics.
I was among the first members of the supply fraternity to be trained as an Ethics trainer in the Supply Division in Copenhagen around the year 2000, through a Canadian agency, even before the formal establishment of the Ethics Office at headquarters for global implementation. However, the actual implementation fell far short of expectations. Ironically, I myself became a victim of the very system I sought to uphold. I recall a telling remark made by a Resident Coordinator toward the end of my service, who said to my wife at a dinner at our home: “Your husband should have gone with the SYSTEM.”
Much before that, I had witnessed the severe punishment meted out to a Supply Division staff member referenced by Rob. I had interacted closely with him during my 14 years in the Water and Sanitation programme and had long suspected questionable conduct. I used that case as a teaching example for my subordinates, colleagues, and trainees to emphasise the importance of ethical behavior and responsible stewardship of UNICEF funds. My guiding principle was simple: money saved is money earned.
Throughout my career, I encountered numerous instances of wasteful expenditure—though not directly under my authority, which in itself came at a cost. In one case, I uncovered a cartel of clearing agents who had inflated their bids to $1.5 million for in-country distribution during an emergency. The Programme Chief insisted on proceeding at that price, arguing that “we have funds”—though, of course, not her own. By resisting this pressure, inviting fresh bids, and blacklisting the existing agents, I was able to reduce the cost to $250,000, saving UNICEF $1.25 million—and avoided to later face the displeasure of auditors.
In another instance, senior management unsuccessfully attempted to pressure me into awarding a single-source contract worth $1.2 million for school construction. These examples were not isolated. Over my 27-year career, I witnessed numerous cases of waste and unethical conduct, often driven by a culture where “who you know” outweighed “what you know.”
In conclusion, while unethical practices may exist in any organization, it was deeply disheartening to witness such behavior within a non-profit institution like UNICEF, where donor funds are meant to serve the most vulnerable, yet are sometimes treated with alarming disregard.
I was among the first members of the supply fraternity to be trained as an Ethics trainer in the Supply Division in Copenhagen around the year 2000, through a Canadian agency, even before the formal establishment of the Ethics Office at headquarters for global implementation. However, the actual implementation fell far short of expectations. Ironically, I myself became a victim of the very system I sought to uphold. I recall a telling remark made by a Resident Coordinator toward the end of my service, who said to my wife at a dinner at our home: “Your husband should have gone with the SYSTEM.”
Much before that, I had witnessed the severe punishment meted out to a Supply Division staff member referenced by Rob. I had interacted closely with him during my 14 years in the Water and Sanitation programme and had long suspected questionable conduct. I used that case as a teaching example for my subordinates, colleagues, and trainees to emphasise the importance of ethical behavior and responsible stewardship of UNICEF funds. My guiding principle was simple: money saved is money earned.
Throughout my career, I encountered numerous instances of wasteful expenditure—though not directly under my authority, which in itself came at a cost. In one case, I uncovered a cartel of clearing agents who had inflated their bids to $1.5 million for in-country distribution during an emergency. The Programme Chief insisted on proceeding at that price, arguing that “we have funds”—though, of course, not her own. By resisting this pressure, inviting fresh bids, and blacklisting the existing agents, I was able to reduce the cost to $250,000, saving UNICEF $1.25 million—and avoided to later face the displeasure of auditors.
In another instance, senior management unsuccessfully attempted to pressure me into awarding a single-source contract worth $1.2 million for school construction. These examples were not isolated. Over my 27-year career, I witnessed numerous cases of waste and unethical conduct, often driven by a culture where “who you know” outweighed “what you know.”
In conclusion, while unethical practices may exist in any organization, it was deeply disheartening to witness such behavior within a non-profit institution like UNICEF, where donor funds are meant to serve the most vulnerable, yet are sometimes treated with alarming disregard.
Unknown commented on "Thomas Ekvall: Adam Smith, Capitalism, and the Arithmetic of Prosperity"
Mar 22, 2026
Many in the UN ecosystem like to imagine themselves as the intellectual and moral vanguard of humanity — permanently two steps ahead of the curve, ideally in sustainably sourced loafers and with a tote bag that says “Evidence-Based.”
So perhaps a moment of cheerful self-reflection is in order.
A comforting article of faith holds that intellectuals lean left because they are simply smarter. This theory has the considerable advantage of being enormously flattering to the very people who most enjoy repeating it. Suspiciously flattering, one might say.
Being “an intellectual,” after all, is not quite the same as being intelligent. It is mainly the mastery of a very particular skill set: deploying semicolons with surgical precision, footnoting one’s way out of any tight spot, and pronouncing “hegemonic discourse” without dissolving into laughter. These are real talents — sadly, talents whose market value tends to peak somewhere between “adjunct lecturer” and “consultant specialising in participatory empathy workshops.”
Meanwhile, the man who runs the second-hand car lot is quietly earning enough to send three children to private school, all while selling slightly dented Hondas to people who actually need them. To the seminar-room patrician, this feels like a cosmic error. After all, the intellectual has read Marx. And Weber. And that one dense article explaining how your preference for cappuccino is a form of structural oppression. Surely such erudition ought to translate into… something. A loftier title, perhaps. A larger per diem. At minimum, a flat in a nicer arrondissement and wine that doesn’t come with a screw cap.
When the market — crude, vulgar beast that it is — declines to issue that promotion, resentment must find an explanation. Option A: the market rewards practical problem-solving over theoretical elegance. Option B (far more soothing): economic growth is tacky, profit is morally suspect, and any success unaccompanied by a peer-reviewed citation is obviously the product of exploitation, false consciousness, or both.
From there, the slide into left-wing sympathies is less a conversion than a form of career therapy. In the imagined socialist utopia — the one that exists mainly in white papers and closing statements — the hierarchy is finally corrected. Customers are replaced by committees. Prestige trumps profit. The length of one’s bibliography becomes more important than the length of one’s quarterly sales figures. The second-hand car dealer is dispatched for gentle ideological reconditioning, while the intellectual is at last summoned to pronounce authoritatively on matters of true importance — i.e., everything.
None of this means every intellectual is left-leaning, nor that every left-leaning idea is wrong. It is merely… interesting… how often one’s political convictions align neatly with one’s professional disappointments.
As the old line (more or less) goes: philosophy begins in wonder and ends — very quietly, behind closed committee-room doors — in impeccably rationalised resentment.
Now, if someone could kindly pass the ethically sourced canapés, that would be lovely.
So perhaps a moment of cheerful self-reflection is in order.
A comforting article of faith holds that intellectuals lean left because they are simply smarter. This theory has the considerable advantage of being enormously flattering to the very people who most enjoy repeating it. Suspiciously flattering, one might say.
Being “an intellectual,” after all, is not quite the same as being intelligent. It is mainly the mastery of a very particular skill set: deploying semicolons with surgical precision, footnoting one’s way out of any tight spot, and pronouncing “hegemonic discourse” without dissolving into laughter. These are real talents — sadly, talents whose market value tends to peak somewhere between “adjunct lecturer” and “consultant specialising in participatory empathy workshops.”
Meanwhile, the man who runs the second-hand car lot is quietly earning enough to send three children to private school, all while selling slightly dented Hondas to people who actually need them. To the seminar-room patrician, this feels like a cosmic error. After all, the intellectual has read Marx. And Weber. And that one dense article explaining how your preference for cappuccino is a form of structural oppression. Surely such erudition ought to translate into… something. A loftier title, perhaps. A larger per diem. At minimum, a flat in a nicer arrondissement and wine that doesn’t come with a screw cap.
When the market — crude, vulgar beast that it is — declines to issue that promotion, resentment must find an explanation. Option A: the market rewards practical problem-solving over theoretical elegance. Option B (far more soothing): economic growth is tacky, profit is morally suspect, and any success unaccompanied by a peer-reviewed citation is obviously the product of exploitation, false consciousness, or both.
From there, the slide into left-wing sympathies is less a conversion than a form of career therapy. In the imagined socialist utopia — the one that exists mainly in white papers and closing statements — the hierarchy is finally corrected. Customers are replaced by committees. Prestige trumps profit. The length of one’s bibliography becomes more important than the length of one’s quarterly sales figures. The second-hand car dealer is dispatched for gentle ideological reconditioning, while the intellectual is at last summoned to pronounce authoritatively on matters of true importance — i.e., everything.
None of this means every intellectual is left-leaning, nor that every left-leaning idea is wrong. It is merely… interesting… how often one’s political convictions align neatly with one’s professional disappointments.
As the old line (more or less) goes: philosophy begins in wonder and ends — very quietly, behind closed committee-room doors — in impeccably rationalised resentment.
Now, if someone could kindly pass the ethically sourced canapés, that would be lovely.
Colin Davis commented on "UN Pay Should Be Based on Merit, Not Passport : Shared by Gloria Kodzwa"
Mar 22, 2026
Interesting, i am sure many national staff question why they are paid less than international! but i really dont agree it is a passport thing.
Internationals are sent to programmes because of the expertise / ideas that they bring to the programme. they also have far greater costs to bear than national staff, and they and their families give up living and growing up in their own cultures and with their relatives. Thats their choice, i agree but there is a price to pay in living the international life.
I think that the UN striving to be the best employer in programme countries is both fair and generous.
I would suggest, that if now there is enough expertise already available in programme countries, then perhaps it is now time to look at only employing national staff in those countries? with perhaps only very senior staff being International.
Such a programme might then lose the cross fertilisation experience and ideas that international staff can contribute however....
Internationals are sent to programmes because of the expertise / ideas that they bring to the programme. they also have far greater costs to bear than national staff, and they and their families give up living and growing up in their own cultures and with their relatives. Thats their choice, i agree but there is a price to pay in living the international life.
I think that the UN striving to be the best employer in programme countries is both fair and generous.
I would suggest, that if now there is enough expertise already available in programme countries, then perhaps it is now time to look at only employing national staff in those countries? with perhaps only very senior staff being International.
Such a programme might then lose the cross fertilisation experience and ideas that international staff can contribute however....
Mar 22, 2026
I have been written to privately saying that discussions like this make people feel uncomfortable, that I rant and repeat the same argument over and over, and that it will not change anyone’s mind, but will make everyone miserable. That may be true, but the reason the argument keeps returning is not ideological persistence. It is arithmetic.
If one spends a career working in development, economic growth can not be ignored. An economy growing at 1% barely moves over a generation. One growing at 6% or 7% transforms the living conditions of millions of families within a few short decades. Once that simple compounding logic is understood, it becomes hard not to see it everywhere.
This is not a “far-right” political observation, unbecoming of a UNICEF worker, as some have suggested. It is the empirical evidence described by economists from Adam Smith to Robert Lucas: sustained improvements in health, education and social protection almost always follow sustained economic growth.
The uncomfortable part is that many of us spent long careers inside institutions that focused overwhelmingly on programmes while treating the underlying engine of prosperity as someone else’s problem, if it was understood as a problem at all.
That may not be a moral failure. Many colleagues worked hard and with good intentions under the institutional frameworks that existed at the time. But good intentions do not exempt a system from reflection.
Nor is it unreasonable to expect some introspection and reflection from organisations whose staff often cost taxpayers $300,000 per year. At that level, asking if our collective approach aligned with the basic mechanics of development is not an extreme demand.
If this conversation occasionally makes people uneasy, it may simply be because it touches on questions the development community has been reluctant to ask itself.
And yet the thread above suggests something encouraging: some colleagues clearly recognise the issue. That alone is more valuable than another round of mutual admiration. Typically, progress in any field begins the moment people start asking if the prevailing assumptions might have been wrong.
If one spends a career working in development, economic growth can not be ignored. An economy growing at 1% barely moves over a generation. One growing at 6% or 7% transforms the living conditions of millions of families within a few short decades. Once that simple compounding logic is understood, it becomes hard not to see it everywhere.
This is not a “far-right” political observation, unbecoming of a UNICEF worker, as some have suggested. It is the empirical evidence described by economists from Adam Smith to Robert Lucas: sustained improvements in health, education and social protection almost always follow sustained economic growth.
The uncomfortable part is that many of us spent long careers inside institutions that focused overwhelmingly on programmes while treating the underlying engine of prosperity as someone else’s problem, if it was understood as a problem at all.
That may not be a moral failure. Many colleagues worked hard and with good intentions under the institutional frameworks that existed at the time. But good intentions do not exempt a system from reflection.
Nor is it unreasonable to expect some introspection and reflection from organisations whose staff often cost taxpayers $300,000 per year. At that level, asking if our collective approach aligned with the basic mechanics of development is not an extreme demand.
If this conversation occasionally makes people uneasy, it may simply be because it touches on questions the development community has been reluctant to ask itself.
And yet the thread above suggests something encouraging: some colleagues clearly recognise the issue. That alone is more valuable than another round of mutual admiration. Typically, progress in any field begins the moment people start asking if the prevailing assumptions might have been wrong.
Mar 22, 2026
George, that is a lovely reflection, particularly the image of young people carrying ideas and curiosity across borders. In many ways, the world you describe has indeed expanded. Knowledge travels faster and far more widely than Adam Smith could ever have imagined.
Yet your observation also raises a question that continues to trouble me today. If knowledge, ideas, and initiative are now so widely distributed, one might expect economic dynamism to feature more prominently in how we think about improving children's lives, but it rarely does.
Within much of the development conversation, particularly inside the UN system, economic growth often remains oddly invisible. We speak at length about programmes and interventions, but far less about the underlying economic processes through which families actually escape poverty: expanding markets, rising productivity, and the creation of jobs.
In practice, children’s prospects improve most reliably when the economies around them begin to grow and generate opportunities for their parents. Programmes can help at the margins, but they don't substitute for a growing economy.
Perhaps the young people you mention are already discovering this in their own way, creating new forms of value. If so, they may end up reminding the development community of something that Adam Smith understood well: that prosperity often emerges from the energy of people themselves, rather than from the programmes designed on their behalf.
Yet your observation also raises a question that continues to trouble me today. If knowledge, ideas, and initiative are now so widely distributed, one might expect economic dynamism to feature more prominently in how we think about improving children's lives, but it rarely does.
Within much of the development conversation, particularly inside the UN system, economic growth often remains oddly invisible. We speak at length about programmes and interventions, but far less about the underlying economic processes through which families actually escape poverty: expanding markets, rising productivity, and the creation of jobs.
In practice, children’s prospects improve most reliably when the economies around them begin to grow and generate opportunities for their parents. Programmes can help at the margins, but they don't substitute for a growing economy.
Perhaps the young people you mention are already discovering this in their own way, creating new forms of value. If so, they may end up reminding the development community of something that Adam Smith understood well: that prosperity often emerges from the energy of people themselves, rather than from the programmes designed on their behalf.
In Response to a comment by George McBean
Mar 22, 2026
If UNHCR can manage with 14 sraff in New York, what are the hundreds of UNICEF staff doing in the UNICEF building that couldn't be done elsewhere at a far lower cost?
George McBean commented on "Thomas Ekvall: Adam Smith, Capitalism, and the Arithmetic of Prosperity"
Mar 22, 2026
When leaving the home of Adam Smith to work for UNICEF in East Africa… in 1976 I was faced with a world that seemed to trade on things that were deemed precious to them. Sometimes bountiful in one country they would be exported to another who deemed it valuable only because they did not have it. This desire/curiosity to ‘better’ one selves was usually carried out by young people, exposed to new ideas. At that time gold was held precious to trade but so was knowledge. Nowadays, knowledge is no longer the precious commodity it once was … everyone now has access to it on a phone. This fact has changed the world in a way that Smith could not have imagined. The world is now more full of Smiths than at any other time in history. If we accommodate this fact we can find new ways to exchange defend what is most precious. My guess is that the young are doing this already.
Mar 22, 2026
An interesting contribution to the discussion. But I wonder if the article may be addressing a different issue than the one you describe.
Logan’s argument is not about the nationality of staff currently on the international professional scale. As you note, many internationally recruited staff come from programme countries. The distinction she questions is the structural one between internationally recruited and nationally recruited staff.
That distinction reflects two different salary systems. International staff are paid on the global scale set for the UN system, while national staff salaries are benchmarked to local labour markets.
If the proposal for unified salary scales were implemented in the way suggested, the practical implication would be that national staff salaries move toward the current international professional level. In many UN agencies, personnel costs already account for perhaps half of total expenditure. Aligning those scales would therefore increase the wage bill very substantially, potentially by an amount comparable to the entire budget of the organisation.
That may not be a desirable reform, but it is a very different proposition from addressing inequities within the existing system. The humanitarian sector clearly depends heavily on national staff, often working in difficult and hazardous conditions, and their contribution deserves recognition.
The difficulty is that a full salary harmonisation would not simply correct an inequity. It would fundamentally change the cost structure of the UN agencies at a time when many are already reducing staff because of severe funding constraints. That financial reality is absent from the article.
Logan’s argument is not about the nationality of staff currently on the international professional scale. As you note, many internationally recruited staff come from programme countries. The distinction she questions is the structural one between internationally recruited and nationally recruited staff.
That distinction reflects two different salary systems. International staff are paid on the global scale set for the UN system, while national staff salaries are benchmarked to local labour markets.
If the proposal for unified salary scales were implemented in the way suggested, the practical implication would be that national staff salaries move toward the current international professional level. In many UN agencies, personnel costs already account for perhaps half of total expenditure. Aligning those scales would therefore increase the wage bill very substantially, potentially by an amount comparable to the entire budget of the organisation.
That may not be a desirable reform, but it is a very different proposition from addressing inequities within the existing system. The humanitarian sector clearly depends heavily on national staff, often working in difficult and hazardous conditions, and their contribution deserves recognition.
The difficulty is that a full salary harmonisation would not simply correct an inequity. It would fundamentally change the cost structure of the UN agencies at a time when many are already reducing staff because of severe funding constraints. That financial reality is absent from the article.
Unknown commented on "UN Pay Should Be Based on Merit, Not Passport : Shared by Gloria Kodzwa"
Mar 22, 2026
I am all for this - but this article implies that somehow this has soley benefitted only international staff with "better passports" - we know a large portion of UNICEF IPs are from programme countries- are they equally ready to give up thier benefits for the sake of equity? Also this calls in to question "mobility" and the purpose being to cross fertilise ideas and examples from one country to the next via staff who move. What about cost of living differences? Sometimes we work in countries where expatriates rent is 2 or 3 or 10 times what a local would pay. There would be a number of factors to consider - extending education benefits to national staff. This would all have huge budgetary implications for UNCEF at a time when we just sacked 3000 staff for budget cuts last year. The UN is already seen as bloated and not a perferred partner of donors - how would this work? I think there are incremental ways this inequity could be managed better. There are also several efficiencies UNICEF could pursue (and it would have to be UN wide - as entitlements are UN Wide and not up to UNICEF) - the Danish refugee concilk has done this - but they don't have to have the same entitlement scheme as every INGO in the world like the UN does with all UN agencies having to agree. This issue needs to be addressed - but blaming it on us with better passports - as it sounds like - is not really helpful when we know many nationalities benefit. But I do agree, this is something to be addressed - how we do it is another issue to tackle in an environment where the UN must roll of thier sleeves and do better and with less.
Mar 22, 2026
But as far as I know, UNICEF continue to rent office space on 3rd Avenue and elsewhere in NY. Why? And, when we decided to take back 14th and 15th floor, the idea was to have all UNICEF NYHQs at UNICEF House. What happened?
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Labels
Comments
Labels:
Comments
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment
Please ensure you leave your name, bei either selecting your google account (if you have one), or selecting 'name' from the drop down menu. Enter your name there. If confused, leave your name in the text of your comment.