Joachim Theis commented on "What to do la #3 Friends?"
4 hours ago
This very much resonates with me too. Since retiring I have reconnected with old networks of friends, colleagues and schoolmates around the world. Here in Tokyo I have met new people, and made a few friends, through new hobbies, like hiking and photography.
I always remember what Rodney Hatfield said during his last RMT. He chose to retire in a small town in the UK where he knew nobody and where he would make new friends through gardening. There was a lot of wisdom in his decision.
I always remember what Rodney Hatfield said during his last RMT. He chose to retire in a small town in the UK where he knew nobody and where he would make new friends through gardening. There was a lot of wisdom in his decision.
8 hours ago
Thank you, Franziska, for sharing your war story. In some ways, it is similar to mine, and each story re-enforces the message that all wars are bad and don't serve people. Thanks to the White Busses and the Swedish Red Cross as well as all the volunteers that greeted and helped you. Maybe our experiences destined us to end up working for UNICEF.
Unknown commented on "UN Reform: Missing the Point? By Jan Vandemoortele"
9 hours ago
One detail from that cruise ship episode deserves a little more attention.
The passengers were rapidly repatriated to their home countries. Yet all the Filipino seafarers remained onboard after the paying guests had been evacuated, supposedly to sail the ship back to its home port. Clearly, a crew of 30 was not needed merely to sail the vessel back to Rotterdam. Less than a dozen seafarers could have managed the task perfectly well. The rest could have been repatriated.
It was an interesting illustration of how “global solidarity” often works in practice. Passengers from wealthy countries were urgently flown home under political pressure, while low-paid crew members from a poor country quietly remained on board.
Different strokes for different folks, apparently.
Perhaps this says as much about the realities of the current international system as any grand debate about UN reform or global governance.
The passengers were rapidly repatriated to their home countries. Yet all the Filipino seafarers remained onboard after the paying guests had been evacuated, supposedly to sail the ship back to its home port. Clearly, a crew of 30 was not needed merely to sail the vessel back to Rotterdam. Less than a dozen seafarers could have managed the task perfectly well. The rest could have been repatriated.
It was an interesting illustration of how “global solidarity” often works in practice. Passengers from wealthy countries were urgently flown home under political pressure, while low-paid crew members from a poor country quietly remained on board.
Different strokes for different folks, apparently.
Perhaps this says as much about the realities of the current international system as any grand debate about UN reform or global governance.
9 hours ago
Why intellectualise a simple issue? What stops these countries from diverting a tiny bit from the budget of the armed forces to buy their own vaccines?
Horst Max Cerni commented on "What to do la #3 Friends?"
12 hours ago
I second Detlef's comments, La. I didn't retire in my home country, so in a way I started life at a new "duty" station - without duties.
15 hours ago
Tom, have you completely lost your mind? Have you ever, in all your many years at UNICEF, heard anyone propose an “exciting strategy” to make the organization obsolete? Come on. We’re talking about an institution that celebrated its 80th anniversary with a straight face, apparently without anyone asking the question of why an emergency postwar agency still exists generations later.
Can you imagine someone standing up in a meeting with the Executive Director and the rest of the senior leadership and suggesting that UNICEF’s highest goal should be to work itself out of a job? That idea would have gone up like a lead balloon. Security might have escorted the person out before the coffee break.
The funny thing is, your logic is almost offensively simple: if development succeeds, eventually you shouldn’t be needed anymore. But somehow that thought never really caught on among our strategic visionaries and intellectual heavyweights. Then again, they also seemed remarkably untroubled by the fact that many of the countries where we invested the most money, conferences, consultants, workshops, study tours, dashboards, and “capacity building” exercises did not exactly catch up with the rest of the world. In quite a few cases, they actually fell further behind.
But let’s be honest: you did not rise through the ranks at UNICEF by floating dangerous ideas like institutional redundancy. You advanced by mastering the ancient bureaucratic arts — praising leadership, detecting which way the wind was blowing, embracing the latest fashionable jargon, and radiating relentless optimism no matter what the data said. “Transformational,” “innovative,” and “game-changing” could carry you a very long way.
In that sense, UNICEF was not unique at all. It behaved as most large organizations behave. First and foremost, people protected the institution, and by extension, themselves. UNICEF was truly "our wonderful organization".
Now that change is being forced upon the aid world from the outside, everyone suddenly talks about crisis, betrayal, and catastrophe. Maybe a little self-reflection would be in order. But organizations like UNICEF are notoriously difficult to reform from within. The incentives are simply too strong, and the vested interests too deeply entrenched.
The truth may be that the aid industry became far better at sustaining itself than at making itself unnecessary.
Can you imagine someone standing up in a meeting with the Executive Director and the rest of the senior leadership and suggesting that UNICEF’s highest goal should be to work itself out of a job? That idea would have gone up like a lead balloon. Security might have escorted the person out before the coffee break.
The funny thing is, your logic is almost offensively simple: if development succeeds, eventually you shouldn’t be needed anymore. But somehow that thought never really caught on among our strategic visionaries and intellectual heavyweights. Then again, they also seemed remarkably untroubled by the fact that many of the countries where we invested the most money, conferences, consultants, workshops, study tours, dashboards, and “capacity building” exercises did not exactly catch up with the rest of the world. In quite a few cases, they actually fell further behind.
But let’s be honest: you did not rise through the ranks at UNICEF by floating dangerous ideas like institutional redundancy. You advanced by mastering the ancient bureaucratic arts — praising leadership, detecting which way the wind was blowing, embracing the latest fashionable jargon, and radiating relentless optimism no matter what the data said. “Transformational,” “innovative,” and “game-changing” could carry you a very long way.
In that sense, UNICEF was not unique at all. It behaved as most large organizations behave. First and foremost, people protected the institution, and by extension, themselves. UNICEF was truly "our wonderful organization".
Now that change is being forced upon the aid world from the outside, everyone suddenly talks about crisis, betrayal, and catastrophe. Maybe a little self-reflection would be in order. But organizations like UNICEF are notoriously difficult to reform from within. The incentives are simply too strong, and the vested interests too deeply entrenched.
The truth may be that the aid industry became far better at sustaining itself than at making itself unnecessary.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Unknown commented on "What to do la #3 Friends?"
18 hours ago
Very true la!
Detlef Palm commented on "What to do la #3 Friends?"
19 hours ago
This very much resonates with my own experience. When coming home for the first vacations, I thought people would be interested in first-hand stories from Somalia or Sudan. But after a few minutes and one or two polite questions, they would launch into detailed accounts of how it had taken a full three days to get their broken washing machine fixed, or the daily trials and tribulations of their commute to work.
Even when returning home for good, our mindset remains different from that of those who stayed home, or never left their own country in the first place. That is exactly why we have this platform: a place where we can exchange views about things we often find difficult to discuss with the people living just down the street.
Even when our opinions differ, here on the blog we can engage with people who share a similar life experience, and whose stories may ring a bell, or so I hope.
Even when returning home for good, our mindset remains different from that of those who stayed home, or never left their own country in the first place. That is exactly why we have this platform: a place where we can exchange views about things we often find difficult to discuss with the people living just down the street.
Even when our opinions differ, here on the blog we can engage with people who share a similar life experience, and whose stories may ring a bell, or so I hope.
20 hours ago
The Economist’s recent article “Aid for Asia Gutted” makes Kristof’s warning even more striking because it shows that this is no longer only an African story. Large parts of Asia, often portrayed as the great development success story, are now also discovering how deeply basic health systems and disease surveillance depend on external financing.
What is emerging is not simply a humanitarian crisis, but a stress test of the entire aid model built over the last half-century. This raises uncomfortable questions that the aid world has often avoided. Did aid gradually become a substitute for state capacity? Did donors weaken domestic accountability by allowing governments to rely on external financing for core responsibilities? And did aid agencies themselves develop institutional incentives that favoured programme expansion over successful exit?
The Economist article also hints at another issue: geopolitics. As Western aid retreats, other actors move into the vacuum. China, Gulf states and regional powers are unlikely to replicate the old Western aid model. Their priorities will likely be more transactional, commercial and strategic. More loans and fewer grants.
Kristof is surely right about the immediate human cost. Abrupt cuts are morally and practically disastrous. But the current crisis also exposes how fragile many aid systems have remained after decades of support. That should prompt serious self-examination within the aid industry.
What would a development model actually designed to eliminate dependency look like? And are donors, aid agencies and recipient governments genuinely willing to pursue it, even if it means shrinking the aid industry over time?
What is emerging is not simply a humanitarian crisis, but a stress test of the entire aid model built over the last half-century. This raises uncomfortable questions that the aid world has often avoided. Did aid gradually become a substitute for state capacity? Did donors weaken domestic accountability by allowing governments to rely on external financing for core responsibilities? And did aid agencies themselves develop institutional incentives that favoured programme expansion over successful exit?
The Economist article also hints at another issue: geopolitics. As Western aid retreats, other actors move into the vacuum. China, Gulf states and regional powers are unlikely to replicate the old Western aid model. Their priorities will likely be more transactional, commercial and strategic. More loans and fewer grants.
Kristof is surely right about the immediate human cost. Abrupt cuts are morally and practically disastrous. But the current crisis also exposes how fragile many aid systems have remained after decades of support. That should prompt serious self-examination within the aid industry.
What would a development model actually designed to eliminate dependency look like? And are donors, aid agencies and recipient governments genuinely willing to pursue it, even if it means shrinking the aid industry over time?
Sree commented on "Three Days at the Kyotographie Festival, by Joachim Theis"
Yesterday
Thank you for sharing. Really appreciated the introduction to the photographers which enriched the experience- there is so much happening in the world which is beautiful yet we ….,….
Yesterday
This may be the most consequential moment the aid industry has ever faced, yet the level of engagement remains limited. Only two comments. One would think people whose careers are and have been in development would have views about the dismantling of USAID and the broader retreat from aid now spreading among Western donors.
The old assumptions underpinning aid are eroding rapidly. Western electorates are increasingly unwilling to finance open-ended external commitments while facing fiscal pressure, ageing populations and political fragmentation at home. Once the United States moves decisively in one direction, smaller donors tend to follow.
The old assumptions underpinning aid are eroding rapidly. Western electorates are increasingly unwilling to finance open-ended external commitments while facing fiscal pressure, ageing populations and political fragmentation at home. Once the United States moves decisively in one direction, smaller donors tend to follow.
Yesterday
Photo credit, UNICEF, Sudan. Looks like an interview for prospective drivers
2 days ago
The NY Times article can be read in full as a gift article here
Kristof rightly vents its anger at Trump's policies, particularly the abrupt cuts to development aid. However, I don't agree with all the details of his argument. Aid organizations typically fund programs that sell well in their home countries, such as the purchase of vaccines. But that doesn't mean African governments wouldn't also buy vaccines if they weren't available for free. If $1 spent on vaccines saves 54% of healthcare costs (as Kristof argues), then every health minister will promote vaccination programs - or not? Therefore, I agree with Thomas that the current aid system has produced fragility, undermined the agency of recipient governments, and set the wrong incentives.
Kristof rightly vents its anger at Trump's policies, particularly the abrupt cuts to development aid. However, I don't agree with all the details of his argument. Aid organizations typically fund programs that sell well in their home countries, such as the purchase of vaccines. But that doesn't mean African governments wouldn't also buy vaccines if they weren't available for free. If $1 spent on vaccines saves 54% of healthcare costs (as Kristof argues), then every health minister will promote vaccination programs - or not? Therefore, I agree with Thomas that the current aid system has produced fragility, undermined the agency of recipient governments, and set the wrong incentives.
2 days ago
This is super inspiring! I have to get my camera out!
For the cognoscenti: picture #2 is Miles Davis, who would have been 100 years this May.
For the cognoscenti: picture #2 is Miles Davis, who would have been 100 years this May.
2 days ago
Kristof is right to sound the alarm. The dismantling of USAID was never going to be only a budgetary exercise. When vaccination programmes stall and food pipelines dry up, the consequences can be measured not only on spreadsheets but in graves. The crisis Krostoff describes reveals the cruelty of abrupt aid cuts; it also exposes an uncomfortable truth: the international aid industry has spent many decades constructing systems that are permanently dependent on aid.
The paradox is hard to ignore. After more than half a century of development assistance, many countries remain so reliant on foreign donors that the withdrawal of one agency can trigger institutional collapse. Nutrition programmes stop, and public-health systems falter. Governments that have received billions in support are not capable of maintaining even basic services without foreign aid. That is not just a funding problem. It is a structural failure.
The aid world often speaks the language of sustainability, resilience and capacity-building. In practice, many programmes have been designed around the opposite principle: perpetual external management.
An uncomfortable question follows: What exactly is the exit strategy? Much of the aid sector operates as though permanence were proof of virtue. Entire bureaucracies now depend on the continuation of crises they were originally established to solve.
While Kristof is correct that sudden withdrawal of aid can be catastrophic. Recipient governments had adapted rationally to the aid system that existed. Why allocate scarce resources to drought preparedness if international agencies reliably arrive after every failed rainy season? Why invest heavily in public health when donors finance vaccines, clinics and supply chains? In many cases, aid has allowed governments to divert their own revenues elsewhere, often to security forces or prestige projects.
The incentives on the donor side are also distorted. Politicians in wealthy countries prefer programmes that generate visibility. Aid agencies, therefore, favour branded initiatives, quantifiable targets and photogenic interventions. Long, politically difficult work, such as building tax systems, strengthening civil services or fostering accountable institutions, attracts far less enthusiasm.
The result is an ecosystem adept at managing poverty but less successful at eliminating it.
Africa illustrates the dilemma most starkly. The continent has seen big improvements in life expectancy, education and child survival over recent decades, supported by foreign aid. Yet large parts of Africa remain aid-dependent, with some governments receiving substantial portions of their health and social-service budgets from external donors. This dependence creates fragility. A political shift in Washington can reverberate instantly through clinics in Uganda or refugee camps in Kenya.
That fragility is now fully exposed. The gutting of USAID demonstrates what happens when development systems have no durable domestic foundations. Humanitarian damage is immediate and real. But blaming only the politicians who wielded the axe risks missing the larger lesson. Systems that collapse overnight after decades of support were never sustainable in the first place.
A more serious development model should begin with a harsher metric of success: dependency reduced, not programmes expanded. Aid should increasingly function as a temporary catalyst rather than a permanent substitute for government responsibility. Recipient governments would need to assume genuine fiscal ownership of core services. And the aid industry itself would need to accept that its core objective is to become redundant as early as possible.
None of this will happen overnight. Cutting life-saving assistance recklessly is both indefensible and foolish. But restoring the old system unchanged would be a major mistake. Kristof’s warning should not only provoke outrage, but it should also provoke reflection on flaws in the entire aid system built up over decades.
The paradox is hard to ignore. After more than half a century of development assistance, many countries remain so reliant on foreign donors that the withdrawal of one agency can trigger institutional collapse. Nutrition programmes stop, and public-health systems falter. Governments that have received billions in support are not capable of maintaining even basic services without foreign aid. That is not just a funding problem. It is a structural failure.
The aid world often speaks the language of sustainability, resilience and capacity-building. In practice, many programmes have been designed around the opposite principle: perpetual external management.
An uncomfortable question follows: What exactly is the exit strategy? Much of the aid sector operates as though permanence were proof of virtue. Entire bureaucracies now depend on the continuation of crises they were originally established to solve.
While Kristof is correct that sudden withdrawal of aid can be catastrophic. Recipient governments had adapted rationally to the aid system that existed. Why allocate scarce resources to drought preparedness if international agencies reliably arrive after every failed rainy season? Why invest heavily in public health when donors finance vaccines, clinics and supply chains? In many cases, aid has allowed governments to divert their own revenues elsewhere, often to security forces or prestige projects.
The incentives on the donor side are also distorted. Politicians in wealthy countries prefer programmes that generate visibility. Aid agencies, therefore, favour branded initiatives, quantifiable targets and photogenic interventions. Long, politically difficult work, such as building tax systems, strengthening civil services or fostering accountable institutions, attracts far less enthusiasm.
The result is an ecosystem adept at managing poverty but less successful at eliminating it.
Africa illustrates the dilemma most starkly. The continent has seen big improvements in life expectancy, education and child survival over recent decades, supported by foreign aid. Yet large parts of Africa remain aid-dependent, with some governments receiving substantial portions of their health and social-service budgets from external donors. This dependence creates fragility. A political shift in Washington can reverberate instantly through clinics in Uganda or refugee camps in Kenya.
That fragility is now fully exposed. The gutting of USAID demonstrates what happens when development systems have no durable domestic foundations. Humanitarian damage is immediate and real. But blaming only the politicians who wielded the axe risks missing the larger lesson. Systems that collapse overnight after decades of support were never sustainable in the first place.
A more serious development model should begin with a harsher metric of success: dependency reduced, not programmes expanded. Aid should increasingly function as a temporary catalyst rather than a permanent substitute for government responsibility. Recipient governments would need to assume genuine fiscal ownership of core services. And the aid industry itself would need to accept that its core objective is to become redundant as early as possible.
None of this will happen overnight. Cutting life-saving assistance recklessly is both indefensible and foolish. But restoring the old system unchanged would be a major mistake. Kristof’s warning should not only provoke outrage, but it should also provoke reflection on flaws in the entire aid system built up over decades.
Thomas Ekvall commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 13, 2026
Sometimes, one gets the impression that the aid industry may have confused “development” with “career sustainability.” One would have thought that the primary objective of aid agencies would be to work themselves out of a job as quickly as possible. The ideal success story should surely be this: a country develops, institutions function, people prosper, and expatriates leave. Instead, the aid sector resembles one of the few industries where permanent failure guarantees permanent expansion.
Naturally, this raises an awkward question: are the incentives misaligned? After all, no industry enthusiastically celebrates the disappearance of its own market. One struggles to imagine a conference titled “Towards the Successful Closure of Our Aid Operations.”
Quite the opposite. Success in the aid world appears to generate additional funding, additional programmes, additional advisers, and, naturally, additional conferences in agreeable locations.
The rhetoric never changes. Every few years comes another grand initiative, another “transformative framework,” another declaration that this time we have finally identified the root causes. One wonders whether poverty itself has become too economically important to too many people.
This is, of course, unfair to the many dedicated individuals in the system who genuinely want to improve lives and often work under extremely difficult conditions. But systems matter more than intentions. And the uncomfortable reality is that institutions, like all living organisms, tend to prioritise survival. Aid agencies are no exception.
Perhaps the most radical performance indicator for the aid industry would be a simple one: how many offices successfully shut down because they were no longer needed? That would truly be sustainable development.
Naturally, this raises an awkward question: are the incentives misaligned? After all, no industry enthusiastically celebrates the disappearance of its own market. One struggles to imagine a conference titled “Towards the Successful Closure of Our Aid Operations.”
Quite the opposite. Success in the aid world appears to generate additional funding, additional programmes, additional advisers, and, naturally, additional conferences in agreeable locations.
The rhetoric never changes. Every few years comes another grand initiative, another “transformative framework,” another declaration that this time we have finally identified the root causes. One wonders whether poverty itself has become too economically important to too many people.
This is, of course, unfair to the many dedicated individuals in the system who genuinely want to improve lives and often work under extremely difficult conditions. But systems matter more than intentions. And the uncomfortable reality is that institutions, like all living organisms, tend to prioritise survival. Aid agencies are no exception.
Perhaps the most radical performance indicator for the aid industry would be a simple one: how many offices successfully shut down because they were no longer needed? That would truly be sustainable development.
Unknown commented on "Three Days at the Kyotographie Festival, by Joachim Theis"
May 13, 2026
Impressive!
Unknown commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 13, 2026
What makes this discussion uncomfortable is not that the failures are difficult to understand. It is that most of them were visible to anyone who spent time inside the system.
The revolving emergencies, the dependency, the strategic frameworks, the inflation of jargon, the obsession with visibility over outcomes, the perverse incentives, the substitution of government responsibility, the culture of allowances and per diems, the quiet tolerance of less than sterling performance as long as institutional loyalty was maintained. None of this was hidden.
Inside organisations like UNICEF, many privately acknowledged these contradictions, yet publicly, the system demanded optimism, conformity, and a narrative of “impact.”
The aid industry increasingly resembles Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes: a large procession in which everyone is expected to admire the splendour of achievements that, on closer inspection, are often threadbare or even imaginary.
Those who questioned the model quickly discovered the limits of “open dialogue.” In many international organisations, career advancement depended less on intellectual honesty than on mastering institutional theatre: praising leadership, speaking fluent jargon and delivering polished presentations, while underlying realities remained largely unchanged.
New staff learned very quickly that criticism of aid effectiveness, dependency, corruption, incentive distortions, or bureaucratic self-preservation was not career-enhancing.
PowerPoint presentations became more sophisticated. Coordination structures multiplied. Acronyms proliferated. Executive summaries grew increasingly detached from the reality on the ground.
The uncomfortable possibility raised throughout this discussion is that perhaps the aid industry has evolved in such a manner that the institutional survival depends on the persistence of the very problems they claim to solve.
If that sounds cynical, one might ask a simpler question:
After forty years, countless missions, hundreds of consultants, billions in aid, and endless declarations of commitment, why are foreign agencies still measuring starving children in Karamoja with MUAC tapes?
At some point, seriousness requires more than compassion. It requires accountability, honesty, and the courage to admit when a model is failing.
The revolving emergencies, the dependency, the strategic frameworks, the inflation of jargon, the obsession with visibility over outcomes, the perverse incentives, the substitution of government responsibility, the culture of allowances and per diems, the quiet tolerance of less than sterling performance as long as institutional loyalty was maintained. None of this was hidden.
Inside organisations like UNICEF, many privately acknowledged these contradictions, yet publicly, the system demanded optimism, conformity, and a narrative of “impact.”
The aid industry increasingly resembles Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes: a large procession in which everyone is expected to admire the splendour of achievements that, on closer inspection, are often threadbare or even imaginary.
Those who questioned the model quickly discovered the limits of “open dialogue.” In many international organisations, career advancement depended less on intellectual honesty than on mastering institutional theatre: praising leadership, speaking fluent jargon and delivering polished presentations, while underlying realities remained largely unchanged.
New staff learned very quickly that criticism of aid effectiveness, dependency, corruption, incentive distortions, or bureaucratic self-preservation was not career-enhancing.
PowerPoint presentations became more sophisticated. Coordination structures multiplied. Acronyms proliferated. Executive summaries grew increasingly detached from the reality on the ground.
The uncomfortable possibility raised throughout this discussion is that perhaps the aid industry has evolved in such a manner that the institutional survival depends on the persistence of the very problems they claim to solve.
If that sounds cynical, one might ask a simpler question:
After forty years, countless missions, hundreds of consultants, billions in aid, and endless declarations of commitment, why are foreign agencies still measuring starving children in Karamoja with MUAC tapes?
At some point, seriousness requires more than compassion. It requires accountability, honesty, and the courage to admit when a model is failing.
Unknown commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 13, 2026
So true!
In Response to a comment by RUTH KUTEESA
Thomas Ekvall commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 12, 2026
There are different authoritarian systems. To govern "for the people" can't be the worst. Perhaps other countries may wish to emulate Ethiopia's growth figures. That may have an impact on the recurrence of emergencies. More resources for addressing emergencies, and frankly, everything else, will always help. Sustained 9% growth will quickly make a country pretty rich. The power of compounding! Just take a look at South Korea, it was poorer than may Afican countries just a few decades ago. An appropriate question: why is this not recognised by the aid industry? Why is "beyond growth" still the mantra, driven by academics from their ivory towers?
In Response to a comment by Joachim Theis
Detlef Palm commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 12, 2026
The question remains: given that the PSNP has been at least a partial success story over the past 20 years, and has been extensively documented and researched, why has it not been replicated? Why have its lessons not been applied elsewhere, for example in Uganda?
In his book Gambling on Development, Stefan Dercon devotes a chapter to Ethiopia. He argues that the country’s remarkable economic growth, projected to exceed 9% in 2024/25, was driven primarily by a shared commitment to growth and development among those in power. Progress did not stem from political openness or liberal values. Rather, the elite managed, at times with considerable ruthlessness, to govern “for the people” rather than fully “by the people,” while securing political legitimacy through development.
In his book Gambling on Development, Stefan Dercon devotes a chapter to Ethiopia. He argues that the country’s remarkable economic growth, projected to exceed 9% in 2024/25, was driven primarily by a shared commitment to growth and development among those in power. Progress did not stem from political openness or liberal values. Rather, the elite managed, at times with considerable ruthlessness, to govern “for the people” rather than fully “by the people,” while securing political legitimacy through development.
In Response to a comment by Joachim Theis
Thomas Ekvall commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 12, 2026
We often wonder why aid programmes tied to global goals are so rarely sustainable. Perhaps the answer lies partly in our own behaviour.
We bribed officials to move projects forward. We financed endless “study tours” that resembled shopping holidays more than serious professional exchanges. We topped up salaries, paid per diems, and created a culture in which cooperation depended on external rewards. At times, we even handed lucrative international posts to the very officials who had spent years obstructing reforms.
Then we act surprised when governments lose interest the moment donor funding ends. But why would genuine ownership emerge from a system that trained people to respond primarily to incentives, allowances, and foreign money?
We bribed officials to move projects forward. We financed endless “study tours” that resembled shopping holidays more than serious professional exchanges. We topped up salaries, paid per diems, and created a culture in which cooperation depended on external rewards. At times, we even handed lucrative international posts to the very officials who had spent years obstructing reforms.
Then we act surprised when governments lose interest the moment donor funding ends. But why would genuine ownership emerge from a system that trained people to respond primarily to incentives, allowances, and foreign money?
In Response to a comment by RUTH KUTEESA
Thomas Ekvall commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 12, 2026
In other words, GDP growth, which indeed Ethiopia had, took care of it
In Response to a comment by Joachim Theis
Unknown commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 12, 2026
This is AI's understanding of large scale emergenies in Ethiopia today: In short, PSNP has at least mitigated the old cycle of predictable, chronic rural food aid appeals for core vulnerable populations. It represents progress in moving from pure humanitarianism toward development-oriented safety nets. But Ethiopia's emergencies are now driven more by complex, compounding factors, so large-scale interventions continue. It is a partial success story rather than a breakthrough.
In Response to a comment by Joachim Theis
Joachim Theis commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 12, 2026
I like this discussion. After spending 40+ years doing development and humanitarian work I've become more interested in learning from successes (while not ignoring the failures). Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Program succeeded in breaking the endless cycles of large-scale humanitarian interventions. There are a lot of lessons to be learned why such a program succeeded in Ethiopia and why many others have failed. I have learned a lot from the more critical publications of the World Bank, especially papers by Lant Pritchett and Michael Woolcock.
Agatha Pratt commented on "Drivers of UNICEF - Keeping Us Safe and Shaping the CPD? By Rob Carr"
May 12, 2026
Thank you for sharing such a touching story, Rob.
Nuzhat Shahzadi commented on "House in Little Italy By Nuzhat Shahzadi"
May 12, 2026
Dear Horst
Many thanks for reading. I do want to write but sometimes life gets too crammed. I will try to continue🙏🏽
Many thanks for reading. I do want to write but sometimes life gets too crammed. I will try to continue🙏🏽
May 12, 2026
Hello Joachim. This listing is interesting, but how could one find s story one would like to read? I clicked on it, but only got info on Google blogs. As a matter of fact, it would be good to have an easy find icon. Thanks.
Unknown commented on "Missing You - Reem Najjar - by Mary Sidawi"
May 12, 2026
⸻
It was with great shock and deep sadness that I learned of the passing of our dear Reem.
My first impression of Reem was her remarkable dedication in helping me settle into Amman when I arrived in 1998 to serve as UNICEF Representative. She thoughtfully organized house-hunting visits, ensuring I found a place to call home. Some of my most rewarding years with UNICEF were spent in Jordan, and much of that experience was shaped by the commitment and support of colleagues like Reem.
I was fortunate to spend a memorable afternoon with her in Dubai this past January. We shared a lovely time reminiscing about old days and catching up on our lives.
May her family find comfort during this time of loss, and may our cherished memories of Reem continue to inspire us. She will be deeply missed.
Misrak Elias
It was with great shock and deep sadness that I learned of the passing of our dear Reem.
My first impression of Reem was her remarkable dedication in helping me settle into Amman when I arrived in 1998 to serve as UNICEF Representative. She thoughtfully organized house-hunting visits, ensuring I found a place to call home. Some of my most rewarding years with UNICEF were spent in Jordan, and much of that experience was shaped by the commitment and support of colleagues like Reem.
I was fortunate to spend a memorable afternoon with her in Dubai this past January. We shared a lovely time reminiscing about old days and catching up on our lives.
May her family find comfort during this time of loss, and may our cherished memories of Reem continue to inspire us. She will be deeply missed.
Misrak Elias
In Response to a comment by Mary Sidawi
May 12, 2026
Nice story. Will you continue it. Nuzhat?
Anne Skatvedt commented on "Missing You - Reem Najjar - by Mary Sidawi"
May 12, 2026
May you rest in peace, dear Reem! I have fond memories of many years of collaboration in MENARO and the Jordan office. A solid, reliable and caring colleague. And thanks to Mary for sharing.
Unknown commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 11, 2026
Foreign impossed ideas, without full buy-in, may be difficult to sustain in an environment with limited resources in stagnant or shrinking economies.
In Response to a comment by RUTH KUTEESA
Bijaya & Gabriele Mallapaty commented on "Missing You - Reem Najjar - by Mary Sidawi"
May 11, 2026
Very sad to hear this news! May her soul rest in eternal peace. Our condolences and sympathies to the bereaved family and friends. We worked very closely in Jordan during our assignement there from 1994 to 1998. She was a pillar of UNICEF's country and regional offices in Amman. She was a go getter - getting done whatever was needed for UNICEF's success there. Bijaya and Gabriele Mallapaty
May 11, 2026
Those who find yet another UN report, another framework, and another set of global goals “fascinating” may wish to explain why the international system continues to produce so many declarations with so few results. For decades, the UN system has generated targets, indices, strategies, and league tables in endless succession. Some are partially achieved, many fade away, and most are replaced by a new set of goals with little reflection on why the previous ones failed.
Where is the serious institutional self-criticism? Where is the honest evaluation of why so many goals fell so far short in large parts of the world? Before constructing more elaborate dashboards to measure “wellbeing” and “progress”, perhaps the development community should first examine why so many previous frameworks delivered so little measurable improvement for ordinary people.
Were poor people in Africa and elsewhere ever consulted about their priorities? They are not demanding post-growth theories of what is good for them. Anyone with experience from poor countries knows that most people want the same things as you and I want: stable jobs, functioning infrastructure, rising incomes, decent schools, reliable healthcare, and the chance to build a more prosperous future for their children. Too often, the development discussion is shaped by the intellectual fashions of affluent institutions and academic circles far removed from everyday African reality.
The UN will not regain relevance through another layer of goals and indicators. It requires root-and-branch institutional reform. At times, the organisation resembles an overgrown vineyard that produces ever more tangled branches, but few grapes and less than vintage wine. Serious pruning is overdue before winter truly sets in. The forecasts already point to a long, cold season ahead.
Where is the serious institutional self-criticism? Where is the honest evaluation of why so many goals fell so far short in large parts of the world? Before constructing more elaborate dashboards to measure “wellbeing” and “progress”, perhaps the development community should first examine why so many previous frameworks delivered so little measurable improvement for ordinary people.
Were poor people in Africa and elsewhere ever consulted about their priorities? They are not demanding post-growth theories of what is good for them. Anyone with experience from poor countries knows that most people want the same things as you and I want: stable jobs, functioning infrastructure, rising incomes, decent schools, reliable healthcare, and the chance to build a more prosperous future for their children. Too often, the development discussion is shaped by the intellectual fashions of affluent institutions and academic circles far removed from everyday African reality.
The UN will not regain relevance through another layer of goals and indicators. It requires root-and-branch institutional reform. At times, the organisation resembles an overgrown vineyard that produces ever more tangled branches, but few grapes and less than vintage wine. Serious pruning is overdue before winter truly sets in. The forecasts already point to a long, cold season ahead.
May 11, 2026
I share the concern above very much. We have set global goals, MDGs and SDGs. The world as a whole did not achieve these. Countries - in most case - most likely did not take these seriously except to prepare reports. This is not to say that setting goals and trying toachieve them is not a worthy exercise. It is indeed. However, time is ripe to reflect critically and analytically on what we achieved, not achieved and why not. Are UN Agencies and development partners doing the right things right. Do they have the capacity to these. I think its worth systematically analysing this before moving forward with more goals. I could be wrong. I am looking at it from the vantage point of a humble citizen in a poor country and an onlooker of a regreesing world.
May 11, 2026
I am concerned about the emergence of yet another ambitious framework, complete with fresh goals, and yet another UN-administered league table. One wonders whether we learned anything from the SDG exercise. People in different countries have their own priorities, and those priorities shift constantly. Today it is the cost of healthcare; tomorrow it is the sustainability of pensions. Then comes a debate about too much or too little policing, and six months later an education crisis or an environmental disaster dominates the headlines.
Whether a particular concern happens to fit neatly into the metrics of the latest framework is, in practice, mainly of interest to statisticians. For most countries, the underlying solution to many of these problems remains the same: sustained economic growth, especially in developing countries. On that point, I agree with Thomas.
At a time when the UN system already appears overextended, confused, and at risk of drifting into irrelevance, the answer is not the creation of ever more frameworks and new progress-measuring initiatives. The renewed focus should be on its core function: resolving intergovernmental dispute and conflict.
Perhaps there is no reason for either great excitement or deep concern. I doubt this proposal will gain much traction before the UN system itself undergoes more fundamental reform.
Whether a particular concern happens to fit neatly into the metrics of the latest framework is, in practice, mainly of interest to statisticians. For most countries, the underlying solution to many of these problems remains the same: sustained economic growth, especially in developing countries. On that point, I agree with Thomas.
At a time when the UN system already appears overextended, confused, and at risk of drifting into irrelevance, the answer is not the creation of ever more frameworks and new progress-measuring initiatives. The renewed focus should be on its core function: resolving intergovernmental dispute and conflict.
Perhaps there is no reason for either great excitement or deep concern. I doubt this proposal will gain much traction before the UN system itself undergoes more fundamental reform.
Detlef Palm commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 11, 2026
This paradox is not limited to unsavoury regimes. Most donors prefer to finance “good story” programmes that play well with taxpayers back home. Ministries in recipient countries are usually more than happy to let donors fund the most attractive initiatives even when they already intended to fund themselves. Conveniently, this frees up domestic resources for less glamorous concerns. The result, however, is a budget process that becomes distorted, accountability that evaporates, and dependency dressed as partnership.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Unknown commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 11, 2026
Why would a cash-strapped African government invest seriously in emergency preparedness when WFP and UNICEF are effectively permanently on standby? For many weak or unpopular governments, investing in internal security, intelligence services, and the armed forces may appear far more rational. Those institutions, after all, are what keep them in power.
This creates a deeply uncomfortable paradox. The aid industry, however well-intentioned, can end up insulating governments from the consequences of chronic mismanagement while simultaneously freeing state resources for patronage networks, repression, and militarisation rather than development.
No humanitarian agency set out to create such incentives. Yet unintended consequences remain consequences nonetheless.
This creates a deeply uncomfortable paradox. The aid industry, however well-intentioned, can end up insulating governments from the consequences of chronic mismanagement while simultaneously freeing state resources for patronage networks, repression, and militarisation rather than development.
No humanitarian agency set out to create such incentives. Yet unintended consequences remain consequences nonetheless.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
May 10, 2026
Thomas: What a simpatico description of the Spanish Bureaucracy – but if you had lived in Iran before the Revolution, a completely different set of rules applied. It wasn’t anything to do with the forms required, it was how much you had to provide the ‘fonctionnaire’. Too little, and you were given a day and time on which to return to make re-application which usually was set as far into the future as your original offer was below their expectation. And this was even before there was a death to consider.
Today, I live in the UK where a coroner guides one in the ‘necessities’ following a death. When a brother of mine died, his two sons were out of the country at the time so it was left to me to present the coroner with what was required, which included the need to have no fewer than 7 death certificates, which I thought was a bit excessive. The hospital where he died confirmed that he was, actually, fully dead. Wasn’t that enough ? Apparently not. The bank needed to know it - in writing; the tax-authorities wanted two of them – both in writing, too (in case they mislaid one ?); and so it went on and on. After this experience, I asked my remaining brothers please to outlive me so they could experience the coroner’s wishes as part of their own bucket-list items. Once was enough for me.
Today, I live in the UK where a coroner guides one in the ‘necessities’ following a death. When a brother of mine died, his two sons were out of the country at the time so it was left to me to present the coroner with what was required, which included the need to have no fewer than 7 death certificates, which I thought was a bit excessive. The hospital where he died confirmed that he was, actually, fully dead. Wasn’t that enough ? Apparently not. The bank needed to know it - in writing; the tax-authorities wanted two of them – both in writing, too (in case they mislaid one ?); and so it went on and on. After this experience, I asked my remaining brothers please to outlive me so they could experience the coroner’s wishes as part of their own bucket-list items. Once was enough for me.
May 10, 2026
The UN’s “Beyond GDP” initiative starts from a reasonable observation: GDP does not measure everything. True enough. No serious economist has ever claimed otherwise. But the initiative quickly drifts into something far more ideological: an attempt to downgrade economic growth itself as the central driver of human progress.
That is where the argument becomes weak.
Across decades of global data, higher GDP per capita correlates strongly with longer lives, lower infant mortality, better education, cleaner water, stronger institutions, greater personal freedom, and higher self-reported life satisfaction. Poor countries do not typically solve environmental problems, inequality, or social exclusion before they become wealthier. They solve them because they become wealthier.
The uncomfortable reality is that most environmental protection, welfare systems, labour rights, gender equality, and social inclusion are luxuries financed by productive economies. Rich societies can afford clean rivers, emissions controls, pensions, healthcare systems, and redistribution. Poor societies usually cannot.
That is why much of the “Beyond GDP” agenda feels detached from the priorities of ordinary people in poorer countries. Few villagers in rural Africa or South Asia are demanding post-growth frameworks, wellbeing dashboards, or new philosophical critiques of capitalism. Most want jobs, electricity, roads, industry, functioning markets, reliable healthcare, and rising incomes, in other words: development.
There is also something historically familiar about this debate. Scandinavian elites once romanticised Julius Nyerere’s “African socialism” in Tanzania while ordinary Tanzanians endured stagnation and dependency. Today, parts of the international development world risk repeating a similar mistake: intellectualising poverty instead of overcoming it.
GDP is not everything. But dismissing its central importance confuses the concerns of affluent academics with the aspirations of billions of poorer people who still seek what the developed world already has: prosperity.
The UN will not regain relevance by lecturing developing countries about moving beyond growth. It will regain relevance by helping them achieve it.
Thomas Ekvall commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 10, 2026
What strikes me reading this discussion is how determined many still are to tiptoe around the obvious.
Karamoja is not merely a difficult development challenge. After forty years of recurring “emergencies,” it is evidence of a failed model. The same photographs, the same donor appeals, the same therapeutic feeding, the same solemn declarations of urgency are repeated across generations.
At some point, honesty requires us to admit that a system which permanently manages crises is not the same thing as a system that solves them.
When governments know that UNICEF, WFP, NGOs and donors will inevitably arrive with food, medicine, logistics and international appeals, the political cost of neglect collapses. Why invest seriously in preparedness or rural development when the international community reliably steps in to absorb the fallout?
That is not compassion replacing indifference. It is accountability being replaced by substitution.
Of course, aid has saved lives. Millions of them. But saving lives in the short term is not the same as building functioning societies in the long term.
If the same regions still require emergency feeding operations after billions in aid and decades of intervention, then something deeper is wrong than drought, conflict or “capacity gaps.”
The uncomfortable possibility is that the aid system has become extremely effective at sustaining itself, while being far less effective at ending dependency.
Karamoja is not merely a difficult development challenge. After forty years of recurring “emergencies,” it is evidence of a failed model. The same photographs, the same donor appeals, the same therapeutic feeding, the same solemn declarations of urgency are repeated across generations.
At some point, honesty requires us to admit that a system which permanently manages crises is not the same thing as a system that solves them.
When governments know that UNICEF, WFP, NGOs and donors will inevitably arrive with food, medicine, logistics and international appeals, the political cost of neglect collapses. Why invest seriously in preparedness or rural development when the international community reliably steps in to absorb the fallout?
That is not compassion replacing indifference. It is accountability being replaced by substitution.
Of course, aid has saved lives. Millions of them. But saving lives in the short term is not the same as building functioning societies in the long term.
If the same regions still require emergency feeding operations after billions in aid and decades of intervention, then something deeper is wrong than drought, conflict or “capacity gaps.”
The uncomfortable possibility is that the aid system has become extremely effective at sustaining itself, while being far less effective at ending dependency.
Detlef Palm commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 10, 2026
Robert, why did the many billions in aid to Uganda fail to help people move away from the cliff, instead of merely waiting for them to fall? What went wrong over the past 40 years in our vision of development and aid?
The aid industry has become too focused on its own importance and institutional interests, instead of outcomes. As a result, there has been too little honest debate about aid effectiveness. The failure to properly evaluate the impact of traditional aid, and to rethink the way aid is delivered, has also made it easier for Trump to justify cutting aid budgets, without seriously considering better forms of international and multilateral cooperation.
The aid industry has become too focused on its own importance and institutional interests, instead of outcomes. As a result, there has been too little honest debate about aid effectiveness. The failure to properly evaluate the impact of traditional aid, and to rethink the way aid is delivered, has also made it easier for Trump to justify cutting aid budgets, without seriously considering better forms of international and multilateral cooperation.
In Response to a comment by Robert David Cohen
Eric Mercier commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 10, 2026
I worked in South Karamoja from 1982 to 1984 for an NGO as a public health doctor (during the time of Roger, as well as David Alnwick and Mark Stirling, who were in KLA with UNICEF).
I returned there in January 2025 with friends who used to work with me. In Tokora, where we work, the only difference was that there was now a Karimojong doctor. As you mentioned, little has changed 40 years later: the manyattas are now in villages with sidewalks, cell phones have replaced guns, and the Chinese have replaced the missionaries (in part)
There are far fewer herds of cows and more goats. I don’t know if this is accurate, but it seems that the Karimojong have been disarmed and that their herds have been stolen by their neighbours. It is easier to send in the army given the state of the roads. Progress (roads, access, communication) has likely contributed to the transformation of Karamoja’s pastoral society.
In Moroto and Kaboong, the UN has set up fortified camps to be "closer to the needs “ of the people; the paved road allows them to return to KLA on weekends to be with their families…
Emergencies are treated as “Groundhog Day” by staff specialised in emergencies, but also due to a lack of inside volunteers with limited experience at UNICEF. There’s no one there to step back and take a broader view, and no one to listen to him if, by chance, someone starts to question our actions…
I returned there in January 2025 with friends who used to work with me. In Tokora, where we work, the only difference was that there was now a Karimojong doctor. As you mentioned, little has changed 40 years later: the manyattas are now in villages with sidewalks, cell phones have replaced guns, and the Chinese have replaced the missionaries (in part)
There are far fewer herds of cows and more goats. I don’t know if this is accurate, but it seems that the Karimojong have been disarmed and that their herds have been stolen by their neighbours. It is easier to send in the army given the state of the roads. Progress (roads, access, communication) has likely contributed to the transformation of Karamoja’s pastoral society.
In Moroto and Kaboong, the UN has set up fortified camps to be "closer to the needs “ of the people; the paved road allows them to return to KLA on weekends to be with their families…
Emergencies are treated as “Groundhog Day” by staff specialised in emergencies, but also due to a lack of inside volunteers with limited experience at UNICEF. There’s no one there to step back and take a broader view, and no one to listen to him if, by chance, someone starts to question our actions…
Robert David Cohen commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 10, 2026
Thank you, dear Detlef, for describing – in other words – international aid as an ambulance parked at the base of a cliff picking up the endless victims falling off alps of poverty, hunger and a million natural and man-made calamities. Working as a communicator, I always thought the metaphor unfair, as we sincerely aspired to prevention and addressing root causes ... and ambulances, drivers and pilot projects were, in the end, needed and appreciated. But truth is, the post-war, post-colonial development aid system was always, and still is, a combination of noble internationalism and heroic solidarity and Oz behind the West's curtain of soft power. What worries me is that Trump uses Karamoja examples like the one you have eloquently shared to further decimate multilateral cooperation and the very notion of solidarity. Now there aren't even ambulances at the bottom of the cliffs.
Unknown commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 9, 2026
At least they no longer suffer from guinea worm.
Detlef Palm commented on "Help"
May 9, 2026
@Solofo
There is a translate button in the right margin of the blog.
There also is a share button at the end of each article.
If you don't see the right margin, you see a packet of three little horizontal lines in the top right corner of your screen. The three little lines are often called the 'hamburger'. When you tap the hamburger, the right margin will show.
There is a translate button in the right margin of the blog.
There also is a share button at the end of each article.
If you don't see the right margin, you see a packet of three little horizontal lines in the top right corner of your screen. The three little lines are often called the 'hamburger'. When you tap the hamburger, the right margin will show.
SolofoRahary commented on "Help"
May 9, 2026
How can I get and share a French translation of an article?
DC commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 9, 2026
Without sustained economic growth, which was absent in most countries where UNICEF worked, many of these interventions became a low priority within an environment of competition for resources once external funding ceased.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Rob Carr commented on "Missing You - Reem Najjar - by Mary Sidawi"
May 8, 2026
Hey Hiba - what a touching recollection. I hope you are well - life after UNICEF? Take care.
In Response to a comment by Hiba Frankoul
Rob Carr commented on "Karamoja on My Mind: Detlef Palm"
May 8, 2026
Could it be that whatever good stuff UNICEF promoted and piloted was never taken on board by our counterparts?? Or they did it just to be nice - and then after a few years we stopped noticing and moved on to other things and so did the
- 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.
You can also copy and paste: 👍