The first to yammer was, naturally, the aid industry itself. Perhaps I still live in the wrong bubble, but I did not hear many complaints from recipient countries.
Leaving aside, for a moment, the incoherent policy fragments delivered in staccato bursts from the White House, major donor governments have justified the cuts by pointing to mounting budget pressures, particularly rising defence and security spending. Politically, development aid is an easy target. The beneficiaries are abroad, the effects are long term and notoriously difficult to measure, and the cuts carry little immediate electoral cost at home. At the same time, the debate over aid itself has sharpened: whether traditional assistance promotes development or merely dependency, and whether investment in productive sectors might achieve more than endlessly financing distributive expenditures in recipient countries.
The aid community arrived quickly at its own diagnosis: a global loss of altruism and humanity.
Intrigued by the loss of humanity, I went online to investigate. The invisible hand immediately found two million articles and, lo and behold, among the first were Ten Steps to Successful Fundraising, and Philanthropic Fundraising. I once had a brief exchange with a former colleague about philanthropy, though we did not get very far. This time, I wanted to know the long and the short of it.
Philanthropy means “love of humanity.” More commonly, it represents the desire to promote human welfare through the act of giving. For some, philanthropy defines who we are and what we do. It is well established that it generally improves the giver’s emotional well-being and sense of meaning, and heightens the sense of connection to others. In other words, philanthropy is also very good for donors, not least through tax deductions. Not only socially awkward people outsource their philanthropic impulses to development agencies, as long as they trust that their money will make a difference.
Because prosocial behavior is deeply tied to the evolution of humankind, the instinct to care is remarkably durable. The aid cuts do not signal the death of concern for others. I am not convinced there has been any loss of humanity.
People are, if anything, more aware than ever of war, disease, suffering and the lack of development. Catastrophe arrives nightly in High Definition, scheduled between the weather forecast and sports results. But the public has grown weary of the same imagery and recycled narratives playing on an endless loop. The language of compassion has become performative, ceremonial, and curiously detached from results. As the actual impact of their donations disappeared out of sight, people are no longer convinced that large aid bureaucracies automatically convert good intentions into meaningful outcomes.
Still, development strategists fundraise as though the world has somehow failed to notice poverty and deprivation. The aid narrative creeps forward with visible jumps and cracks, while the precise role of development agencies becomes less clear. People no longer want to hear simply what organizations are trying to do. They want to know what comes of it. They want evidence of meaningful, lasting change.
And that is the question: Why do the development strategists seem preoccupied with extracting the next donations and advertizing their own aid organization, instead of seriously analyzing what went amiss in the past, why results were less than expected, and what exactly sets a country on the path to development?
Insightful and witty as usual. I enjoyed reading it as I now have pivoted into retirement.
ReplyDeleteThe earlier comment is mine: Youssouf Abdel Jelil
ReplyDeleteDetlef
ReplyDeleteAs always your article made me think - how did welfare ( charity) evolve to philanthropy in most societies was it via the support/ assistance ?
Charity: Direct benefits/ welfare
Support/ Aid :: access to resources
Philanthropy: self sufficiency : empowerment
Drinking my morning coffee, I asked ChatGPT and here’s the reply:
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a36032a0c9081918af076cd290c3e24
Keep writing and prompt us to think “out of the.bubble”
Thanks Detlef. Another fine read.
ReplyDeleteTo your point, my understanding is that it's a complex picture, but to grossly simplify: fewer people are giving but people who give are giving more (maybe an income inequality phenomenon?); non-Western countries have overtaken Western countries (like ours) in terms of how likely the average person is to give; various measures of empathy (developed by people cleverer than me) show it dropping among young people in donor countries for a while (people blame more individualism and atomisation maybe because of social media); and younger people are showing compassion more through consumption choices (preferring ethical brands even if more expensive) than by giving in the old-fashioned way.
Your core point though is one I couldn't agree with more. As someone who was basically responsible for corporate fundraising for a UN entity for 6 years I developed fairly good donor relationships and I can say without any doubt that while there are exogenous factors a lot of the financial woes are self-inflicted. At their heart is an unwillingness to change, a reluctance to be self-critical, a broad disregard for keeping donors happy (as opposed to doing the bare minimum to stop them walking off), a self-serving conflation of mandate and institution (e.g. because children's welfare is fundamental to humanity then by definition UNUCEF's funding is), and most of all a blanket rejection of the idea that it might ever make sense for a UN entity to shrink or even - horror of horrors - close down.
My usual thanks to you Detlef for your writings.
Dan
If one of the projects on which we worked in the WASH sector was so successful that our support was no longer needed, surely, this means that no funding is required any longer, and we have worked ourselves out of a job ? Isn't this the ideal outcome in development terms ? If this 'statement' has piqued your interest, hold yourselves in patience as there is an article coming soon. . . . . .
ReplyDeleteWho are the biggest losers from cuts in the aid budgets? Does anyone really doubt that it is the aid industry and those who work in it? The poorest of the poor in Kabila, Nairobi, have not noticed.
ReplyDelete