Given the golden jubilee of the poem, I thought it fitting to re-introduce it to our community. You may ponder about its relevance today:
Excuse me, friends, I must catch my jet
I’m off to join the Development Set;
My bags are packed, and I’ve had all my shots
I have traveller’s checks and pills for the trots!
The Development Set is bright and noble
Our thoughts are deep and our vision global;
Although we move with the better classes
Our thoughts are always with the masses.
In Sheraton Hotels in scattered nations
We damn multi-national corporations;
injustice seems easy to protest
In such seething hotbeds of social rest.
We discuss malnutrition over steaks
And plan hunger talks during coffee breaks.
Whether Asian floods or African drought,
We face each issue with open mouth.
We bring in consultants whose circumlocution
Raises difficulties for every solution —
Thus guaranteeing continued good eating
By showing the need for another meeting.
The language of the Development Set
Stretches the English alphabet;
We use swell words like “epigenetic”
“Micro”, “macro”, and “logarithmetic”
It pleasures us to be esoteric —
It’s so intellectually atmospheric!
And although establishments may be unmoved,
Our vocabularies are much improved.
When the talk gets deep and you’re feeling numb,
You can keep your shame to a minimum:
To show that you, too, are intelligent
Smugly ask, “Is it really development?”
Or say, “That’s fine in practice, but don’t you see:
It doesn’t work out in theory!”
A few may find this incomprehensible,
But most will admire you as deep and sensible.
Development set homes are extremely chic,
Full of carvings, curios, and draped with batik.
Eye-level photographs subtly assure
That your host is at home with the great and the poor.
Enough of these verses – on with the mission!
Our task is as broad as the human condition!
Just pray god the biblical promise is true:
The poor ye shall always have with you.
Well, nothing much seem to have changed. The aid industry is still trying to work itself out of the job. Except that traveller cheques have been replaced by the Visa Gold Card.
But wait. Technology has become better. Here are two new verses to bring the "The Development Set"up to speed:
Fifty years have passed us by,
Now cell phones help us testify.
We selfie, tweet and LinkedIn post
The meetings where we saved the host.
Our messages proclaim success,
Our photographs confirm progress,
We’ve never been so well connected,
And never less results detected.
As retirees and separatees we finally stopped traveling around the world telling poor countries what they should do and how they should change. Perhaps we should follow Ross Coggin's lead and try to convince the rich countries in which we live to change the policies and behaviors that prevent the poorest nations from prospering.
The image is fake.More Insights from Outside the Bubble, by Detlef Palm
Write to Detlef: detlefpalm55@gmail.com
Perhaps the poem remains relevant because the aid industry is still busy working itself out of a job.
ReplyDeleteDevelopment has become a vast global industry with its own institutions, careers, conferences, consultants, and vocabulary. NGOs are often headed by failed politicians whose Rolodexes are still up to date. Failure does not lead to closure. It produces a new strategy, a larger programme, another conference, and demands for more money.
After fifty years, we should stop claiming that poverty is primarily something rich countries inflict upon poor ones. Rich countries certainly pursue selfish and sometimes damaging policies. But what, exactly, are they doing that forces governments in poor countries to tolerate corruption, destroy institutions, repress enterprise, neglect education, discourage investment, wage wars and allow ruling elites to plunder national wealth?
The truth is that many poor countries are doing a good job of holding themselves back. Countries that established competent governments, protected property, educated their populations, and encouraged enterprise have advanced. Those that did not have remained poor, however much aid they received.
Yet the development establishment continually shifts responsibility elsewhere. Colonialism, capitalism, multinational companies, unfair trade, climate change, and rich-country policies. This may be relevant, but they have also become an inexhaustible supply of excuses. Blaming outsiders is a lot safer than confronting the governments and elites responsible for failure at home.
Our task as retirees should not be to continue telling rich countries that they are the principal cause of poverty. It should be to tell the truth about fifty years of disappointing results.
The final line of Coggins’s poem was not a joke. The continued existence of the poor is the business model, and we have not detected it.
Thanks for this. This poem will continue with many new verses.. A donor report these days now only needs a link to a YouTube clip - of kids in weighing scales smiling after their plump nut. No need to mention the chunk of change that went to the UNRC system or New York or Regional office or country office or zonal office before that dollar landed.
ReplyDeleteAnd I tend to agree with Thomas - the tired excuses of why government don't collect revenue, don't allocate to social sectors, and do allow corruption - is not the fault of development jet set. In most countries I worked in the last 2 decades the percent of national budget coming from external donors in the places I worked is between 1 to 15 % while the rest is mainly domestic revenue collection and tariffs and some loans. Of course the UN share of this tiny slice is a very tiny tiny slice. I hardly think this donor slice has pushed the entire Ministry of Finance into a tail spin of corruption. Nor has whatever legacy of colonialism from 60+ years ago pushed governments into a corner. Sure we need responsible donors and UN agencies and IFIs - but the ultimate responsibility for looking after their own people - is the governments where we have worked. And if they had collected revenue, reigned in corruption and allocated funds to social sectors - they could have told us all to go to hell several decades ago. So why did they let us stay? Why game were they playing?
ReplyDeleteDetlef says, " We should convince the rich countries in which we live to change the policies and behaviors that prevent the poorest nations from prospering." What exactly are these policies and behaviors that need to change? And how come South Korea, Singapore, and Botswana, to take three examples, were not adversely affected by these policies?
ReplyDeleteI hope this will not become yet another missed opportunity. In the run-up to the election next week, I am in daily contact with Swedish politicians from across the political spectrum.
DeleteI would very much like to tell them which policies and behaviours need to change. But frankly, I do not know what those changes should be. I have not the foggiest idea. Please enlighten me.
This is particularly important because, according to the polls, the left is likely to win the election—and it wants Sweden to return to spending 1 per cent of GDP on foreign aid. Unless politicians understand precisely what must change, much of that money may once again be wasted.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpend that 1% GDP in ODA on public health, girls' education and women's economic empowerment - the only three things that are sure to work, done right. And build local delivery systems and workers' skills as the main focus of that, so you can transition out over 7 - 10 years. And if possible - it's far from easy! - try to leverage that support to incentivize revenue-raising for future funding of these delivery systems. For a start, push governments hard to tax the hell out of poison foods and drinks that make children obese and sick for life.
ReplyDeleteAs for Botswana - yes, it worked for 45 years until world demand for mined diamonds began to collapse. Now the country needs other ways to earn a living, urgently. Luckily it still has a decent and capable government, it seems.
But to deliver that 1 % of ODA the development actors likely spend 30 to 50 % on themselves before it ever gets to girls education or public health. Why fritter that half of a % away on that when governments KNOW that needs to be done, how much it costs, and what is entailed? UNICEF and others funded, piloted and evaluated these things exhaustively over the last 50 years - so what is keeping host government from shifting a meagre 1 % of their national budgets towards what would be great for their people rather than towards elaborate travel to global meetings, housing for military brass, and hefty parliamentarians salaries - in some cases that exceed those in donor countries? I am not arguing that the things suggested don't work - we know they do - and so do the governments that turn a blind eye to them and never fund them. So what is the hold up? When do we pull the plug?
DeleteI was working with Ministry of Finance once in country x trying to track our cash advances - to see where they landed as we had to use the government systems to disburse funds. I was somehow shocked to discover that more than 50 % of the local government budget was spent on housing (they built housing for the higher up local government staff), vehicles, travel allowances and they even had a line for staff to buy clothing so they could look nice. I could not find the small drops left for children after all that "overhead" was spent. What prevented them from shaving a few shillings off this overhead on things that boost enrollment, give girls a leg up, reduce child mortality and prepare youth for employment?
DeleteRob, one per cent is not “meagre.” You are also confusing one per cent of GDP with one per cent of the government budget. Sweden’s aid target is one per cent of GDP. That consumes over two per cent of the public budget. That is a substantial commitment.
DeleteIt is also rather striking for an American to describe one per cent as meagre when the United States has historically provided only a small fraction of one per cent of its GDP.
But on the central issue, I agree with you. After 50 years of pilots, evaluations, conferences and consultants, governments do not need UNICEF to tell them that girls should attend school and children should be vaccinated. They know.
The anonymous account tells us exactly what is preventing action. More than half of a local government budget went to houses for senior officials, vehicles, travel allowances and even clothing. Children received the drops left over. That was not a shortage of knowledge or donor advice. It was a deliberate choice.
Worse still, aid often enables such behaviour. Donors finance health and education, allowing governments to devote more of their own money to privileges, patronage, military and foreign travel.
At some point, assistance must become conditional on governments changing their own spending priorities. If political leaders will not “shave a few shillings” from official housing and other privileges, outsiders cannot manufacture development on their behalf.
Thomas - to be more clear I meant donor budgets (ODA) were just 1 % to 14% of total national budget of recipient government - Not GdP. So for government to fill that gap -,was not monumental-,especially since about half that ODA stays with donors in some form of overhead or strings attached procurement. I was also the anonymous who spent a huge amount of time with ministry of finance and local governments to track funding line by line
DeleteRob, thank you for the clarification. I misunderstood your reference to one per cent.
DeleteYour central point is persuasive: if ODA represents only 1–14 per cent of a recipient government’s budget and half never reaches the intended beneficiaries, the amount governments would need to replace is manageable. Your work tracing expenditure gives weight to your conclusion: the obstacle is not a lack of knowledge or money, but the priorities governments choose.
Richard, public health, girls’ education, and women’s empowerment are all worthwhile objectives. But they have been around for decades. The qualification “done right” is the catch. Programmes that fail can always be explained away as having been done wrongly.
ReplyDeleteNor do these measures create prosperity by themselves. Healthy and educated people still need employment. That requires economic growth, private enterprise, property rights, investment, trade and good governance. I therefore favour aid that helps countries build those foundations.
However, my original question was different. Detlef suggested that we should persuade rich countries to change “the policies and behaviours that prevent the poorest nations from prospering.” That is a substantial claim, and I am still asking for concrete examples.
Rich countries certainly pursue protectionism, impose trade restrictions, tolerate tax avoidance, sell arms, and support convenient dictators. These practices should be identified and changed. But that is different from blaming rich countries for poor countries' remaining poor.
If Detlef can name the specific policies. I will gladly take them to Swedish politicians. But “rich-country policies” cannot become yet another explanation that relieves poorly governed countries of responsibility for corruption, repression, war, and destructive economic policies.
After half a century in development, we must move beyond generalities. What exactly must Sweden change, and what evidence shows that this would make poor countries richer?
Thomas, the point is not to find the single cause for everything. For sure, governance in many developing countries must improve. But the playing field must be levelled.
DeleteYou named some of the named the practices that need to change in rich nations: protectionism, impose trade restrictions, tolerate tax avoidance, sell arms, and support convenient dictators. For example, Western tech companies make billions, also from their profits made in the rest in the world, without paying taxes in those countries. Patent rights control production of and access to essential goods. Trumpism is the pinnacle of inconsiderate and unfair international relations.
The Matthew effect refers to the phenomenon where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Globally, it describes how initial advantages—such as wealth or social capital—compound over time, giving countries who start ahead an increasingly larger advantage over others, creating a widening gap between those who have capital and those who do not.
Developed nations possess superior infrastructure, established institutions, technology, and financial capital. This allows them to attract the world's best talent and investments, leaving developing nations struggling against structural brain drain, high borrowing costs, and disadvantageous trade terms. Without intervention, free markets reward existing capital, making wealth concentration mathematically inevitable.
Ideas have been discussed: Supporting local value addition, enforcing global tax minimums. My favourite is the mobilization of private investments in developing countries through de-risking, using funds hitherto used on aid. Green transitions, such as building massive solar grids in developing countries require trillions of dollars, but private investors tend to avoid developing nations due to high "country risk" premiums. Most importantly, such investments require a ‘fair deal’ as for example described in my article on Albania hydropower.
Detlef, rich countries sometimes behave disgracefully. Trump’s transactional view of international relations is a case in point.
DeleteThe Matthew effect is the same as the dependency theories touted by the far left in the 1960s: rich countries become richer because they possess capital, while poor countries are condemned to poverty because the system is stacked against them. History has proven that wrong.
China was desperately poor. Vietnam was not only poor but devastated by war. South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore also began with very little capital. But they achieved extraordinary growth by building capabilities and integrating into global markets. China and Vietnam advanced rapidly after moving away from socialism, allowing private enterprise, welcoming foreign capital, and producing for world markets. Their initial poverty did not make it “mathematically inevitable" to remain poor.
Poor countries do not need to remain victims forever, and rich countries do not have any mechanism that prevents others from catching up. Over recent decades, hundreds of millions of people have escaped poverty in countries that entered global markets.
Nor is “country risk” an unfair premium invented by rich investors to keep the poor down. Investors charge more when contracts may not be enforced, currencies are unstable, governments may confiscate assets, corruption is pervasive, or policies change overnight.
Of course, rich countries should remove indefensible barriers, curb tax evasion, and stop sustaining dictators. But developing countries must take responsibility for development within their borders. China and Vietnam demonstrate that national policies can overcome a weak starting point.
What you say does not validate your “everybody for himself” theory. You don’t prove or refute a law with anecdotes. A level playing field and fair dealings with each other matter.
DeleteBut it seems we do agree on the key points:
1. Of course, developing countries, as everyone, should get their own house in order.
2. Rich countries should remove indefensible barriers, curb tax evasion by companies in countries where they operate, stop sustaining dictators, trade and invest fairly and – to say it with Stubb, whom you admire – "A multilateral world makes the common good a self-interest."
It's not one or the other. It is both.
Detlef, China, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are not anecdotes. They are among the greatest economic transformations in history, involving billions of people. More importantly, one good counterexample can disprove a supposed universal law. Five major counterexamples demolish the claim that countries starting without capital are mathematically condemned to remain poor.
DeleteThe “Matthew effect” may describe a tendency under certain conditions. It is not an economic law. If it were, poor countries could never catch up. Yet some have done precisely that, while others have stagnated. The decisive difference cannot be only the starting position. Institutions, economic policy, education, governance and openness to trade and investment matter enormously.
You have also retreated to a much weaker and obvious position: countries should behave fairly toward one another. Of course they should. Rich countries should remove unjustifiable trade barriers, combat tax evasion and stop supporting dictators as I pointed out.
None of what you have flagged proves that developing countries are poor because rich countries keep them down. Nor does multilateralism absolve governments of responsibility for corruption, confiscation, failed economic policies, weak institutions, or capital flight.
So yes, both sides have responsibilities. That is my argument. That is not a validation of the Matthew effect or the dependency theory. A level playing field matters, but those playing on it must still understand the game, follow the rules, and know how to play.
I tried to post this earlier so apologies if it appears twice. I have been sending this poem to development studies students since the 1980s as a warning to alert them to the complexities of being an 'international development worker'. and to think careflully about what they are doing and who they are vis a vis the communites they are working with .My favourite part of the poem is the reflection on how homes became ethnographic museums. Perhaps that was a real contribution...the amount folks spent on buying up arts and crafts and other local items, some perhaps never seen again in the country. Some artists may have reached fame later on, others never, whilst their very brilliant work sits on some wall many thousands of miles away. Many countries have been slow to get their heritage museums up and running and meanwhile there may be many very precious historical carvings and other items which have longe since left the country and arrived in the crates of the next tax free duty station. Look in your attics before you next go to Sotheby,'s a vital contribution of retirees could be restitution and helping restore some precious item back to a national museum. (Angela R-R)
ReplyDeleteAngela, thank you. Your suggestion that we should clean out our attics before going to Sotheby’s is both amusing and serious. Returning important objects could be a worthwhile contribution by former aid workers.
DeleteAlso, I would add another assignment for students of development: study not only the complexities of development work, but also the question of why so much aid has produced so little development.
After more than sixty years, most of the countries that have received most of the aid have not caught up with the rest of the world. Some have fallen further behind. Students should ask questions that the aid community often avoids: Can aid weaken accountability? Can aid allow governments to neglect their own people? Can aid sustain corrupt or authoritarian leaders by providing money and legitimacy?
Perhaps the poem’s main lesson is that we should ask ourselves if our presence was helping those communities or if we preserved the systems that keep them poor.