I may not be best placed to say this, as an expat wife living in Africa - but when I hear on the radio that the new UK Government have pledged NOT to cut foreign aid to developing countries, but instead will look to make cuts in other areas of public spending (IE nurses pay), my blood boils. In fact, absolutely HUGE cuts can be made in development budgets. After eleven years of living around here, I know that the sheer waste in this area makes you want to cry.
Having spent time working in the UK Department for International Development in Africa (as local hire) - I have seen this. Overpaid UK consultants spend tax payers money on personal allowances, breather visits, business class flights. They are cushioned from the society they are supposed to be working in. They get driven around by drivers in air-conditioned pool cars and 'work with local governments' ie. wait around for meetings, talk the talk, walk the walk. But what do they actually achieve? Sadly, they very often just make the very rich, even richer - then get posted on to somewhere else.
Complacent, perhaps sometimes complicit and without adequate purpose invested in their work life, consultants find themselves endlessly whinging about which colleague has the nicest rented house, or the latest DFID funded furnishings, or who has a swimming pool. Small things take on large importance. Work wise, all they have to do is spend taxpayers' money and when that goes astray, or huge amounts get shockingly stolen, then it's a pat on the back and,
'Oh well, you did your best mate. Never mind. If you feel blue, then how about shifting to another overseas posting for a cushy life in the sun?'
Last weekend I spoke to someone who works at DFID now - she says the situation is the same as when I worked there. Apparently consultants have recently been told that they don't get to fly business class any more (they are furious) - but she said, so many more cuts can be made! It's still a shocking state of affairs where money flies around and is wasted.
Aid to developing nations in Africa does not work.
Everybody shouts this staring fact from the roof tops but the message is simply not getting through to anyone. Not Bono, not Bob Geldof. I guess that the root of the problem is that policy makers in UK and the USA simply have no personal experience of the overseas development gravy train.
The situation now is that overseas aid has fostered a hand-out culture in developing nations which has now tragically become a way of life from top to bottom. Local people who have spent decades watching foreigners with foreign ideas come and go with devastating speed, have become understandably mercenary about this - and have become dishonest, taking what they can from the situation while it lasts. The aid giver is usually shocked that locals are willing to take money from a needy cause and profit from it - but after all this time, I can actually understand it.
I know why the UK Government has pledged not to cut foreign aid budgets. It's for the popularity vote. Saying 'don't give them anything' is mean and to say, 'a kinder thing to do would be NOT to give' will not win votes. But this decision is madness and again shows that there is not much understanding of the situation.
You know how it is. When someone shakes a tin at you and asks you to give to a charity, it's very hard to say no. There are adverts on TV showing a poor African child and they say;
'just £10 or $10 will make all the difference to this child's life - (and by the way, there you are wasting your money on frivolous things so you can feel guilty too!)'
But the problem is so much more complex. In this case, because so little money ever reaches the people who need it most (because of all the intermediaries who have made collecting aid money a way of life) money can and has made lives worse.
I know, because there is normally someone outside our supermarket doing just this.
'please give to our small project promoting HIV awareness amongst school children' etc. etc. etc.
I have absolutely no problem with this - unless....... and I'm going to be totally frank here, unless there is a white face behind it. And that is where things go very skewed.
This is the reality: What you may not know is that most projects in Kenya, and there are absolutely thousands of them, last less than five years. Foreigners tend to helicopter in and out for short periods trying to do good work, get disillusioned, find they are getting systematically ripped off by canny, worldly wise local intermediaries then they bail out. It's rare to see foreigners make a long term go of a project - and generally, a charity or project only works effectively when somebody is willing to give up their normal life overseas and dig in for the long haul - giving total, on-hand, 100% commitment.
There is a cycle: - A foreigner arrives in a developing country wants terribly to 'help' - enthused, they set up a project and manage fairly easily to raise money - then things start going wrong - money is wasted or stolen - their personal security is compromised - the authorities bully and try to close you down (usually targeting the soft touch in search of a bribe) - the giver is tired, but still tries to make it work - more time passes, more threats, more wastage and finally the project is closed down and everybody goes back to the way they were before, but next time, a little harded by the experience.
I mustn't rant anymore - sorry everyone. I don't mean to be a terrible cynic but there are very much better ways of helping and really Britain needs to sort out it's dreadful deficit. So why not cut the handouts and work on Trade not Aid?

Well said!!!, One would think that after all the years of aid, since I can remeber..( being born in 1978 in Kenya), that things would have changed greatly by now. Aid money is pocketed and mis-used just like you said. I think the only thing that actually worked was when Prince Charles ( I could be wrong,may have been the queen), helped build the BuruBuru estates.., my parents bought our very frist town home there and it was just a georgeous neighbourhood with paved roads, sidewalks..flowers...and picket fences..Today it's over congested and a sore to look at but back then...., it was aid money well spent.
ReplyDeleteGreat Blog, Completely Agree. I've just moved back to London from Nairobi and also witnessed first hand the experienced that you mention.
ReplyDeleteFantastic piece and so spot on! I have seen the same thing in Asia and the Pacific. Private investment/trade is what is needed. Peace Dividend Trust are great at this, they develop small local businesses.
ReplyDeleteGreat insights! I live in a rural village about an hour and twenty minutes from Eldoret. My husband and I struggle to make ends meet while we work to make a difference in our area. I'm a Nurse Practitioner and my Kenyan husband is in agriculture and community development.
ReplyDeleteIt drives me crazy that big corporations and politicians prey on people's generosity for their own benefit. Then as people become wise to them it hurts people like my husband and I who really are trying to make a difference.
Michelle and AEHW, i feel your frustrations and we as kenyans feel them. It always amazes me how much money the UK and other countries are prepared to pump into these projects without demanding tangible results. I used to work for an accounts office of a conferencing company in the UK. One big organisation based in kenya held an event to show what a difference a well in kenya had helped the local comunity. I know from experience that a similar well can be dug by 2 kenyans in 2 - 3 weeks for about 10,000 /= (100 pounds)tops, as we had a similar one dug back home in kenya. The ionvoice for the conference was around 4500 pounds (Room hire and catering)plus they had managed to fly in a local kenayn woman to smile and tell of the wonderful things the well had done for her comunity. It just seemed wrong
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this is that the UK govt will never listen to you and me. We don’t matter enough. They will only listen to the 'appropriately educated' aid org guy who has a 'wealth of experience' on this matter. Clearly most of these guys know they are on to a good thing and the worse they make the place look, the more money they get for it and the more allowances they can claim for it. This is more a problem of the current system and a Gullible UK public who feel that giving a small amount to that hungry child in Africa vindicated their excessive consumer culture. Every one wins except the real victim.
ReplyDeleteBTW Most kenyans are with you on this one.
well said, better still to hear it from the expat point of view. friends working in the U.N admit the same deficiencies exist, and the obsession with big cars and better houses.
ReplyDeleteon graduating from med school here, i was told 'you should specialise in HIV care, that's where the money is' i.e that's where all the N.G.O's channel funds people can access and misuse in the name of helping the community.
and yes, a white face behind any initiative today is highly suspect
I really enjoy your posts. I'm from California a border state and we have a lot of programs to so called help the needy. I am not part of the needy yet not part of the well off. Yet I do see my taxes go to these programs.Case in point, I live in predominately Mexican community. We have many low income health programs and services that are bilingual, yet as I penny pinch for my groceries, I consistently see women dressed to the nines holding 2-3 children and holding a wic (woman infant children) voucher food or an EBT card (cash/foodstamps)...I think wow I have to pay for this?
ReplyDeleteAll of the above is true-However indefense of non profits, the circulation of the money results in the improvement of the locals from the driver, the waiter in the fancy restaurant, to the farmer-not directly but indirectly all the locals benefit from outside investments-Not the impact on would wish-but I choose to see the cup as half full kind of thing... for example the people who were employed in the building of the Buru Buru estates etc
ReplyDeleteI was going to go back and tone down this post - but then we had no power for three days, so I sort of didn't get the chance. However, I've been really impressed by the amount of agreement on this issue that these comments have shown.
ReplyDeleteI know that there are plenty of people doing good work here and didn't mean to be quite so negative - I just think that foreign govs throwing money at their own consultants in 'hardship' postings is very often just more money in the wrong hands.
Thanks for commenting!! Love it!
Thought you'd be interested to know that Andrew Mitchell, new UK Secretary of State for International Development, announced in 2008 that all DfID staff would be required to undertake a week-long immersion living in a poorer community:
ReplyDelete"These immersions will serve as a valuable ‘reality check’ from the usual round of meetings, paperwork and spreadsheets. It will help keep everyone at DfID focused on their core mission: serving and helping poor people to work their way, sustainably, out of poverty."
Let's hope the Conservatives / Lib Dem Alliance implement this proposal.
Jon
Totally, 110% in agreement.
ReplyDeleteA western govt. also gives aid so that it can have some influence with the local govt. If it des not give aid, but others do, it loses out. Cutting out aid has to be a co-ordinated effort (involving lots of meetings and conferences first...). Influence is important when local governments can behave capricously with your citizens resident in their countries or your companies doing business there.
ReplyDeleteAlso, now that a place like Kenya has a middle class with a voice, why don't they urge their govt. and their organisations not to acccept/invite aid? Why does the initiative always have to come from outside?
Hello, my name is Stephen Wigmore, I'm from England and thinking and planning to go into working with development charities. This is a really interesting post, I was just wondering if you could answer a few questions.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, are not some of the things you mention problems of execution rather than principle. At least as far as too much money being spent of consultants goes? Surely the problem is crappy government oversight rather than the principle of aid? Though I know how difficult these things are to change. I look at the waste in areas of government or corporate expenditure here.
Secondly, do you think that organisation like Christian Aid, which (at least claim) to solely work with projects started and run by local people on the ground in developing countries, then basically acting as a source of funding and admnistrative support/government lobbying skills/etc, is a better way of getting results or does it have the same problems?
Thirdly, I completely agree about the importance of supporting trade not aid, but isn't there a case for possibly just redirecting aid resources to that end, rather than just cutting their budget? From this end it seems likely that cuts would just be on block, they would just cut programs rather than necessarily cutting waste. IF Development money could be used more efficiently supporting industrial development and lobbying for free trade then all for the good, but isn't that again a problem of principle rather than execution?
Also, unless I've got my sums wrong, development money from the UK government amounts to about £10 billion, unless we just totally scrap the entire budget, it's not going to make more than a minor difference to cuts that need to be made elsewhere, since we need to find about £50 billion over the next 5 years.
Would appreciate your thoughts on these. Thanks very much.
Steve
Thanks for all the comments. I will attempt to address Stephen's.
ReplyDeleteI admit, I wrote a rather high handed post so not surprised it has raised lots of questions.
1. Yes, overseas government and private company consultants are often awarded vast packages which would not be commercially viable if you were expected to meet this costs by running a 'real' business on a profit and loss basis.
Perhaps head offices approve these salaries/perks based on the fact that they are simply grateful that anyone would be willing to leave their home country and live in 'hardship' postings.
The reality is that often the expat life is not so hard and the development packages are completely out of kilter with what anyone in the private sector can justify to their bosses.
The expat aid consultant's life is often cushioned by large organisations too - they may not even be aware of how much their lifestyle is costing. Everything is laid on and micro managed by the umbrella organisation, from cars with diplomatic plates, to private school fees paid for, flights, breather visits, household bills.
While it is nice to have all this money flowing in the local economy - in the long run, I doubt its helping in the fight to get Kenya stand on its own two feet.
2. Using local people on the ground is fine as long as there are proper checks and balances in place and the thing is managed properly. Can anyone in head office ever be bothered to do this - check how much a bag of maize costs, or how much a lorry travelling to Eldoret might charge? (as you might in a commercial business)
The wider problem with funnelling aid money into places like Kenya means that the local government just rely on foreign aid to address very basic problems - water supply, sanitation, HIV, Malaria, access to medical help, which I cannot help and Kenyans cannot help but feel outraged by.
An outside source funding free education in the country and addresssing health issues leaves local Government ministers at leisure to concoct schemes to line their own pockets. The opportunity is never far away.
The local Government is also largely made up of old faces and dynastic families who have been in power since independence and know all the shortcuts to attaining incredible wealth through pumping the aid system to their own advantage. It's dog eat dog.
Any charity has certain hoops to jump through locally in order to be 'legal' and operational. These systems are often abused by local city council who bully and cuts/backhanders/bribes are taken in the process. It seems that nobody can get through the process 'clean'.
3. I do believe firmly in not just trade but micro-finance, vocational training, entrepreneurship, youth employment etc. All these methods raise people up and feed into the economy, giving help where it's needed - but not just providing handouts or gifts that are now expected on many levels.
I also believe in the generosity of the human spirit. There are some fabulous charities run by committed foreigners - doing really great - and really tough work that it takes great guts to take on. While they are operational, they do good but unfortunately, I feel sure that many 'burn out' only too soon and such organisations have come to be the exception rather than the rule. Better to provide training through employment for a person perhaps?
Spot on. The waste is just sickening. Don't apologize for the piece, you said all that needs to be said
ReplyDeleteThanks very much for taking the time to reply to my comments. It is very interesting to hear from someone who has experience of viewing these issues from the ground
ReplyDeleteSteve.
I dont agree with your article because it confuses many different types of aid or charity and the practitioners.
ReplyDeleteYou move from consultants at DFID, but base your comments on benefits which are available to permanent employees, to charities, about which you simply assert that money does not reach those who need it and that it makes things worse. Both these are assumptions, born of prejudice, fuelled by the outrage built-up in your opening paragraphs with regard to some who I admit may seem over-paid, under-worked and hopelessly priveleged.
You argue that the situation is too complex to be affected by indivuals giving small amounts of money, without mentioning that most larger international non-governmental organisations work on the basis of combining those contributions into programmes, including elements of advocacy, policy change and campaigning, that have been effective, and have been proved to be effective, in saving and improving many current and future lives in many different situations.
You say that most projects last less than five years, without realising that this is not in itself a good way of measuring what impact or sustainability a particular project may have.
You seem unaware that most of UKAID is not in fact spent on the employment of practitioners - only a tiny proportion - with most going either to governments in the form of budget support or to non-governmental organisations who in turn run the programmes and are held to account for the results and the cost.
I would not deny there is waste, or that things could not be done better: an analysis of the UK funding of the free primary education in Kenya is a case in point; but your post is flawed by the polemical approach you take at the start and return to periodically throughout.
Having talked about charities you then seem to equate all of them with what you have witnessed in relation to those established by westerners in Kenya, ignoring that there are many different types, specialisations, sizes and origins of charities, including indigenous; and,one could hazard, good and bad, or more or less efficient and effective?
Lastly there is no evidence that aid has created a hand-out culture in developing nations; this is a common myth, and is a disservice to ordinary people in developing countries who I doubt would feel dependent upon foreign aid. A cursory glance at the total amount of money spent by DFID in Kenya vis a vis the overall Kenyan Government budget would tell you this.
Arguing from the particular (that people in DFID are overpaid in your opinion) to the general (that UKAID is a waste of money and should be cut) is rather missing the point.
I think that the UK Government, which has the reputation of being the best government donor on many counts (such as untying all aid so that it can be spent most effectively) should be commended for continuing to increase its UKAID budget.
By all means call for greater scrutiny, and further improvements on how aid is delivered; but please base your arguments on a more critical analysis and less personal anecdote.
Hi Neil,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your feedback.
Having been fairly open and honest about my position, I wonder, are you a Dfid employee, or involved in the aid industry or politics on a broader level?
While my blog post is admittedly peppered with anecdotes, I feel that your comment seems to be based more on theory than practise? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I will agree that attacking Dfid consultants and charities in general in Kenya is too vague an approach. Apologies for that.
However, the whole point of this piece was to draw attention to the fact that THERE IS A MAJOR PROBLEM HERE!
Since independence, the majority of Kenyans have got poorer so clearly something is not working.
on June 3rd, the local papers reported that Shs500 million earmarked for IDPs, (Kenyans left homeless by post-election violence) turns out to have been stolen by provincial administration officials and senior government officials. Looking at the comments online, ordinary Kenyans are once more outraged ... and helpless.
This story may not be directly linked to Dfid funding(the primary education fund scandal was)but it is yet another example to illustrate that the hand-out culture (and there most definitely is one!) is being vastly abused - regularly - from top to bottom.
Pilfering from government funds is made easier by aid money pouring into the country year after year, with not enough checks and balances in place. It's all too easy to milk the system and lets face it, Kenyan politicians and people in authority have got very good at it. They seem to have no qualms about stealing from the less fortunate and most steal with impunity.
Sadly, these news headlines are by no means rare. New scandals/stories of theft from public finances come to light monthly. I can hardly bear to read them.
Plus, I'd like to point out that in Kenya, NGOs are considered by many (Kenyans) as a joke, since they come and go with startling regularity and the majority acheive very little. A friend who lives in Kibera said,
'We see these big, shiny NGO vehicles coming to Kibera, there's an important man, they set up an office, then a couple of years later the office disappears and we people have seen no benefits. For us, life in Kibera just stays the same.'
To go to your last point, I did not say that people in developing nations feel dependent on foreign aid. Far from it - I think that people in developing nations feel crippled by foreign aid because it's holding back the country's development.
On the other hand, foreign investment and trade with favourable terms helps development.
The UK government throwing aid money at Kenya is a mess, so unlike you, I do not commend them for doing this continually. The money is NOT spent effectively and by all accounts has never been.
Years ago my father-in-law was told by a friend in government, 'we know that 85% of aid money in Africa goes astray - but we do it because at least some of it is getting through.' As a teacher working very hard in a Kenyan university just after independence, he was furious at this shockingly wasteful attitude.
My argument is that Claire Short and Tony Blair were wrong. A new approach is drastically needed to lift Kenya out of grand scale corruption.
DIFID - where you can get a posting to some exotic location (Cambodia in this case) on a tax free salary, business class flights for the family (well that was the case few years ago), a large house with pool, maid, gardener, security guard, a car, international schooling for your sprog - all you need to do while you are living the life of Riley is fly to conferences, write some papers, make recommendations, atend meetings, implement some policies, talk the talk and then your 4 years is up. Meanwhile your spouse has used your diplomatic contacts to build up his own practice (architect in this case) and at the end of your contract what has really been achieved. Value for money I don't think so - 4 years has probably cost the tax payer around £500k for a lot of hot air. The people I really admire are those who go out and live like the locals, on small budgets and actually implement practical changes which make a difference to ordinary peoples lives.
ReplyDelete