Where the money goes
I have spent the last couple of weeks back at work, and filled with inexplicable rage. It seems only a few days ago that I was happily sleeping until noon and not giving a thought to what has been happening in the exciting world of international aid. Sadly, it was only a few days ago, and I wish that my Christmas holidays could have been extended a little longer in order to put off the inevitable.
Let me explain. The world of international aid works something like this: charities do their best to run effective programmes, and some are more successful than others. The most successful programmes (measured by how much money gets spent on the programme) get funded, and the least successful (those with the highest overhead costs) get cut. If I told you that Charity X spends 50% of all money donated on overheads, and Charity Y spends 80% of all donations on overheads, everyone would pick Charity X (and complain about the cost of the bloody overheads, to boot).
Now, suppose you're running Charity X. You have a great many programmes and not enough money to continue funding them all. Costs are going up all the time, inflation is ridiculous, and the exchange rates have decided to bend you over the nearest bench without so much as a by-your-leave. So you're trying to decide what gets funded: this governance programme, or that malaria initiative. The malaria initiative involves mosquito nets, and you're shifting tons of the stuff, so it's expensive and you're spending loads more on that than on your staff and office costs. It looks good on paper, because your overheads are low, and your programme costs are high. The governance programme - for instance, working with grassroots organisations to encourage government transparency and accountability - is heavy on people and doesn't have a whole lot of aid money going out, so it looks like a waste of time. So you de-fund the governance programme and pump funds into malaria.
And why not? Malaria is a big issue, and many governments are piss-poor at doing anything about it. The problem is, the reason they don't do anything is partly because the mechanisms of government are so completely bollocked up that sending in direct aid funds is like pouring money down the drain. If the UK government then sends the Dictator of Country A lots of aid funds and asks him nicely to spend it on mosquito nets, don't be surprised if he decides to buy himself some new guns instead. So now you have malaria and guns, which was not the intended result.
What is a better plan is spending that money on building better, more accountable governance structures. CIPFA - the UK public sector accountancy body - is working with the Nigerian government on developing accountability and transparency in government operations. The reason for this is that a better, more accountable government benefits everybody. A better, more accountable government will hopefully prioritise mosquito nets over new tanks (unless you're Mr Cameron, in which case you'll prioritise tax cuts for the wealthy instead of flu jabs for the poor).
Of course, while you and every other aid agency is channeling funds into helping grassroots organisations build better civil societies, there are millions of children dying of malaria because no one coughed up for the bloody nets.
So there you have it. Do you spend your money on a long-term option that will eventually help to bring about robust, accountable governments, or do you try to stop people dying in the meantime?
Answers on a postcard, no longer than 140 characters.
This entry was originally posted at DreamWidth. There are
comments there. Comments are welcome at either journal.
Let me explain. The world of international aid works something like this: charities do their best to run effective programmes, and some are more successful than others. The most successful programmes (measured by how much money gets spent on the programme) get funded, and the least successful (those with the highest overhead costs) get cut. If I told you that Charity X spends 50% of all money donated on overheads, and Charity Y spends 80% of all donations on overheads, everyone would pick Charity X (and complain about the cost of the bloody overheads, to boot).
Now, suppose you're running Charity X. You have a great many programmes and not enough money to continue funding them all. Costs are going up all the time, inflation is ridiculous, and the exchange rates have decided to bend you over the nearest bench without so much as a by-your-leave. So you're trying to decide what gets funded: this governance programme, or that malaria initiative. The malaria initiative involves mosquito nets, and you're shifting tons of the stuff, so it's expensive and you're spending loads more on that than on your staff and office costs. It looks good on paper, because your overheads are low, and your programme costs are high. The governance programme - for instance, working with grassroots organisations to encourage government transparency and accountability - is heavy on people and doesn't have a whole lot of aid money going out, so it looks like a waste of time. So you de-fund the governance programme and pump funds into malaria.
And why not? Malaria is a big issue, and many governments are piss-poor at doing anything about it. The problem is, the reason they don't do anything is partly because the mechanisms of government are so completely bollocked up that sending in direct aid funds is like pouring money down the drain. If the UK government then sends the Dictator of Country A lots of aid funds and asks him nicely to spend it on mosquito nets, don't be surprised if he decides to buy himself some new guns instead. So now you have malaria and guns, which was not the intended result.
What is a better plan is spending that money on building better, more accountable governance structures. CIPFA - the UK public sector accountancy body - is working with the Nigerian government on developing accountability and transparency in government operations. The reason for this is that a better, more accountable government benefits everybody. A better, more accountable government will hopefully prioritise mosquito nets over new tanks (unless you're Mr Cameron, in which case you'll prioritise tax cuts for the wealthy instead of flu jabs for the poor).
Of course, while you and every other aid agency is channeling funds into helping grassroots organisations build better civil societies, there are millions of children dying of malaria because no one coughed up for the bloody nets.
So there you have it. Do you spend your money on a long-term option that will eventually help to bring about robust, accountable governments, or do you try to stop people dying in the meantime?
Answers on a postcard, no longer than 140 characters.
This entry was originally posted at DreamWidth. There are
comments there. Comments are welcome at either journal.