Sunday 16 August 2015

Where does the aid go?

In my last post I asked what you'd like me to look for during my forthcoming trip to Nepal - and one question recurred: Where is the aid going? Is it reaching the people who really need it? (This elephant-in-the-room word is corruption.)

I think it's impossible to approach such questions without clarifying my own ethical position regarding aid in the Developing World, and where it might end up. So here, for what it's worth, are my views on the whys and wherefores of 'corruption'.

For starters, let's unpick the word. If 50 tents arrive in Kathmandu and only 25 reach the people they're meant for - that is corruption? Or theft? In India, millions of tons of grain - set aside for the poor - goes missing every year, and nothing happens. Corruption? Or theft? In the Congo, poorly paid workers refuse to drive a machine that will haul a huge tractor from a trailer without a back-hander. Bribes? Or a tip that recognises they have so little and can barely feed their families.

In the West, the banks steal millions of pounds of our money, and nothing happens. Corruption? Or commerce? The government sells Royal Mail for next to nothing. Corruption? Or foolishness? The local town council grants planning permission for the mayor to build an extension to his house while refusing it to a neighbour. Corruption? Local politics?

I think we need to be careful before we point fingers at the Developing Countries. We live in a world where there are many who will exploit the miseries of others. This doesn't make it right - but let's not pretend it doesn't happen just as much in the First World.

So - what do to about it? We can, of course, jump up and down, point fingers, complain - and it's right that such abuses are talked about. It is global ethical issue, and needs a global discussion.

And we can refuse to give to aid organisations, for fear that our cash will end up in someone's back pocket and not where we want it to go.

But who does that actually help?

Let's just say you've donated money for two tents for the destitute of Kathmandu. One will get through - so there will be one family who have shelter who were in the rain last night. The other tent 'disappears' - and will be sold - to whom? The aid agency? There may be a few links along the way, a backhander here and there, but eventually your tent will probably make it. Money, of course, 'disappears' more easily than tents. But some will make its way back into the economy.

Personally, I prefer to support small organisations (at home and overseas) - often run by people I know and trust. That doesn't mean there is never a little 'leakage' but many tiny NGOs rely on passing donations just to keep a roof over heads. They are more likely to be run by local people in response to local need - and so not dictated to by First World agencies with western belief systems.

The bit I feel most strongly about is our collective responsibility to do something. If we simply wring our hands about corruption, allowing the knowledge that our entire contribution might not reach its destination to cripple our thinking, we abandon those in real need. We might not like some of the shenanigans between us and them, but that is not their problem - and it is one we can do nothing about.

There is no point in a fight you can't win. It is right to questions, challenge and condemn those who exploit the vulnerable. But we should not let a preoccupation with them paralyse us, nor stand in the way of our compassion. The destitute still need us.


11 comments:

  1. A very apposite post..I agree that we have no right to point the finger at developing countries when WE (or some of us) are utterly greedy and corrupt. Like you, I prefer to donate to small charities, or to individual missionaries I know who are going out to work in a poorer country. When D was in Afghanistan, she used to go back from leave loaded with clothes, books etc for the girls' orphanage she visited. That's probably th best way to do it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Carol - great that you've obviously found the best way that works for you. And not given in to the 'no point in giving anything cos it just ends up in someone pocket' brigade.

      Delete
  2. I think you've presented a good take on it, Jo. I also prefer to give to small organizations. I was quite annoyed a couple of years ago when I started making monthly contributions to a large NGO -- so they already had a guaranteed donation from me -- and they bombarded me with asks for extra donations and pleas for special causes and intiatives. The paper trail was astounding. And I quit donating to them. I've yet to encounter anything like that with a small organization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Laura. I understand why the big organisations feel a need to bombard us with requests (presumably they work on our guilt - surely we can share a bit of our good fortune), but I agree, it's hugely irritating. If I give to any I do it anonymously now.

      Delete
  3. Good point well made, Jo. We could all do a little more to help the less fortunate and, as you say, if the distributors are corrupt..,well at least some of it finds the correct destination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Ros (I thought you'd agree!!!)

      Delete
  4. Very well said, Jo. I think my biggest problem is not which organisations to give to, but which cause. There are so many desperately needy situations and people, and sadly it's not possible to help them all. I would infinitely prefer be pro-active about these donations, but because of the number of emails I receive from various aid organisations, I end up being reactive to the ones making the most urgent please instead. I now take the attitude that if every little helps in some way, the cumulative effort must eventually be beneficial. I hope so!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Val - I think the important thing is to do something - and you don't let the bewildering number of appeals paralyse you. Reactive it fine!

      Delete
  5. Very thoughtful post. Let's go even one step further back: where do the tents come from? Who manufactured them and are the people who made them getting paid if these tents are donations? I know, picky, but aid is a tricky concept. A good friend of mine who has been working for various NGOs for half of his life once described his work as endless drilling of wells to provide what we thinks is water to people we think need water.
    I realise that there are terrible situations that need our help and that there must always be compassion, I could not do what I do otherwise, none of us could. But ultimately, giving should be second nature regardless of who is fortunate or who is less fortunate, or whose country is corrupt - I mean whose isn't. If I make a donation here in Germany I can set off the amount against my income tax bill. I consider this corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Sabine - and thanks for the reminder that the tent-makers, too, need their place in all this. And I agree, compassion should be second nature (in our dream world, perhaps ...)

      Delete
  6. I do my best to research organisations. I have been giving money for SYria to UNESCO and Medicins sans Frontieres though- both of them big organisations but I have come to the conclusion that there is something to be said for size in emergency relief, given that I don't know anything about what is really going on in a place myself. Still, it is hard.

    ReplyDelete