Donor projects – a balancing act
One of the interesting aspects of writing the “Postcards from Bishkek” is the feedback that I receive. Often people make a comment on one or other points that I have made – sometimes agreeing with me, sometimes taking issue with me. Sometimes, they ask for more information – such as “who is this person Roza Otunbaeva who has just been appointed as President?”. Occasionally, I receive articles from abroad which people think I may not have seen and they think that I would find interesting.
This week I received an article from the Washington Post – you can see it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/AR2010102403375.html – and I was asked for my opinion.
This particular project has proved to be somewhat controversial – here’s a link to one article about it: http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62241
Anyway, as it happens, I have long thought about writing an article about the benefits and drawbacks of receiving aid from the donor community, but I have never got round to it. It’s not a straightforward issue and I haven’t had the right stimulus to give me the impetus to sit down and organize my thoughts. This seemed to be the right moment, and so here are some thoughts on the topic that I put together in reply.
It was an interesting article and I have a lot of sympathy with the author – up to a point. He seems sceptical about this sort of project, (“A July 2010 review of recent USAID inspector general reports covering Pakistan and Afghanistan show that such contracts have trouble producing results”); this project in particular, (“It remains unclear whether the Kyrgyz parliamentary leadership that emerges will accept U.S. help.”); and also in this company, (“USAID selected DAI to run its Kyrgyzstan “Parliamentary Strengthening Program’, without competitive bidding…”, and the discussion about the Afghan project)
Of course, the author could be raising a different issue: Is this a good way to spend American Tax Dollars? I can’t comment on that. That’s an issue for the American government, the Aid agency and the American people. But they do need to be aware of think of the complex of issues that are involved.
There has been a lot of discussion about “overseas aid” … and the BBC programme “From our own Correspondent” has a several reports devoted to the issue – mainly from Africa, but the principles are the same.
Personally, I am not sure how effective a lot of aid projects are … many seem to “fail” but there could be several reasons for this. In some cases the aims and objectives are too “grand”, unrealistic and unreasonable. Some of the “best” projects here in Kyrgyzstan have been small, limited and directly targeted … and not only achieved results, but have had a long lasting effectiveness, setting up self-sustaining mechanisms.
I am thinking in particular of two projects, one Swiss and another American. The Swiss one supported the development of “Community Based Tourism” and the American supported local craftsmen and women. Both have had a real benefit in identifying and developing a source of additional income for people in the poorer, remote regions – thus helping to improve standards of living; opened up areas of the country in ways that would have not have been possible without their work; brought several intangible benefits as a by-product of their work; trained the local people; established self-sustaining mechanisms so that when the project was over the development work could continue – although I don’t think that establishing an organization was actually one of the original aims; involved the locals as real; partners – instead of “dictating” activities, terms and conditions so that they identified with it and felt a sense of ownership; and has proved to be a model which has been copied elsewhere – both within the country and elsewhere, for example in the region.
As an aside: They also had little, if any, connection with the government.
Other projects run into problems – especially with some of the “local partners”. Many have their own perspectives and interests and they don’t always coincide with each other, yet alone with the aims of the donor organization.
There is often a sense of injustice – especially in a country which remembers that it used to be part of a “superpower” – that they are being dictated to, by people who are paid huge sums (in local terms) to travel here (“parachuted in” – with little knowledge, experience and understanding of the country) and “tell” them what to do – apparently ignoring the knowledge, skills and experience which already exists in the country. It doesn’t really matter whether this impression is accurate, whether it is true or not - it affects their reaction and commitment.
It is true that many of these ”highly paid” consultants do have a wide experience - it shows in the materials which they produce where they often refer to countries which have hosted similar projects on which they have worked. This tends to raises questions about whether they really understand the country – the people and culture, the geography (the mountains play an awfully big role in so many aspects of life here) and history (I have mentioned the Soviet past – and in June we saw the result of something that goes back far further) – and how relevant and appropriate their “recommendations” are.
Being cynical – each of the donor agencies is a “business” in themselves – maybe on a non-commercial basis, but there are a host of commercial organizations that also work in this sphere. They each have their own priorities and “agenda”. Sometimes they even compete with one another – and I am often disappointed at the apparent lack of cooperation and liaison between them.
They have targets which are seen as “deliverables” – many people here (and probably elsewhere) call them “tick boxes”. Something has been done – delivered – so tick the box. That means that they can show that they have been doing something – it’s a “success”, no matter how small. It also means that some of the easier “deliverables”, (such as holding “roundtables” or seminars, printing a report …) get priority – and some of the more important aspects are relegated, and maybe overlooked.
What’s more, many projects are seen as providing work for the donor country/countries. One recent project here was heralded as being worth about one and a quarter million dollars – however only something like 200,000 was to be spent on direct activities fulfilling what was seen locally as the aim of the project – and that was only available under strict conditions. The balance was to be spent on support activities – some of which many locals didn’t see the relevance of, and others went in expenses provided by the donor country (consultants, administrative costs and fees, etc) . In fact, it was a good project in that it aimed to do something which was targeted towards a real need – but was probably badly presented and ran into a host of problems.
As it happens, although a certain amount went back to the donor country in the form of contracts, administrative fees, etc., quite a lot is usually spent in the beneficiary country as well – providing employment, buying goods and services and so forth. In this way the projects do help to sustain the economy of the beneficiary country as an indirect ”side benefit”. This is often forgotten – although the author does hint at it at one point. It also causes other problems.
For example, the very size of the budget for many donor projects – often running into the millions – brings a host of problems of their own. There are issues of good governance, audit and control. means that there are considerable temptations for malpractice of one sort or another, (fraud, bribery and so forth).
If what I have written so far is mainly about issues “at this end”, in the “beneficiary country”, then there are also issues at “the other end”, in the “donor country”. For example, misunderstandings: the criticism about little being achieved in one project “… because most of the first year was spent developing plans and building relationships” seems to me to make an assumption that the consultants should “hit the ground running” and start work on deliverables on day one. That might be a bit strong and overstate the issue, but planning and good relationships are essential if a project is to be successful.
Then again, what counts as “success”? The success of a project may not be total – it could be partial. Events could occur to derail the project, either in all of its aims or in some of them. I know of one project, for example, which cancelled one of its deliverables because another donor agency was commissioned to do exactly the same work – but on a wider scale.
How the locals will receive this particular project and how successful it will be, are good questions, and the author is right to raise them.
Please don’t misunderstand me. If much of what I have written sounds as if I am opposed to, or sceptical about, aid projects, then that is only part of the picture as I see it. It’s a very complex picture. The aid provided by the donor community does do a lot of good, especially if it is provided as “grant aid” – loans have to be repaid and they place a burden on the finances of the “beneficiary country” for many years. Some projects are extremely well run. Some are successful in that they achieve much of what they set out to do. Others, however, less so.
All in all, it’s a balancing act.
Is this project worth doing? … Yes, probably. If it is done properly … and seen as making a contribution to the development of Kyrgyzstan, trying to encourage the country to develop along lines that are in keeping with the overall aims of the US at the same time – instead of being an attempt to forge a clone of the US, or a client state.
One of the problems the topic of with this particular project, (strengthening democracy), is that the results may not be in keeping with what the donor country intended. The democratic will of the people may be at variance with what the pundits in the US and elsewhere assume it to be. I know that there is a debate about whether Hitler rose to power as the result of the democratically expressed will of the German people – he never actually won an election, but he was catapulted to the Chancellorship in circumstances created by a “democratic” system. The Palestinian elections in Gaza were hailed as “free and fair” but resulted in the election of an administration which both Israel and the US found difficult, if not impossible, to accept. We’ve seen how the Kyrgyz elections have surprised everyone – both by being conducted ”peacefully” and by the results. I have even seen some comment about how the Russians did not foresee, and might be regretting, the turn of events since April 7th.
It’s a complex situation – and, as I said, “a balancing act”.
Bishkek