On the surface, relief and development seems like the simplest, most ethical work in the world. Helping people in need looks easy. Like most work worth doing, though, it’s extraordinarily complicated.
These are just a few, representative, ethical dilemmas:
1. Giving stuff instead of training and capacity building creates a culture of dependency. People rely on what you are giving them instead of finding a way to get it themselves. They get in the habit of looking outside their communities for positive change. And when you stop providing aid, they’ll have lost the skill of providing for themselves. Providing training and technical assistance requires huge amounts of money to be paid to outside experts, while leaving immediate needs unmet.
2. Hiring your staff locally and paying them well distorts the local labor market and pulls local talent away from government, local NGOs, and other domestic institutions. Paying market average salaries makes it hard to recruit and retain staff. It leaves your staff struggling to survive, and guarantees resentment of expatriate employees. Programs based on expat labor don’t help the local economy, and they cost a fortune.
3. Following host government policy will often require you to move so slowly that people suffer, waiting for your programs to get going. You may be forced to use outdated models for your programs. Ignoring host government policy erodes local capacity and weakens the government, which can lead to mass suffering if the government loses control of the country.
4. Paying bribes to get things done promotes a culture of corruption and is illegal under US law. Refusing to pay bribes will get you kicked out of the country, abandoning your partner communities.
5. Working with institutions such as orphanages and homes for the disabled provides help to the most vulnerable segments of the population. Orphanages and institutions, however, have been conclusively demonstrated to be the worst approach to care. Your assistance in improving these places may help to keep them in existence and encourage placing children in them.
I am not telling you to get depressed and give up. I’m really not; doing nothing also has terrible consequences. I am telling you to think about the choices you make and what those choices mean. Look for the unintended consequences of your programs. Do your homework. Red about similar efforts, what went right and what went wrong. Talk to your local staff and other NGOs.
You will have to make choices that cause damage. Make sure your positive impact is exponentially greater.
(photo credit: edmittance)
September 25, 2008
Ethics and International Development
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I hear you. Ethical dilemmas abound and I've just got back from a planning week in the PNG Highlands where we debated several of these exact questions. No easy answers, but knowing that seems to me to be a good start in itself. Thanks for your comment and nice to find you!
Hi, I understand your arguements and agree with many of your points. I'm curious, re: point 5, what you would suggest as an alternative. Here in Belize many children are left in care in childrens homes. Without these care facilities where would these kids go? The government does not have other options. So it is likely the kids would have to stay with families who would not have the resources to care for them or look after themselves. At least in the orphanges and care homes the children have shelter, food and access to education. I agree that it would be great to have an alternative to care, but when that is not available, do you nor think encouraging people not to support these facilites can be damaging in itself?
Andrea,
Unfortunately, that was my point. Sometimes all your options are bad.
If people are going to support institutions, I think they should do so in full awareness of the ethical dilemmas involved.
This is compelling post. However, I'm not sure I agree that each instance that you mention is quite as much of an "either/or" situation as you suggest. Sometimes it's "both/and."
Sometimes you have the bend the "rules" of "good development", while simultaneously taking advantage of the grey areas in local legal frameworks. Don't you think?
Jeff - I didn't really mean it as either/or choices. I meant it really as and/and/and/and - any way you turn you're making the best of your flawed options.
Post a Comment