The Broker

The treadmill…

Frank Hubers | 12 March 2010

Once upon a time, a long time ago in the western world, people thought that development work was a good thing. Triggered by dramatised commercials on tv, showing African children covered with flies and dying from hunger, people felt that poverty is terrible and something should be done about it. Luckily, there were development organisations that tried to fight the extreme poverty in the rest of the world. They were building schools and digging wells and the public respected these organisations for doing so. They were even willing to donate some of their hard-earned money to them once in while. Nobody questioned these organisations; they believed their intentions were good, and that was enough…

Well, these days are far behind us.

Looking at the Netherlands, the time that development work was completely uncontested must be more than twenty years ago. Especially in the past decade, criticism on development work has greatly increased. Politicians stating that the Netherlands should decrease the amount of budget for development issues (or even to completely stop funding it) have gained popularity. More and more people regard development work as a bottomless pit and a “left-wing hobby.” They are supported by influential scholars like Dambisa Moyo and Easterly, who claim that development work keeps the poor poor.

I started working for a development organisation only two years ago, which means that I have never actually experienced how it is to work in this sector without being heavily criticised. I have become used to the fact that on every birthday party I attend, there are always some people that have the urge to “confront me” with their “own” opinion on development and poverty (usually after a couple of beers..). These visions usually contain the following basic elements: the first is that development work is completely ineffective (“Africa was poor and still is poor, so what have you achieved?”). The second is that too much of the money for development work is spend on overhead costs (“I will not fund any development organisation, because then your salary will be paid with my money”).

You can imagine that those birthday parties are always a lot of fun…

Most of my colleagues started their career somewhere in the seventies and eighties, in a period when development work was completely uncontested. Imagine their reaction when suddenly the public opinon turned against them. Not being used to this heavy criticism, development organisations panicked. If the public thought that development work was not effective, the organisations had to show them the opposite. They had to show the public their results. Consultants were hired to assist them in setting up result-based management systems,sums of money were spent on evaluations. And a whole bunch of people were calculating all the trainings that had been given, wells that were dug and people that were reached, and still the public was complaining that NGOs were not effective…

For consultants this was a booming period. Let me be clear about this: most consultants are mere salesmen, with the single difference that they do not sell products, but concepts. A salesman knows that a product doesn’t have to be new or useful, you just have to convince people that it is new (“innovative”) and useful (“necessary for achieving your objectives”). The best client is an insecure client, and NGOs were insecure. Consultants had so much work, they couldn’t handle it anymore. This was the moment that consultants changed from being mere salesmen to being gurus. All NGOs wanted to hire them and nobody questioned their ideas any more. The consultants became the holy men of the development sector.

In spite of all the money spent in the past years in an effort to show results, the public still does not believe that development work is effective. And, again, NGO’s are going to respond to this by investing more in their M&E systems and hiring more consultants. The irony is that, in order to show results to their public, overhead costs of NGOs are actually rising and rising. And the public has something to complain about again…

The NGOs are in a treadmill, and it is time to help them out.

Comments

Your comment will not be automatically posted but first reviewed by the editor. If the editor has questions with respect to the content of your comment, you will be contacted.

 

the drivers of M&E madness

Today, at Hivos, we had a look at the proposal format for the co-financing system – sheer madness! For more than a year now our best and brightest development workers have been spending a large part of their time wrestling with the paper work, a process that is set to intensify in the months to come. Detailed outcomes and outputs per programme, for the next five years, context analyses for each country you work in, on top of piles and piles of documents with anything from organograms to lunch-cost forecasts. Is it worth it? Apparently so, but it all has little to do with serious development work, which is what the public is ultimately paying us to do.

I like the blog, but I think that public opinion has been neither the only, nor the main driver of the M&E boom. Deeper causes include a nasty mix of New Public Management fueled by neo-liberalism and shifting perceptions and priorities of what development actually is and how it can be promoted. In addition, the 90s saw the emergence of critical evaluations and analyses indicating that the NGOs might not be as effective as was originally believed. Moreover, I personally believe that the NGOs themselves have fueled public distrust by, for the sake of fundraising, sticking to charity-mantra’s and the message that they your donation achieves tangible attributable development outcomes. Lastly, the interesting paradox you describe deserves to be put in a broader context: All public services and those who find employment there, are viewed with cynical suspicion by the general public. From violence to ambulance staff, to the ease with which all political parties talk about downsizing inefficient government. what can't be measured risks the immediate label 'leftist hobby'

Indeed, more control and measurement is not the likely answer to this. Your paradox points at questions around deeper damaging patterns in (western) society that require further reflection and analysis - possibly also in the treehuggers treadmill.
Remko Berkhout | March 25, 2010 | Respond

Comment kickoff

Just some thoughts hoping to start some discussion here...

The problem of the NGO's is that their PM&E systems are to much focused on accountability of large sums of money from the ministry and large international funding organizations. This means that the results of simple projects have to be aggregated with hundreds of other (simple) projects and interventions that are totally different. So it's not the development work in itself that' s 'complex' but the planning and subsequent aggregation of results and evaluation that is made difficult. For doing this complex work, expensive consultants are hired. This is only a side-effect - not the problem.

My solutions -

I think monitoring and evaluation systems should be more about the relation of beneficiaries with their donors. Northern NGO's should only be the brokers and advisors of donors and their beneficiaries. The guardians of the ' do no harm principle' . For now, the NGO's bite of more then they can chew by making all kinds of promises that they can not keep and are not all responsible for. NGO' s should not have the illusion that they can make a difference by themselves. They can only contribute to make a difference. This should be reflected in their reports by explaining development in relation to its contexts.

When it comes to the necessity to make large scale aggregation of results - meta evaluations can be conducted. This should enable NGO's sufficiently to be accountable to larger donors. But even within these meta evaluations - aggregations should always be backed up by qualitative stories that are understandable for everyone. These qualitative stories can easily be gathered when NGO's would work with modern techniques of communication and reporting that make it possible to intertwine ' fundraising', planning, monitoring and evaluation by reporting on web 2.0 platforms. And although quality of the projects of de web 2.0 initiatives is not very strong yet - the methods of the 1% club or the bidnetwork (google it) are excellent examples of how new communication techniques can make M&E systems simpler, and development work more transparent and honest.

Another suggestion: We should loose the 'non-profit principle' and strengthen the 'do no harm principle' . There is profit in development work and we should be allowed to see these profits (keeping in mind the harms that can be done) as we invest in developments. Seeing profits is a means of evaluating results.

And then one last thing - the donors (read the public and the large donor organizations) should also understand that development work can go wrong. Development work should be regarded as an investment. Sometimes you win and you will have profit/positive results and sometimes you loose and you will euh..... not win. But when losing is the reason for not participating and taking action - why did we ever took part in any football world cup? Tell this to people at the birthday parties...
Reinout van Santen | March 19, 2010 | Respond