Message-ID: <v01550102b1cb8af7ab15@[193.10.14.51]> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:03:13 +0200 From: Natalie Pauwels <mailto:pauwels@SIPRI.SE> To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
I have been grappling with many of the issues raised in the long, hot debates over the inefficiencies of development aid, and while I would not attempt to offer any expert advice or great revelations, I would like to comment.I am less pessimistic about the existence of 'good guys' than Dimitroff, who wrote "there are in-betweens and alternatives to the 'bad' and 'good' guys (I know the latter MUST exist somewhere, though I never met them) in international development aid" but I do agree that there are in-betweens. Such as: the World Bank officials (not all of whom are corrupt, surely) who must make tough decisions within the confines of the organizational structure and under pressure from executives higher up the decision-making ladder. In March I went to a conference on big dams held at SIDA (Swedish International Development Agency). There were anti-dam advocacy groups, NGOs, hydro company employees and donor agency representatives in attendance. At one point a woman from the audience got up and addressed the World Bank representative. Her remark echoed aloud what I was thinking as he explained his situation and tried to defend his work. She said: "Mr X, you seem to be a very nice, reasonable and likeable man, so it is hard for us to understand how the Bank can do such bad things with people like you working there..." True, true. I am young, very recently graduated from a postgrad program, and am aware that I am still inflicted with that pervasive disease common to youth: "idealism" (otherwise known to some as 'ignorance') and a fundamental belief in humanity, compassion and the ability to change the world. If I were offered a job at a donor agency I would undoubtedly jump at the chance, thinking that I could do something, do more than I could working for some multinational enterprise in any case (but even that is arguable). But would that automatically throw me into the same category as those 'bad guys' out to make an easy buck? I also wonder whether those consultants who write their reports before they even reach their target group are not simply reacting to the apparent futility of their efforts. What I mean is that often a report is commissioned because there happens to be a budget for it, or because even though a decision has already been made to green light funding for a project, the decision-makers require a report to "cover their asses" so-to-speak, even if the recommendations or observations have no bearing whatsoever on the decision. The report, once received, is filed away for posterity. This seems to happen regularly, and not only in funding institutions but also in governments and industry alike. Why we would expect things to be any different in a donor agency I do not know.
But all of this discussion leads to a Kafka-esque situation of a powerless individual in the face of a baffling, bumbling bureaucracy. How to change the bureaucracy to make it more transparent, accountable and fair are questions which have occupied students of public policy and administration for eons.
Natalie Pauwels