The problem: isolation

If you have worked in international development, you have probably experienced isolation. It seems to be a fact of life in this industry. Field-based expat staff may be the only person at their level in their local office, or the only expat on the team (or one of very few), separated from their local staff counterparts by cultural, language, and organisational barriers. Even people working in the home office may feel isolated. Perhaps they don’t feel comfortable sharing their struggles with their boss.  Or maybe the boss him/herself is the problem.

Many people working in aid and development tend to spend a lot of time talking about work with their spouses, partners, or close friends.  This can be a great source of support.  However, it can also put undue pressure on the person who is getting an earful.  Over time, they may tire of hearing the same complaints.  Someone who doesn’t work with you – or work in development – may not “get” your work context.  And a spouse will likely have a hard time remaining neutral and impartial because they have a stake in their partner’s career success.

In situations of isolation, it’s great to work one-on-one with a professional coach or mentor. However, this is not always possible, practical, or financially feasible.  An alternative that works well is peer coaching.

What is peer coaching?

A peer coach is someone who is at a similar level to you in your organisation (or even in another organisation).  He or she knows and/or understands your work context. While not trained as a coach, he or she is willing to coach you according to a simple (yet effective) peer coaching model. This involves actively listening without judgment, reflecting back what he/she is hearing, asking probing questions, and helping you generate concrete action steps to move you forward.

Peer coaching is different than mentoring or advising. It is not based on the premise that your peer coach knows better or is more experienced than you. A peer coach’s job is not to give you advice or tell you what they think you should do. A peer coach’s role is to listen, to provide a sounding board, and help you find the answers yourself.

Whether you are studying, beginning your career in aid and development, or a seasoned professional, it’s great to work one-on-one with a coach who can help you identify blind spots, gain clarity on your priorities, and help you design actions that will bring about desired changes. This what Cassie and Leanne have established:

Cassie and Leanne (names and details have been changed) both work as managers in an international development NGO. Cassie is based in Nepal, and Leanne is in Bangladesh. As expat staff, the only other non-local in their offices are their bosses — and sometimes they don’t feel comfortable sharing all their struggles with their supervisors. Cassie and Leanne  met at an internal training that brought together international staff from various country offices. Since their organisation does not offer executive coaching to staff at their level, Cassie and Leanne decided to team up to provide peer coaching to each other.

They conduct their coaching sessions via Skype. They take turns sharing what’s on their minds, and providing coaching/feedback. They cover a range of topics, whatever is pressing: tough decisions, managing a difficult relationship with a boss/staff member, tricky cross-cultural issues, musings about career moves.

Leanne reports that one of the main benefits of peer coaching is simply the opportunity to think out loud. By talking through a problem or challenge, she ends up coming up with a solution that hadn’t even occurred to her before the peer coaching session.

Cassie values the opportunity to vent, share, and trouble-shoot with someone who understands where she is coming from. Since they have similar roles in different parts of the same organisation, the two women don’t have to explain all the details of their respective situations.

They admit that they could benefit from scheduling their peer coaching calls more regularly. Sometimes their jam-packed work schedules mean that several weeks go by between peer coaching sessions. But they also know that if a crisis comes up, or a decision needs to be made, they can set up a last-minute call and have a thinking session when it’s most needed.

Find a peer coach

We are excited to announce that, through a collaboration between whydev and Development Crossroads, we are launching a peer coaching matching service. We believe that young professionals, graduate students, and others starting out in international development could benefit from peer coaching. We want to develop a service that best matches up with your needs, and supports your peer coaching relationship. We also want to know if you would actually use such a service!

We are still in the design phase, and would like to use this opportunity to get your thoughts through the online survey below. Would you want a peer coach? What would you like to get out of such a relationship? How often would you keep in touch? How much input and oversight would you want from us? These are the type of questions we would love to get your thoughts on.

Please take 2 minutes to complete the survey, and you are more than welcome to provide feedback in the comments below.

Peer coaching survey

Click HERE to complete the survey through GoogleDocs or simply complete the form below:

By Lexi Randall-L’Estrange and Nick Byrne*

Lexi’s “Collaboration moment”

I need help. I’m working on a project in a small town in the middle of the Viet Nam Mekong Delta and there is no public data on water quality, demographics, water rights structure… in fact, there is no public information on anything.

I’ve never been there.

I need to write a grant proposal in two weeks.

I log on to http://www.ngocentre.org.vn/, find the WASH working group, navigate my way to what I think is an “email group” function and ask the simple question

“Has anyone here worked in Long An Province?”

Out it goes into the abyss and I sit back in my chair, spin around on the cold tile floor and sigh. Well that was that. Back to work.

When you’re on the other side of the world it’s easy to ask for help and to realise how much you don’t know and what could be done better. You know that knowledge is out there and you want it to be shared with you. You know nothing will get done as an NGO worker unless you collaborate with government; learn from the experience of other NGO and aid projects; use education and knowledge to empower; seek opportunities to better enable enterprise and business; and learn about the language, culture, faith and traditions that create the social fabric you’re so carefully navigating through.

Within two days I was arranging a meeting with an Australian Vietnam-based researcher from AFAP, having coffee (cà phê sữa đá) with the project manager for one of AusAID’s flagship water supply and sanitation projects, skyping with a consultant based in Hanoi about a project he worked on with the Long An Provincial Government, being directed back to Australian based consultants for assistance, arranging a site visit for Ifte from the RMIT Climate Chance Adaptation Program…. and the list goes on.

Back in Melbourne I started looking for a way of bringing the collaboration into every day work. I found Sydney Development Circle, knew Nick Byrne who has driving the establishment of Brisbane Development Circle and then sent out another email into the abyss “Who wants to be involved as a Founding Member of Melbourne Development Circle?”.

Why The Development Circle? Who is involved?

Nick – Each sector working within development is starting to develop a unique set of strengths. But, due to a number of different factors (time, capacity, geography) development professionals’ work can become quite isolated. So the challenge is how can we realise a larger social return for our investment in development? If we can bring each sector together to share perspectives and experiences, perhaps we can build cross-sector development teams, raising positive social and development outcomes.

Lexi – We are a network of individuals who work in community development, international aid, social enterprise, government, business, faith, education, research or arts.

We self-identify as community development workers, even if it’s not in our job title, because we know the impact that our work has locally, nationally and internationally.

We are students. We are people wanting to get into the community development space and don’t know how.

We are community engagement professionals seeking to build genuine relationships with others to better enable our work.

What is The Development Circle?

Nick – The Development Circle believes that via innovation and collaborative effort, the development sector can continue to increase its impact as a positive change agent within communities in Australia and abroad.

The aim of The Development Circle is to create a platform for the development community to share ideas, explore potential collaboration, and discuss topical development issues. Membership of the group is open to anyone, across all fields within the development sector, as well as those who have a general interest in development issues.

We are facilitating this by supporting local groups foster opportunities for those working in the international aid and community development sector to come together for discussion and networking in a relaxed environment. We are exploring future ideas for development sector engagement.

What do we hope will come out of it? 

Nick – The Melbourne Development Circle is the third chapter in the Australian network. The Australian network originated in Sydney, grew to Brisbane in 2010, and we are very excited to see it expand to Melbourne in 2012. It looks likely that we’ll see a couple more groups startup in Australia before years end, as well as our first international group.

Each location is very unique in what it will ultimately look like as the development landscape can vary quite a bit. Canberra, as an example, would have a strong government focus, whereas Sydney & Brisbane have quite a balanced (NGO, government, private, academia) group.

In a broad sense, The Development Circle hopes to become synonymous with relevant and engaging opportunities to build the professions capacity to deliver positive social outcomes. In the short term, this will be through a familiar yet unique event series. In the medium to long term, this could evolve to include joint-venture facilitation, brokering and innovation workshopping.

What you can do.

Join our network, come along to events, sign up to our newsletter, tell us directly what you want to see come out of this group.

Sign up to our monthly newsletter to receive information about all upcoming events, news from our network partners: http://thedevelopmentcircle.com.au/

Give feedback through info@thedevelopmentcircle.com.au

For Melbourne Development Circle, email Lexi and share your vision with us and how you would like to be involved – lexi@thedevelopmentcircle.com.au

Come to the launch of Melbourne Development Circle February 7^th –: http://thedevelopmentcircle.com.au/?p=465

Go to the first Sydney Development Circle event for the year on February 6^th – http://sdc.groupsite.com/calendar/event/2012/2/6/303429

Connect with us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/thedevelopmentcircle

*Lexi Randall-L’Estrange is part of the Melbourne Development Circle and Nick Byrne of The Development Circle

By Sarah Grant*

“Every complexity, we are told, is the process of evolution. Yet our development planners seem to think that they can do better…that they can create complex things at one throw by a process called planning.”

E.F Schumacher offered us these thoughts in 1975 through his book Small is Beautiful (I highly recommend this read). He continues to discuss the natural process of growth that all great phenomena take in the natural world; every creature, ecosystem and social construct has come into being through a gradual process of genetic mutations and adaptations. It therefore follows that any great change in the human condition or development towards a productive and sturdy society is also a process of slow change.

One primary mistake, perhaps, in our efforts at supporting development in poorer regions of the world is to forget that sustainable change is a slow (and I emphasize slow), deliberate process. Planning has its place, however the chances that everything will go according to plan and produce the desired results is quite low. Ultimate success of an effort aimed at helping another group of human beings then rests on one’s ability to constantly adapt to challenges and treat the plan as a fluid strategy that changes and grows with the circumstances.

Unfinished fish ponds dug by FAO

As an example on the value of patience and adaptation in development, I often think about a school that I was acquainted with in Zambia in 2007. The community school was initiated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. One year was spent on researching the perfect location for the school based on data gathered over several districts on households affected by HIV/AIDS and population of orphaned children. Five to six months was spent training community facilitators and organizing a network of local teachers from the closest town to help teach the children. Before working with the school I read close to 100 pages front and back outlining how lessons should be conducted and what the specific results should be after one year on the children, their families and the community. Needless to say I was thrilled to be working with such a well organized and well thought out program.

The problems started almost immediately. Half of the teachers from the town did not fulfill their committed roles, materials for building the school never arrived on time, income generating activities for the school were hindered by theft and there was a corrupt facilitator to deal with. If you have lived and worked in Africa on development for very long none of these issues would come as a surprise. Indeed (perhaps sadly enough) they should be expected. The real evil however came not in the fact that these barriers to the realization of the school came up, but that FAO and their representatives did not take the time to listen, learn and adapt the program. The result after one year was a disgruntled community who felt that they were not being listened to, students who were not engaged in nearly complete lessons, and an office of development workers who had no clue what was going on on the ground.

This school and their experience with FAO is one of the primary reasons I started Color Me In!. As Schumacher reminds us development and human growth is a gradual process that revolves around the adaptation to challenges and change rather than the avoidance of issues. All I feel we can ask for is the patience and courage to allow for realities on the ground to guide gradual growth rather than aspirations from a Board room. A strategic plan for any development effort should then be a fluid and changing creature of its own with the space to allow ourselves to be wrong, to recognize challenges, and adapt to them. As they say in Zambia all growth is “pangono, pangono” or “slowly slowly.”

It seems that the culture we are trying to help has long been aware of the nature of change. Maybe it’s our turn to listen.

*Sarah Grant served in the Peace Corps  from 2005-2007 in Zambia and specialized in forestry, conservation farming, gender, small business and community growth. This is a reposting of an article on Sarah’s blog for Color Me In!, an NGO she founded that supports entrepreneurs and environmental preservation in Zambia through micro-loans and planting trees.

We’ve all experienced it. The eyes soften. The lips purse in a gesture of understanding. The inner parts of the eyebrows curl upwards, as if a fast-acting, emergency shot of Botox has been delivered right between them. Sometimes, the head tilts. Even more rare is the slow, rhythmic nodding that may occur as you continue speaking. It’s as if moving the head up and down gently will somehow coax your words into their ears, swirl them through the auditory canals, and facilitate entrance into the brain, so that full comprehension can occur.

They say that development is such a complex game, that there is no rulebook. There is no guide, no Bible, no Wisden’s almanac. You just gotta get out there and play whatever comes at you, because you never know what’s heading your way. Thankfully though, as unpredictable as things can be while navigating through work, there is one thing that is always predictable. Non-development folk. Those who we shall now refer to as “citizens”.

So, keeping this in mind, here is a simple guide that takes the individual brain-work and spontaneity away (because we all know that they’re not sought after qualities in this industry), and does the thinking for you. What better way to respond to a predictable response, than with an equally predictable response that you read off some website?

First, some ground rules. Your mileage may vary. Maybe people that you meet don’t immediately assume you’re a nice person just because you work in a caring industry. Maybe there are other, more obvious aspects of your personality that dissuade them from this notion. For instance, maybe you think that wearing T-shirts that say “I’m with stupid” or “I may not be Santa but you can sit on my lap” are amusing. Maybe you’re the kind of person who, when excited, exclaims “squeee!”, or actually pronounces the word “LOL” when someone says something funny, instead of laughing. Or maybe you’re that kind of person who always has to outdo the other people you’re talking to, whether it be that extra dangerous stint you did in Mozambique that time, or that cab driver in Islamabad who drove 15 km/h faster than everyone else’s cab driver. In any case, your mileage may vary.

Second of all, there’s no accurate way to actually predict what people are thinking when they say the following things. Being able to do that would mean that we’d have some sort of Obi-Wan Kenobi-like ability to read people’s minds, and we all know that kind of scenario isn’t even slightly believable. Especially when George Lucas is behind the prequels.

Finally, whatever you do, do not – even for one second, take this advice seriously.

They say: “You must find your work so fulfilling.”

What they mean: “You’re poor.”

You should say: “Actually yes, I do. And that’s the reason why I can afford to live on two slices of stale bread a day, while all the time paying off two student loans from the time George W Bush’s dad was in power. And how about you? How do you find your second Ferrari in relation to your first? Drives well?”

They say: “Do you find it difficult to maintain a relationship when you’re moving around so much?”

What they mean: “You’re lucky that you have a good excuse to fall back on to explain why you’re still single. With the combination of your repulsive personality and Hobbit-like looks, I doubt you’d find anyone willing to look at your twice, even if you stayed in the same place for more than 12 months at a time.”

You should say: “Very difficult. But for me, relationships of a romantic nature come second. The only relationships I really care about, are those of the stakeholders that I seek to empower, through active participation in poverty reduction schemes. This is what I stress to the women/men that I meet on the two or three occasions I actually get to date every year. Funnily enough, they never seem to reply to my emails after.”

They say: “I wish I could be more like you, but I just don’t know if I have it in me.”

What they mean: “When I say have it in me, I mean, I’m not sure if I could give up my lifestyle of free boardroom drinks every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. Plus, our company gave us free iPads last year. Have you seen this amazing app which can help predict your wife’s mood based upon the timing of tidal waves? Amazing…”

You should say: “Sure, I had a promising career as an accountant/brain surgeon/plumber once too, but then I started to realize that this is where I wanted to be. How does that app work again?”

They say: “I help people too you know, I work in a hospital/help old ladies cross the road/help people choose worthwhile stocks/help increase the gap between rich and poor.”

What they mean: “OK, look, just because you hug orphans on a daily basis, it doesn’t make you any more of a nice person than me. After all, I even gave up a yoga mat last year for those poor folk in Haiti. That’s right, an entire used yoga mat.”

You should say: “It’s great that you doing your bit to help others. After all, we can’t all abandon our day jobs to work in poor countries. We still need doctors, lawyers, accountants and people to increase the gap between rich and poor to make the world go round. I’m not sure if you’ve ever heard this quote before, but Bono once said, “Be the change you want to be in the world”.  I think it was after they released Joshua Tree. It’s a good principle to live your life by.”

They say: “Wasn’t there some book written by some African lady who said that aid didn’t work anyway? What do you think about that?”

What they mean: “Please help me to confirm my long standing confirmation bias that donating to aid programs doesn’t actually have any long lasting effects. After all, the iPhone 5 is coming out and the idea of playing Words with Friends HD on a screen with pixels so small that they can be barely considered individual particles has me in ecstasy.”

You should say: “Personally, I don’t think we should gather all our information about a very complex topic from just one source. It’s far too simplistic a view to take and doing so would be a far too lazy response about a topic that deserves much more attention. You cannot try and pick up all the nuances of aid and development from just one person. Anyway, I just read Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save, and he said the exact opposite, so there.”

So there you have it. A simple guide to answering questions about development from so-called citizens. One final tip. Sometimes, a particularly well-read citizen might ask you something a little more in depth about your work – for example, how exactly do you promote social inclusion in a society that does not value individual rights, or what does the evidence say about the relative benefits of micro-savings versus micro-finance, or what exactly does capacity building mean? In this scenario, there is only one sensible response. Run. As fast as is humanly possible. Nobody, and no guide, can possibly teach you to answer questions like that.

You can follow this author on Twitter here.

“Don’t tell them you’re a healer!”. This is exactly what a very good friend of mine said after I told him that I was taking a step back from working inside the development sector, to working with the people who work inside the development sector… as a healer!

“Don’t tell them you’re a healer! They won’t respect you!” he said.

Really?

I thought about this for a while. At first I bought into it. Yes, I better not tell ANYONE I am a healer and that I help people to balance their sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, that I work with energy, and that I can actually help people to figure out who they truly are so they don’t have to run around being who they aren’t in an attempt to get respect and social recognition.

Those hardcore development professionals and aid workers, they are not going to like it!

I was actually shocked that I had bought into this… shocked at my narrow view of the development sector. That I believe it to be a hardcore, rational sector with no space for the ‘softer’ issues such as personal development, healing and spirituality.

And perhaps I am right to a certain degree… but I had forgotten that the development sector is made up of human beings. And as long as there are human beings there will be diversity… and there definitely will be a need for and interest in healing and spirituality.

Healing for social change…

In my view, spirituality – stories about our experiences as more than just flesh-and-bone human beings, is at the crux of our human experience. It has been a key aspect in the way in which we ‘organise’ and explain our world, despite the fact that spirituality has not been given serious attention in the secular world of modernity and Enlightenment, which is what has created the foundation of most of development theory today.

However, Enlightenment thinking’s rationality as well as need for logic and reason has not been able to capture the essence and importance of spirituality, as well as the complexities of how people interact with and use spirituality and healing in their everyday lives.

Several academic scholars are, nevertheless, beginning to open up to the thought that spirituality and healing are in fact essential building blocks for social change (e.g. Jim Ife 2009 and Fran Gale, Natalie Bolzan & Dorothy McRae-McMahon 2007).

But is there space for healing and spirituality in today’s development discourse?

Jim Ife in his book Human Rights from Below (2009) suggests that we need an alternative to the traditional academic prose that is often the main form of communication in development talk, because healing and spirituality extends beyond the normal understanding of ‘rational’, ‘analytical’ or ‘logical’.

I guess what Ife is trying to say is that an LFA (Logical Framework: a widely used linear and ‘rational’ tool used to plan projects and programmes) is not always enough to capture the important aspects of healing and spiritual development necessary for social change.

‘Heal ourselves to heal the world’: Spirituality in practice…

A few days after my friend had told me not to tell anyone in the development sector that I work with healing and spirituality I actually met a woman who uses different methods of healing and spirituality to work with children who are orphaned by HIV/AIDS. This was a system of healing that she had learnt in Rwanda through an organisation called Capacitar (http://www.capacitar.org), whose vision is to ‘heal ourselves to heal the world’! They teach people to use different kinds of healing therapies from chakra healing to EFT (emotional freedom techniques) to acupuncture and other kinds of energy work, and they include methods and techniques from different indigenous healing practices too. I also met a woman who uses yoga and breathing techniques to help young people in Kibera to reduce stress.

Additionally, I came into contact with an organisation who works with ‘deep democracy’ (http://www.ddi-eastafrica.co.ke/), who focus on the importance of not only openness to other individuals, groups, and diverse views, but also an openness to internal experiences including feelings, dreams, body symptoms, and altered states of consciousness, and how awareness of oneself affects our reality, and therefore how we interact with and affect other people.

All of the above are, in my view, healers!

Are these people and organisations not to tell anyone that they are in fact healers? Have they already lost the respect of the development sector? They have nothing but gained mine for daring to look at the deep human aspects of social change!

Development and spirituality…

I do, however, understand the aversion towards incorporating spirituality into the development agenda. There is a danger, and unfortunately this is what has given it a bad name, when spirituality turns into exclusive fundamentalism in an attempt to explain the world from a standard set of rules, as opposed to promoting inclusivity and respect for diversity.

But does the fact that this danger exists mean that we cannot work with healing and spirituality within international development? It gives us reason to be careful, indeed… but if we neglect spirituality and people’s search to become whole beings, then, in my view, development becomes rather empty.

Arnold Mindell has described the inter-relationship between development, democracy and spirituality very beautifully in his description of his coined term ‘Deep Democracy’: “[It is] our sense that the world is here to help us become our entire selves, and we are here to help the world become whole.”

To me, this is the essence of development.

During my time as a programme coordinator working for a large global organisation – amongst all the LFAs, reports, keeping indicators measurable and simple, and ensuring ambitious income targets, I had lost track of the diversity of the development sector. I had forgotten that the development sector is as much about ‘healing the world’ as it is about building roads. I had forgotten that the development sector was as much about creating a space for people to experience themselves as whole spiritual beings as it is about measuring whether the money is spent ‘efficiently’.

And I guess my friend had too, when he told me: “Don’t tell them you’re a healer!”.

Mette Muller is an intuitive healer and coach (and ex-development professional) working with social change agents and aid workers to make a huge difference in the world without burnout and personal sacrifice. Mette grew up and is currently living in Tanzania, has lived in several other countries in eastern and southern Africa and has worked for more than ten years in the development sector. You can read more about her work on http://www.bestselfexperience.com

Two years ago today, Haiti was struck by an earthquake leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of people and affecting an estimated three million people.

Unfortunately, it is far from the only natural disaster or crisis to strike within recent years. We’ve seen the outpouring of donations to disaster relief efforts in such places as Thailand and Japan (although the response has not always been consistent, as previously discussed in this whydev post on the Pakistan floods). The numbers are staggering: within ten days of the Haiti earthquake two years ago, $742 million had been committed to relief and a further $920 million pledged. The total eventually ballooned to over $3.5 billion.

The compassion and concern that people feel for strangers across the world is touching and even inspiring. Who could argue against such an outpouring of generosity?

A GOOD infographic shows the entities that had given $1 million or more to Haiti one week after the earthquake. The orange represents donations from individuals.

Well, I can, and I’m not the first. All too often, the well-intended donations to disaster relief, motivated by emotion, are not as helpful as some would have you believe. Here’s why.

Often, donations take too long to be processed to be of any use on the ground.

I can’t say it better than this excerpt from the Disease Control Priorities report on the GiveWell blog (in a post entitled “The case against disaster relief,” which is certainly worth a read):

The immediate lifesaving response time is much shorter than humanitarian organisations recognise. In a matter of weeks, if not days, the concerns of both the population and authorities shift from search and rescue and trauma care to the rehabilitation of infrastructure (temporary restoration of basic services and reconstruction). In Banda Aceh, Indonesia, after the December 2004 tsunami, victims were eager to return to normalcy while external medical relief workers were still arriving in large numbers.

So, if I donate my $20 to the Red Cross’ tsunami relief a few days after the tsunami occurred, and it takes a few weeks for the Red Cross to process this donation, my donation has arrived too late to meet the pressing need.

Disaster relief agencies can receive too much money to put to use.

Is your $20 really needed?

It’s a problem many other non-profits who are burned out from writing grant proposals would love to have, but it’s a problem nonetheless, and it raises questions of accountability to donors. If Red Cross is swimming in donations and cannot responsibly spend my $20 in Thailand, is it okay if it spends my money elsewhere.

In the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the Red Cross was not the only relief agency facing this problem, but some other charities would not publicly admit to being over-saturated with donations, for fear of propagating a belief that they would not need donations in the future, as discussed in this Times article.

This thinking gets us into a grey zone where transparency and accountability are not at the forefront of NGOs’ actions, and that leaves me feeling uneasy.

In-kind donations (such as blankets, clothing, etc.) can be unnecessary or even logistically harmful to recovery efforts.

While certainly not approaching the scale of devastation seen in other places we’ve discussed, a fire in my home country of Canada razed one-third of Slave Lake,  Alberta in 2011. This necessitated the evacuation of 95% of the town’s residents, and the events that followed illustrate perfectly the bother in-kind donations can be.

Well-intentioned donors collected things for the residents of Slave Lake with such enthusiasm that there was far more stuff than was necessary, and some of it ended up in a landfill. This caused a minor PR mess for the charities, always fun for us in non-profit communications to deal with.

This is a small and relatively harmless example of in-kind donations, but you can imagine the logistic, economic and political problems that could arise when, say, receiving donated food items in Somalia.

If I’ve made my case as well as I hope I have, you’ll concede there are many difficulties with the public’s overwhelming support for disaster relief. So, the next question is: what should disaster relief agencies do about it?

That’s not an easy question to answer, but here are some ideas for ways they can communicate with the public to minimise some of the above problems, and facilitate more sustainable and effective giving. They’re certainly not a panacea, but provide a place to start.

Facilitate structured giving, rather than one-offs.

Those who budget and plan their charitable giving donate about three times as much as those who don’t, at least in Canada. In other words, donors who give habitually give more.

This represents a fantastic opportunity for disaster relief agencies; if they could make regular giving a habit among those who give one-time donations after disasters, it would pay off.

There are many different ways of doing this. The easiest, and one that is becoming more and more common, is to make it possible for donors to give monthly donations of a set amount. For NGOs, receiving 12 monthly donations of $10 is usually better than receiving a one-time donation of $120, as it allows them to better plan their operations and ensures that when there is a disaster, there are already donations they can use. Explaining this to donors would be helpful.

Another is to make charitable giving a part of established events or traditions. World Vision’s gift catalogue takes advantage of people’s habit of buying gifts during the holiday season by encouraging donations to “purchase” a goat or other gifts for those in developing countries. Another example is Meal Exchange’s Halloween Trick or Eat campaign, where volunteers visit households in Canada to ask for donations to food banks. In both cases, the organisations take advantage of existing traditions to make giving to them part of the tradition.

A step further is for organisations to create their own regular events or traditions to facilitate donations. Movember stands out as the best example of this, as it has raised millions of dollars for men’s health initiatives while claiming November as the month for men to channel their inner P.I. Magnum/Ned Flanders/other moustachioed alter egos. Similarly, United Way does annual workplace campaigns to raise funds. In both cases, the organisations have made giving to them an annual event, and part of donors’ habits.

When necessary, decline donations.

Yes, you read that right. When relief agencies receive more donations than they need for a specific disaster, they should stop taking them. After the 2011 earthquake in Japan, the Japanese Red Cross clearly and admirably stated it did not need donations. (This went unheeded by the American Red Cross, which in the four days after the earthquake raised $34 million in the name of Japan’s earthquake victims.)

Similarly, less than a week after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)-France stopped accepting donations for tsunami relief. When they received 110 million Euros after this announcement, they asked donors’ permission to use these funds for other emergencies and forgotten crises. To the 1% of donors who did not grant their permission for their donations to be diverted to other crises, MSF-France refunded their money.

Sadly, MSF-France’s decision was viewed with dismay from other NGOs, many of whom either denounced it outright or demanded that it be explained very carefully, so the public would not misunderstand. When the gravy train of emotional giving begins, it’s not always popular to say it should stop. (See David Rieff’s excellent article for more on this particular case and what he calls “the humanitarian circus.”)

The public often perceive NGOs as wasting donations, spending too much on overheads, and being inefficient. There is no better way to perpetuate this attitude than by accepting donations for causes where donations aren’t needed. Disaster relief agencies need to be more responsible with donations, and at times that will mean declining them.

I recognise this is not an exhaustive list of solutions, and they aren’t easy solutions. Nevertheless, they provide a place to start improving our humanitarian aid, ultimately for the better of both NGOs working in disaster relief and the people they’re trying to help. Because disasters are emotional events and people are more generous when reacting emotionally, it is easy to capitalise on a disaster to solicit donations. But that doesn’t make it the best thing to do.

A news junkie and compulsive list-maker, Allison Smith is currently the Communications Coordinator for United Way Centraide Canada. She is passionate about the Oxford comma, improving non-profit communications, and looking at everything with a critical eye. She’d love for you to say hi on Twitter: @asmithb.  

Nicholas Kristof recently wrote, of new research on pediatric health and poverty, that

“This new research addresses an uncomfortable truth: Poverty is difficult to overcome partly because of self-destructive behaviors. Children from poor homes often shine, but others may skip school, abuse narcotics, break the law, and have trouble settling down in a marriage and a job. Then their children may replicate this pattern”.

Besides questions around the differences between correlation and causation, a theme and assertion emerging from Kristof’s writing seems to be this: that ‘poor families’ simply do not love each other as much as non-poor. Whether this is a conscious assertion or not, I do not know. But, it seems to be quite visible. In a 2010 New York Times Op-ed on global poverty, he states

“that if the poorest families spent as much money educating their children as they do on wine, cigarettes and prostitutes, their children’s prospects would be transformed. Much suffering is caused not only by low incomes, but also by shortsighted private spending decisions by heads of households”.

Besides being an extremely broad and patronising generalisation, it is dismissive and unaware of the structural, geographical and local factors that can affect a family’s income, its allocation and access to education. Kristof’s assertion is based on his own experiences in the Republic of Congo, which only encompasses a passive viewing of poverty and not the actual experience of living in, and on an M.I.T study that examined spending patterns in 13 countries. The dates of data for 8 of the 13 countries falls within the range of 1988-1997. The most recent data used in the study was from 2005 (Hyderabad in India). How much can be extrapolated from data that is up to 23 years old? Are ‘poor families’ the only ones that make poor decisions regarding spending and consumption? Do they simply not love one another as much as non-poor families?

The title of the former Kristof article is ‘A Poverty Solution That Starts With a Hug’. The latter, ‘Moonshine or the Kids?’. Another, ‘She’s 10 and Now May Be Sold to a Brothel‘, opens with the following:

“M. is an ebullient girl, age 10, who ranks near the top of her fourth-grade class and dreams of being a doctor. Yet she, like all of India, is at a turning point, and it looks as if her family may instead sell her to a brothel”.

A meta study of Kristof’s writings would be revealing. I know a number of commentators in the development community (and elsewhere), most notably William Easterly, take issue with his writings. In particular, and which is very relevant to the aforementioned articles, is his tendency to ignore and examine the broader, socioeconomic contexts of his subjects. When Kristof does notice and attempt to examine context, he does so clumsily and stereotypically:

 ”The obsession with schooling is a legacy of Confucianism — a 2,500-year-old tradition of respect for teachers, scholarship and meritocratic exams. That’s one reason Confucian countries like China, South Korea and Vietnam are among the world’s star performers in the war on poverty…Granted, Asian schools don’t nurture creativity, and Vietnamese girls are sometimes treated as second-class citizens who must drop out of school to help at home. But education is generally a top priority in East Asia, for everyone from presidents to peasants”.

Saying that certain Asian countries’ obsession with schooling is a legacy of Confucianism is like saying that the Europe’s similar obsession with schooling is a legacy of Aristotle. Elliott Prasse-Freeman at The New Inquiry, perhaps provides this meta study, deconstructing his writing style and method:

“Broadly speaking, Kristof often employs clever journalistic and prose devices to weave personalized traumas into bite-sized morsels of digestible horror. By playing on his audience’s Orientalist, classist, and racist fantasies, Kristof fabricates legible narratives out of snapshots of distant worlds. He then crafts stunningly simplistic solutions to the seemingly irrevocable problems that plague those backwards places”.

Is the perception, that ‘poor people’ simply do not love each other as much as non-poor, held by Kristof and others? I have asked myself if I hold this hidden perception. I know it seems absurd, but I do not think it is too wildly suggestive. There are a plethora of stereotypes and perceptions of various groups of people that exist and perpetuate poor understandings and misunderstandings. But, it is perhaps hidden and even unconscious perceptions such as this that are the most harmful. What Kristof’s writings show is an indifference to account for human behaviour and decision making capabilities in the context of poverty, stress and difference.

It’s been an amazing year at whydev. We celebrated our one year birthday in July this year by highlighting Brendan and my favourite posts from the year before. As I look back and read over them now, I am amazed at the wonderful minds that we have managed to bring together on this site. Way back in May 2010, we would never have conceived that we would have huge international development heavyweights (and I mean that in the figurative sense!) such as Bonnie Koenig, Jennifer Lentfer and Greg Jericho with posts up on our site. Apart from big names, we’ve had some great posts from new up and comers to keep an eye on. These include, among others, those by the always insightful Emily D’Ath, the youthful Akhila Kolisetty and China aid specialist Philippa Brant. We’re exploring not just how aid and development should be done, but also what sort of characteristics people working in development need to cultivate, and we’ve had great ideas on that from Elie Calhoun of Expatbackup, Alessandra Pigni from Mindfulnessforngos and Steve Munroe of Satori Worldwide.

But 2011 hasn’t been about individual posts, or even about individuals. It’s been about collaboration, collective learning and most importantly, discussion. Much more than last year, I have seen people pushing each other to think and rethink concepts, and we’re now moving towards a site that has gone past simple head-nodding and onto provoking thought and asking questions.

On the note of collaboration, we have some very exciting things to look forward to for 2012. At some stage early in the year, we will be announcing a new peer coaching service, in collaboration with Shana Montesol Johnson from Development Crossroads. Using Shana’s advice as a career coach for people in international development, we will be trialling a service that aims to link up interested individuals from around the world with partners who are seeking like-minded individuals to talk about work issues with. We hope that this will be helpful to many people who are working in isolated conditions, and need somebody who isn’t necessarily in the same workplace, or senior or junior to them, to talk over experiences and difficulties encountered during work and life.

Moreover, we are looking forward to more of the same from you – our dedicated and lovely reader base, to keep inspiring us with your submissions, your comments and your reposts of our articles. Remember that whydev is not about Brendan and it’s not about me. It’s your site. We are always looking for more contributions and that is what keeps the site going. If you’ve thought about writing something in a public forum, but never got round to it, make it your 2012 resolution to check out our guidelines and get in touch with us at submissions[AT]whydev.org.

We wish you a happy holidays, however you are spending it, and a happy New Year, and we’ll see you again in 2012!

Weh Yeoh & Brendan Rigby

I admit it.  I love New Year’s Resolutions. I love making resolutions, hearing about the ones friends have made, and telling them about mine.  Yet, research shows that if I want to maximise my chances of accomplishing these goals, I’d better just shut up about them.

Check out why in this 3-minute video:

Conventional wisdom tells us that we should announce our goals from the rooftops, share them with our friends and colleagues, write about them on blogs.  Yet some researchers have found that when people talk about their goals with others, they’re less likely to achieve them. It’s because when we tell someone that we are going to do something big – say, move to a new country, land the dream job in international development, or start a non-profit to bring clean water to poor communities – the praise and positive reaction we get from our audience gives us a part of the experience of having already accomplished these things (Psychologists call this “social reality”). And, so we are less motivated to actually work toward these goals.

I have experienced this myself. Last year, I decided that it was time to end my years of hiding from the internet and launch a blog for international development professionals who want to have high-impact careers they love. Soon after I made this decision, I left Manila for a 5-week home leave in the US.  When I visited friends and relatives in the Midwest, California, and Washington, DC, they invariably asked what was new. I readily replied that I had decided to start a blog. To a person, everyone was supportive, excited, and positive.  “That’s great, Shana!” I heard numerous times. Apparently, the support was so nice, it was all I needed…and my blog remained a mere twinkle in my eye for the next 5 months!

Of course, as a career coach, I am not advising anyone to be silent about their goals. Yet, the way we talk about our goals can make a difference. Instead of simply announcing our plans and then basking in everyone’s support and advance admiration, we can:

• Ask others to hold us accountable for doing the work required,
• Ask people for specific assistance, and
• Celebrate actual accomplishments and emphasise what remains to be done.

Ask others to hold us accountable for doing the work required

I told everyone, “I’m going to start a blog for aid workers!” and then sat back and did nothing to make it happen for months on end. It may have been more productive for me to say, “I plan to start a blog this fall, which means I’ve got a lot of work to do.  Can you check in with me 2 weeks from now to ask if I’ve come up with a list of potential topics to write about?”

Ask people for specific assistance

In addition to holding us accountable for doing the nitty-gritty work required, there are other ways people can help us. If you plan to move to a new country, ask your friends or acquaintances who have lived there before for their tips, ideas, and information.  If you’d like to land a great new international development job, ask your network to introduce you to contacts in specific development organisations you’re interested in.  If you aspire to start a non-profit to bring clean water to poor communities, let your network know that you would like to meet experts in the field.

Celebrate actual accomplishments and emphasise what remains to be done

Celebrating your progress at key milestones can help you work toward and meet your goals. Just make sure that you celebrate after you’ve already accomplished something, rather than feeling good about your noble intentions in advance of actually doing anything about them. And, keep your eye on the ball – be clear about the tasks that remain to be done.

Have you made any New Year’s Resolutions for 2012?

Great!  Stop talking about them and get started working toward accomplishing them.  And, if you’re looking for accountability, specific assistance, or celebration of a milestone, please share in the comments below.

Shana Montesol Johnson is a certified executive and career coach who works with international development professionals who want careers they love, that make an impact, and allow them to have a life outside of work. She has coached clients working for such organisations as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the World Health Organization, U.S. Agency for International Development, Peace Corps, and the Millennium Challenge Corp., among others. Born in the United States and raised in Mexico, Shana has been based in Manila, Philippines since 2004. She blogs at www.developmentcrossroads.com.

Mindfulness:

“A psychological quality of bringing one’s complete attention to the present experience on a moment-to-moment basis.”

- Jon Kabat-Zinn.

Several week ago, I was sitting on a train in China’s rural south, talking to an elderly Chinese couple who were traveling to Hong Kong to visit their son. Our carriage had been infiltrated by about 40 young people, all in their early twenties, who were on a team-bonding excursion with their workplace.

After about two or more hours of conversation, I had started to get pretty familiar with the lives of this elderly couple. Despite neither of them being able to speak English, and my less than fluent Mandarin, we had managed reasonably well thus far. The father had been a neurologist during his career days, while the mother had spent most of her time raising their children. Even though their son had moved to Hong Kong and raised a family more than twenty years ago, they were unable to move over there permanently, even though they both told me that the quality of life was immeasurably better there than on the mainland.

Perhaps because they feel more comfortable talking to foreigners about such topics, discussions with Chinese people often turn towards the ills of the Chinese government. This conversation also began to move in this direction. The elderly man started talking about how he didn’t trust what was written in the Chinese media, as it was too tightly controlled. He then lamented the state of censorship in China, in particular, that people could not get on Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube (without a VPN). And yes, he actually used the English words for those three services.

I started to realise that I was so engrossed in our conversation that I hadn’t noticed what was going on around me. Virtually every one of the young twenty-somethings was tapped into some sort of electronic device. If they were not playing Angry Birds on their smartphones, they were instead playing Angry Birds on their tablets, or, even rarer, reading on their e-book readers. I started to realise how much more I had in common with this elderly couple, deep in conversation, than I had with any of the other younger people who were closer to my age.

Being this engrossed in conversation, and being able to cope with a long conversation that was not in my mother tongue, I owe completely to mindfulness.

I first heard about mindfulness from a close friend when perhaps I was in the worst position to practice it, even if at that time I needed it more than ever. I was in the midst of completing a Masters part time, while also working full time, and training for a 210 km bike ride, which often involved spending Saturdays riding around my hometown for ten-hour stretches. I was a busy boy.

Often when I was at university, I was thinking about work. When I was work, I was thinking about university. When I was talking to friends and family, my mind was elsewhere. I couldn’t be where I wanted to be at any one given time. I simply had stacked far too many bangers and too much mash on my miniscule plate.

Mindfulness is particularly relevant in our lives now because we are busier than ever before, and we need to be able to keep our minds on more than one task at one time. As Bonnie Koenig over at Engaging Internationally wrote, being able to translate complexity into manageable action is crucial in development. From a career point of view, this is becoming increasingly an asset. I have seen many job descriptions where “ability to multitask” or “ability to balance a high workload with competing demands” is a requirement. However, mindfulness tells us that despite all these pressures from outside, competing for our attention, we need to be present now. In essence, it means that we need to be able to let go of the other thoughts that are running through our mind, and focus on the immediate.

Mindfulness makes an incredible amount of sense to me personally, because if you are unable to focus on the present at any given time, then why are you alive? If you aren’t listening to your partner when they are talking to you, and I mean truly listening and taking in every word, then why are you with them?

The same goes for development work. One of the fundamental principles of good development is the ability to listen to people. It involves ridding yourself of preconceptions about a particular situation and possible solutions, and instead being able to truly focus on what local people are telling you. Mindfulness makes you a better listener, which makes you a better communicator, and hence a better development worker.

Furthermore, for men like me, who are abysmal multi-taskers, the idea that mindfulness is good is an absolute blessing! No longer do we need to fool people into thinking we have a good “ability to multitask”. We only need to single-task.

The Dalai Lama, when asked what most surprises him about man, replied that man “sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.”

Without mindfulness, you’re not really living in the present, and as such, you’re not really living at all.

Here are some preliminary tips on how to apply mindfulness to your work:

1) Do less. Easier said than done, right? But, if your mind is constantly wandering over the things that you need to do in your lunch break, after you clock off, or the next day before work, it might be difficult for you to be truly mindful with so many things on your plate.

2) In the words of Dr. Srikumar Rao – “swap multitasking for mindfulness” in the workplace. That means actively working towards eliminating distractions as much as is humanly possible. If you are constantly flicking around between your work, Facebook and Twitter on your Mac – you could try using SelfControl, an application that blacklists certain websites for you so that while the timer is still running, you simply cannot access those sites.

3) Be mindful in every interaction with every single person, regardless of whether they are at the level of government, or from a local farming cooperative. Doing this, I think, requires getting in touch with your inner “everyman”, and not putting value or importance on other people arbitrarily, but seeing them as equals with something to contribute. I wrote more on this issue in this piece about David Foster Wallace.

4) Take a break from being around people, if you need it. If you’re tired from being around people all the time, recognise and care for your inner introvert. Disengage for a little while, so that when it is time to listen and interact again, you’re reared up and ready to go. This might mean taking the odd lunch alone, out of the office with a good book to keep you company.

5) Try harder. If at first you’re finding it difficult to do one thing at a time, persist. We live in an age where doing more than one thing at a time is seen as vital skill, so you might need to actively work at restricting yourself to one activity only, in many different aspects of your life. Start running without earphones in for a change. Don’t talk on your phone when you’re driving. Talk to your partner, without playing Angry Birds at the same time. Or, if you prefer, play Angry Birds, but don’t let your partner interrupt your quest for world domination. You get my drift.

Have you heard about mindfulness before? If so, have you found it helpful in your own life? If not, how do you think it could impact your work?

_______________________________________

Addendum:

This post is about my own experiences with mindfulness. While I can’t profess to be an expert on this topic, there are many resources written by those who are. I suggest you check out Mindfulness for NGOs as a good starting point.

You can follow this author on Twitter here.

There was probably a moment when you knew you wanted to do this. For me, it was listening to my mother talk about dengue epidemics and child survival at the dinner table. From when I was very small, I never doubted that I’d do work that made a difference in people’s lives who were poorer or less resourced than I was. Even as a four year-old in India, I saw the gap; I knew it wasn’t fair, and I wanted my life’s work to do something about it.

So, here we are. You’ve got the job, the places you like to hang out on the weekend. Hopefully, you’ve got friends to hang out and explore with. But maybe you’re working late hours more often than not. Maybe you don’t get out into the field anymore and don’t have the time or inclination to go see how your projects are working, and more importantly, to get to know the people they serve.

Don’t feel guilty. Jobs are like any relationship. Sometimes they work out. Sometimes they don’t. Sometimes, they work out for awhile and then, just like that, they don’t. Things change. Communities change. Projects change. So do we. Staying in one place requires work, especially for those of us who move around a lot. It’s up to you do put your time in and to do the work, but at the end of the day, how things work out is beyond your control.

Nurture your relationship.

I love being a consultant and getting to decide what I work on. I follow what interests me. But it also means I’m responsible for my own professional development. I spend time each day reading widely about public health and tech4dev innovations and initiatives on the Internet. For me to stay engaged and interested in my job, I need to be constantly learning and trying new things.

We all have this innate love of learning in us. Linking what we do to that inner joy reminds us of why we got into this line of work in the first place and makes us better and what we do. Although there’s a difference between aid workers and missionaries, we both identify the work we do with a higher goal, a vision, a cause. As aid workers, we just have a harder time remembering it.

If you’re feeling connected to your job and your sense of purpose, great. Take time, every now and again, to check in with yourself, to make sure what you’re doing matches up with your vision, and that you’re doing what you love. Life’s too short not to.

Put time into mastering your job, getting to know your stakeholders and colleagues, and learning the language and context you live and work it. Differentiate between short-term discontent during rough or busy spots, and the more pervasive sense of dissatisfaction that points towards a need for change. If you’ve tried and tried, and it just doesn’t feel like a good fit, don’t be hard on yourself.

Maybe you’re not in love anymore. That’s okay. Move on.

I remember at summer camp, we’d have to choose each morning’s craft or activity and the feeling of exhilaration and crisis it forced upon me: candle-making or sailing? Why couldn’t I do both? Formal education, especially as we get older, makes us do that. Year after year, with exams and degrees, we’re forced to specialise, get practical, and narrow our focus, at the risk of excluding parallel interests we also love.

Life doesn’t have to be like that, though. Neither does your job. Careers these days aren’t expected to offer us the long-term stability they offered to our parents’ generation. I think that’s a good thing. It’s energising for me to always be learning and actively pursuing my interests, especially when they’re things that can help me earn a living by helping people. Constantly expanding my professional and personal skills makes me a more integrated, resilient, engaged member of my community. It means the work I do is more interesting, more innovative, more informed by what academics call ‘cross-disciplinary’ influences.

If you’re falling out of love with your current topic area, start to read widely in your field and see what grabs your attention. As long as you’re not changing entire career silos every five years and are willing to put your time in, it’s easy to strategically transition to a slightly different line of work that’s more focused on your interests. This is particularly true if you’re genuinely and deeply engaged in what you want to be working on next and have cultivated some expertise in the area.

Maintain healthy boundaries.

At the end of the day, a job is a lot like a relationship. Because aid and development jobs involve an element of social justice, it’s easy to give them a sense of urgency that is often absent in other career paths (e.g. ones that aren’t trying to change the world). We can over-identify with our jobs, obsess over whether they– or we–are good enough, and struggle to try to make things work in environments that are already extremely challenging.

Occupational studies on aid and development workers’ mental health have found that our stress and perceived isolation levels are very high. Part of the reason is that we don’t differentiate from our jobs enough and we work too hard.

If you’re doing something you like, keep it that way. Don’t make your job your life. Have friends inside and outside your professional circles, and be sure to explore where you’re living and nurture lots of outside interests. Put your time in during working hours, but after you’re done, give yourself a break.

Let yourself explore widely, diving into learning about what interests you. Even if there’s no apparent link with your job right now, pursue learning for the joy of learning. You’ll be surprised where it takes you.

Elie Calhoun writes at ExpatBackup.com, where she explores how expat aid workers can have happy and healthy lives in the world’s most challenging environments. “Go Local,” the third issue of the Expat Backup e-magazine, launches today so check out the site and download your free copy!

“Is there something wrong with the scientific method?”

This was the tagline of a recent article in The New Yorker. The central theme of the article, I feel, is one of concern – concern that scientists are noticing a considerable decline effect when it comes to replicating experiments. To take just one example from the article:

“It had to do with a class of drugs known as atypical or second-generation antipsychotics, which came on the market in the early nineties. The drugs, sold under brand names such as Abilify, Seroquel, and Zyprexa, had been tested on schizophrenics in several large clinical trials, all of which had demonstrated a dramatic decrease in the subjects’ psychiatric symptoms. As a result, second-generation antipsychotics had become one of the fastest-growing and most profitable pharmaceutical classes. By 2001, Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa was generating more revenue than Prozac. It remains the company’s top-selling drug.

But the data presented at the Brussels meeting made it clear that something strange was happening: the therapeutic power of the drugs appeared to be steadily waning. A recent study showed an effect that was less than half of that documented in the first trials, in the early nineteen-nineties. Many researchers began to argue that the expensive pharmaceuticals weren’t any better than first-generation antipsychotics, which have been in use since the fifties”.

Replication of clinical trials were showing a decline effect, and according to the author of this article, this phenomenon is not just happening in medicine. What is at stake is the very foundation and validity of the scientific method:

“For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved? Which results should we believe? Francis Bacon, the early-modern philosopher and pioneer of the scientific method, once declared that experiments were essential, because they allowed us to “put nature to the question.” But it appears that nature often gives us different answers”.

Naturally, I immediately thought of Randomised Controlled Trials, RCTs, in the context of development, when reading this. There has been a good deal of robust debate* around the usefulness, validity, ethics and limitations of RCTs. Now, you may think I am about to pour water into a cup that is already overflowing. However, this Zen story may prove quite instructive at this point:

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”

“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”

I am not suggesting that I can show you Zen, but I do suggest you empty your cup. My purpose here to think about the effects of the decline effect on RCTs in a development context. One of the strongest arguments for RCTs is replication; if the results of an RCT to study the behaviour of parents in regards to their child’s immunisation in Rajasthan, India can be replicated in Kenya, and then again in say, Ghana, we could be closer to understanding how interventions can best be delivered for maximum (positive) effect. However, RCTs in development are quite new, and replications are only just beginning to get under way and only a few organisations can afford to keep it up. What if there is a decline effect? That is, a packaged intervention targeting immunisation began to show a declining effectiveness and falling rates of success? What if those carrying out replications and reporting on findings start to selectively report? The act of measuring is difficult (understatement), and it is only human to fall prey to perception biases.

“One of the classic examples of selective reporting concerns the testing of acupuncture in different countries. While acupuncture is widely accepted as a medical treatment in various Asian countries, its use is much more contested in the West. These cultural differences have profoundly influenced the results of clinical trials. Between 1966 and 1995, there were forty-seven studies of acupuncture in China, Taiwan, and Japan, and every single trial concluded that acupuncture was an effective treatment. During the same period, there were ninety-four clinical trials of acupuncture in the United States, Sweden, and the U.K., and only fifty-six per cent of these studies found any therapeutic benefits. As Palmer notes, this wide discrepancy suggests that scientists find ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis, disregarding what they don’t want to see. Our beliefs are a form of blindness”.

I am not sure how, or if at all, the decline effect has been considered or studied with regard to RCTs in development. It is probably too early to study, as there may not be enough replications to go around. However, the evidence coming from replication studies in biology, medicine and psychology should act as an early warning system for researchers and practitioners in development. Policies are being reworked and packaged interventions are being invested in, based on RCTs, their analysis and results. But, what if these early studies and results are just instances of randomness and chance? What if replications over the next 5, 10 or 15 years start to show a decline effect?

_____________________________

*If you want to try and get your tea cup full of knowledge before emptying it again, here are a list of links for reading. Most are critiques or measured responses. If you want to read about what the results of RCTs can teach us, you need look no further than Poor Economics or More Than Good Intentions.

David Week, ‘Who guards the RCT guardians?’

Dave Algoso, ‘Limitations of RCTs: politics and context’

Marc F. Bellemare, ‘Thoughts on the RCT debate’

Lawrence Haddad, ‘A new harvest of RCTs?’

Bill Easterly, ‘Development experiments: Ethical? Feasible? Useful?’

Timothy Ogden, ‘Revisiting objections to Randomized Control Trials’

Philip Auerswald, ‘Why Randomized Controlled Trials Work in Public Health…and Not Much Else’

David McKenzie, ‘A rant on the external validity double double-standard’ 

I initially started working internationally in the early 1980’s (yes, I know that seems a long time ago!). I have worked for numerous big and small organisations involved in various aspects of ‘engaging internationally’ to try and make the world a better place.  In the past few decades there have been many changes in the international environment. Here are some of my observations on those changes:

1)       “Capacity building” around the world – Many Western governments and agencies have conducted various types of ‘management training’ in the past 10-15 years that has helped to nurture independent and innovative local efforts.  Western or donor country organisations that may have struggled in the past to find local partners (or assumed that there weren’t any) now find it easier to find them.  This transition is still unfolding – and the development of true partnerships is a work in progress – but as an international community we are moving in a positive direction.

2)      The rise of the Internet has allowed for communication across traditional organisational lines  - This can be beneficial. It allows communication to happen between parties that in the past could not communicate directly.  But it can also be challenging. There can be so much communication and data that finding what is relevant can be frustrating and time consuming and coordination can be hard. We now have a lot of data flowing in many different directions but as this information flow can sometimes seem like a flood, it makes the need for knowledge management and the role of ‘curators’ even more important.

3)      Social media forums don’t have the seniority that real life and organisations do -  On social media platforms the ‘voices of experience’ combine with the ‘voices of enthusiasm’ in a way that does not happen as easily offline.  This allows for some amazing opportunities for synergy and lot of opportunity for cross-generational learning. See this great cartoon re: the need the older generation has to not lose the wonderful creativity of youth!

4)      Labels don’t mean as much -  We used to be a lot more concerned with somewhat rigid sectors – are you working in the private (corporate) sector, government, NGOs, etc? Today, the sectors are more porous, and concepts such as social entrepreneurship have become more common.  There is more of a focus on impact.  I wrote more about this here: Impact without Boundaries.

5)      Skills needed - There is a growing set of skills that are needed to be successful in working internationally.  Although basics like communication and organisational skills are on-going ‘staples’, skills like cultural competency, the ability to be a good listener and  ‘filtering skills’ (see #2 above re: the increasing flow of information) are increasingly important.  Michael Keizer wrote a good post about some of these skills “Eleven helpful skills and traits for aid and health logisticians“.

I would be very interested in also hearing what other veteran practitioners may have observed. Also, what are young folk perceiving as the latest challenges in the world of development?

Bonnie Koenig is a consultant working with non-governmental organisations on developing their strategic thinking and international programs. She has worked for over 20 years with local, national and international organisations in the areas of strategic planning, organisational and program development, staff training, and other governance and management issues. She writes at http://www.goinginternational.com.

By Lucy Daniel*

When I started working in the development sector, I quickly realised there were a few things to get my head around. Acronyms. The project management cycle. Aid versus development versus service delivery, and the slippery thin lines that divide them. And of course, the constant stream of International Days.

Planning for International Days is part of my role here at CBM. I inherited a list of all the International Days from my predecessor with little stars and circles next to the ones that warranted different levels of activity; an internal staff email, website content, or even an event. In my first naïve and wide-eyed week, I thought it was a bit harsh to rank important days like this.  If they were all good enough for the UN (or whoever set them), surely they are all good enough for us? But, by around the time I had mastered the staff coffee machine, I had also come to see how necessary a bit of forward planning was when it came to International Days.

Now don’t get me wrong, I still love International Days (IDs for short – I’ve come to embrace the acronyms now). IDs provide a welcome and necessary prompt for us to reflect upon, raise awareness and celebrate about important issues that may unintentionally just pass over otherwise.

But the thing is, there’s many of them. As regular tweeps will know, it’s very rare to get through a week without someone tweeting that it’s ID of this or that, and after a while, they all start to blur. It’s not that IDs aren’t fundamentally good concepts; but it would be a full time job to engage with every single one. So, practicality won, and I had to concede there was some merit in ranking them with little stars after all.

This made me realise that IDs are like birthdays—you have some that you make a huge deal about with special dinners, some that warrant a present and some that only need a text or facebook cheer.  The ranking each birthday or ID gets depends on how close you are with the person, or the issue as the case may be.

And maybe the really big IDs—International Women’s Day for example—which are close to the hearts of millions and celebrated worldwide, are more like your communal holidays such as Christmas, Passover, Ramadan or Diwali; as they have a broader reach than probably any individual’s birthday (although I’ve always been impressed that Americans get a day off for George Washington’s birthday).

So, while International Jugglers Day is probably more on par with an individual’s birthday party celebrated by those special few ball tossing elite and their fans, International Day of Eradication of Poverty is like New Years, recognised by masses worldwide if you count both Western and Chinese versions.

Why International Day of People with Disabilities deserves that star

Now that I’ve worked this theory out, I’m going to proclaim that International Day of People with Disabilities is one of the biggies; like Mothers Day perhaps.

If you don’t consider that issues around disability are relevant to you personally, you might think that this is a bit of an overstatement. The truth is that the World Report on Disability tells us that there are one billion people living with disabilities in the world. That’s one person in every seven, worldwide. With such a high prevalence we should all know someone with a disability of some kind, such as a physical impairment, mental health condition or intellectual disability. And, particularly close to the hearts of those of us concerned with poverty eradication, disability is a huge (though frequently forgotten) development issue.

The World Report also found that over twenty percent—that’s one in five—of the world’s poorest people live with a disability. This is because disability is much more prevalent in developing countries, because disability is both a cause and consequence of poverty. Disability causes poverty because societies frequently exclude people with disabilities. Particularly in developing countries where there are often widespread misconceptions and stigma around disability and its causes, people with disabilities are frequently shunned from society.

Also, the lack of available resources and training in these places means that people with disabilities are denied the supports that would enable them to participate in activities such as schooling or work, or even development programs. This exclusion means that people with disabilities are often denied fundamental rights such as education, rehabilitation and employment, which in turn deprives them of these opportunities to break out of poverty. And, while people with disabilities are more likely to live in poverty, those living in poverty are also more likely to acquire a disability. This is through many common circumstances of poverty such as lack of good nutrition, health care, shelter, clean water and sanitation, and safe working conditions.

This creates a cycle where disability both causes and is caused by poverty.  In fact, this link is so strong that the United Nations General Assembly has recognised that “inclusion of persons with disabilities in all development work is crucial to achieving the MDGs”. Also, societies and programs that include everyone get to benefit from the huge contributions that people with disabilities give back to communities in which they are able to meaningfully participate.

So what does this mean?

In the development sector this all means that in planning we need to consider how people with disabilities may experience or be excluded from our various projects, and ensure that these are made as accessible as possible. This could involve providing assistance to people with disabilities who may not be able to travel by themselves to program centres, breaking down social stigma around disability by ensuring people with disabilities are given equal opportunity to participate, or spreading word of projects in ways that people with communication or learning disabilities will be able to understand.

On a social level, it means that we all should keep in mind that one in seven people worldwide have a disability. Exclusion of people with disabilities doesn’t just take place in developing countries—it’s something that we all need to be conscious of and address in our own lives, social groups and workplaces.

And on a personal level, it means that if issues of development and poverty are close to your heart, then International Day of People with Disabilities every 3^rd December deserves a great big star in your calendar.

*Lucy Daniel joined CBM Australia as a Policy Officer in July 2011, after several years practicing as a family lawyer. CBM is the world’s largest organisation working with people with disabilities in developing countries. Lucy can be contacted via ldaniel[AT]cbm.org.au or @lucyjoydaniel

For more information on poverty and disability, you can visit and sign the pledge at www.endthecycle.org.au or follow @endthecycleAUS. The End the Cycle campaign is celebrating International Day of People with Disabilities in style at Sydney’s Martin Place on 2 December, 2011, from 12 to 2pm. All are welcome to this fun and free public event, sharing with people with disabilities about their achievements, rights and the cycle of poverty and disability. A huge line up including live music, speakers from WHO and UNICEF, and the End the Cycle photography exhibition will be there.

“They need to to undestand it better,” said one western official. “It’s disappointing, but maybe they do not want to be put in the same box as traditional donors.” (Guardian)

In light of the current aid effectiveness negotiations at the High Level Forum in Busan and increased pressure on China to improve the transparency of its foreign aid program, I have been reflecting on the often overlooked domestic context of China’s aid policy.

A challenge for the Chinese Government as it increases information about its foreign aid is managing how it is received domestically. With more than 200 million people still classified as ‘poor’ and a nascent civil society that concentrates efforts on domestic poverty alleviation and development issues, a ‘domestic lobby’ that pressures improvement in aid quality (and quantity) – as seen in traditional donor countries – appears a long way off.

That’s not to say that there is no domestic influence on China’s aid program: Chinese companies who implement the projects or receive procurement contracts have an interest in the expansion of the aid budget, and in the continuation of China’s ‘mutual benefit’ tied aid policy. This in itself is not altogether unusual – similar business lobbies exist in Japan and Korea (and no doubt many other countries). What I’m finding particularly interesting though is the way that Chinese people – especially the ever-vocal netizens – are responding to specific information on Chinese foreign aid.

The most recent example relates to the Chinese Government’s donation of 23 school buses to Macedonia. Information was reported on the Chinese Embassy in Macedonia’s website on Friday, 10 days after a horrific incident in Gansu Province where 19 preschool children were killed in a school bus crash (in which 64 people were overloaded into a 9 seat bus). People were already angry about the poor quality of school buses and netizens had circulated a photo montage comparing Chinese buses to those in America (collated by chinaSMACK here but warning: some images may distress). Awareness of the announcement of the foreign aid donation prompted more than 500,000 mostly angry comments on Sina Weibo, many expressing sentiments along these lines: ‘Chinese children don’t have fine buses to deliver them to schools, and the Chinese government is actually sending buses to other countries’.

Jing Gao on the Ministry of Tofu website has an excellent overview of netizens’ reactions, including a chart made by an internet user that compares the disparities in living standards between Macedonia and China, and this telling cartoon.

The outcry prompted a response from the Global Times. It firstly reflects on the timing of the information:

‘The coincidental release of information should have been avoided’

But then seeks to defend the aid program:

‘However, China cannot simply stop its aid programs to foreign countries. There is not evidence to prove the excess of these programs’

And back to unfortunate timing:

‘The school bus donation to Macedonia would have gone unnoticed if the Gansu incident had never happened’

While not directly involving Chinese Government foreign aid, two controversies earlier this year – the ‘Guo Meimei Red Cross Scandal’ and the issues surrounding the China Africa Project Hope – raised related responses from the Chinese population. While both scandals were actually bound up more in issues with rich young Chinese and their misuse of charities, people were also concerned about the (in)appropriateness of helping other countries when there remain so many problems within China.

Traditional donors have spent considerable effort (and resources) to try to educate their domestic populations about their foreign aid programs. As China’s program continues to expand, and scrutiny of government spending (across all areas) increases, the Chinese Government will have to find effective ways to explain its foreign aid program to a domestic audience.

To coincide with the 60^th Anniversary of China’s aid to foreign countries, celebrated in August 2010, and the release of the White Paper on Foreign Aid in April 2011, the Chinese media launched significant information initiatives, including special lift-out sections of the China Daily, a TV program, and summaries of key points of the White Paper. This was notable but generally shied away from specific details of individual projects.

Some voices are emerging that promote the idea of China providing foreign aid. One article, by Jin Chen (and translated here), for example, argues that ‘the Chinese Government, entrepreneurs, and NGOs should all participate more actively in international philanthropy’, as ‘this will impact on China’s global reputation and also global strategy in the future’.

However, the fact that people were ringing the bus manufacturer asking if they’d made the donations to Macedonia themselves (as reported in this Shanghai Daily article) is indicative of the lack of knowledge about how China’s foreign aid program works.

Whilst the potential is potentially there for social media channels to be leveraged to get transparency onto China’s aid agenda, the risk (and perhaps more likely scenario) is that the scrutiny makes the Chinese Government think twice about improving information about its foreign aid activities, particularly as the Government is already struggling to negotiate the changing boundaries and expectations of its citizens regarding domestic policies and accountability. Nevertheless, with an aid budget growing at almost 30% per year in recent years, and pressure from the international community to undertake its fair share of global responsibilities, the Chinese Government would be well advised to begin a conversation with its people about its foreign aid program.

We are starting to see signs of how it might be framed. It is unlikely to be presented as an ethical endeavour of ‘helping the poor’. And although promoting ‘win-win’ outcomes may help to explain the aid activities, this may be hard to explicitly prove, particularly if scrutinised at the level of specific individual projects. Given the increasing dislike about the unreasonable power of large state owned enterprises amongst some sectors of Chinese society, presenting Chinese aid projects as also benefiting these companies through contract and investment opportunities may not be the smartest way to go.

Instead, the Chinese Government may continue to explain its foreign aid program through the concept of China acting as a ‘responsible great power’ (of course whether or not it actually is is another question). In fact, under the headline ‘Nurturing nations: China practices global giving’, in the China Daily’s 2010 ‘Special Report’ on Chinese aid, examples of humanitarian assistance, multilateral programs, regional cooperation, debt relief, and assistance for achieving the MDGs are cited as evidence of the Chinese Government’s responsibility in global affairs. China Daily reporter, Yang Cheng, has also opened an article on Chinese aid stating: ‘As a responsible socialist and developing country, the nation has taken foreign aid as an important path to building a harmonious world.’

The Government response to the outcry of the school bus donations to Macedonia seem to be following this line too: ‘China is living up to its international obligations to help other countries as they had supported China during hard times’.

China is facing international pressure to improve the transparency of its foreign aid, but if and how it does this will in many ways be based on how it will be received in its own domestic context.

Philippa Brant is completing a PhD on Chinese aid and the implications for the international aid regime. She is a Prime Minister’s Australia Asia Endeavour Award Holder (2010) and has recently returned to The University of Melbourne after living in Beijing. She can be contacted via plbrant[AT]gmail.com or @pipbrant

By Luke Pearson.

Funnily enough, Aboriginal people didn’t originally use a word based in Latin to collectively refer to everyone in Australia any more than people living in the Torres Strait Islands would suddenly choose to collectively name themselves after some guy with the last name Torres, who did whatever it is he did, however long ago it is he was supposed to have done it. Neither did any group refer to all of the above groups collectively as ‘Indigenous’.

There are too many words that exist for me to even to attempt to list them all here, but to give a brief example of the names used by different groups in Australia, they include: Wiradjuri, Badu, Yorta Yorta, and Yindjibarndi. It has also become quite common to hear collective terms for larger areas that encompass several groups, such as Koori, Murri, and Noonga.

Traditionally, there would never have been a need to even consider a word that collectively described all the people who fall within the imaginary boundaries that constitute  Australia. Especially because this imaginary boundary did not exist until very recently. After all, Australia is only 110 years old.

The terms used to describe Indigenous Australians however are much older. Most of these terms were firmly in place long before Captain Cook ever stepped foot on Australian soil.  The choices he had on offer at the time included: native, savage, primitive, aborigine, and a whole lot more. It was also perfectly acceptable to the rest of the Western World for him to have used any word he cared to choose, as Western knowledge of Indigenous Australians at the time was almost non-existent. He would have been considered by many to have been perfectly within his right to have named us all ‘Cookians’ if he wanted to… and if that sounds silly to you, tell that to the ‘Torres Strait Islanders’, or the ‘Rhodesians’, or even the ‘Americans’, or at least those who know that they are named after some guy named ‘Amerigo’, who did whatever it is he did, however long ago he was supposed to have done it.

But like many other people around the world we didn’t get the logical label – the one derived from the label being given to the area of land we occupied, i.e ‘Australians’. We instead were given a label deemed to be more befitting of our ‘natural state’.

We were called ‘aboriginal’.

Many people believe this is still the term that Aboriginal people still choose for themselves. It is not.

To many Aboriginal people, the difference between ‘aboriginal’ and ‘Aboriginal’ is as vast as the difference between ‘turkey’ and ‘Turkey’… and in many instances, just as offensive.

Aboriginal (with a capital A) is probably still the most popular collective term used in Australia at the moment, but the term ‘indigenous’ has been gaining more and more popularity in recent years, especially on a public level through Government, various organisations and the media. There seems to be two camps though amongst those who use the term: ‘indigenous’ or ‘Indigenous’?

Some often ask, why did we need to change from ‘Aboriginal’ at all? This is a fair question and the answer is one that can be logically assumed, but it is harder to pinpoint exactly (at least from the perspective of this observer and commentator).

Aboriginal Australians were once called ‘aborigines’ and also ‘aboriginal people’. Over time many people came to identify with these labels and so demanded that they become capitalised. It seems fair to say that over the decades since this was achieved ‘Aboriginal’ has won out over ‘Aborigines’ and become a common preference amongst a majority of Aboriginal people. There are even those who now consider ‘Aborigine’ to be an out-dated and offensive term. Different individuals however, have their own preferences and reasons and explanations for these.

There were many who had already voiced the idea that ‘Aboriginal’ was not great to use as a collective term as it did not fully recognise and respect many Torres Strait Islander Peoples, who more often than not do not regard themselves as ‘Aboriginal’. This is why for many years it was most common to see the phrase ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’, and even the acronym ATSI (as in AIATSIS, and the now extinct, ATSIC).

The term Indigenous seems to have found its foothold because of the combination of Torres Strait Islander exclusion from the term ‘Aboriginal’, a general dislike of being referred to by an acronym (an ATSI person), academia’s love of being able to create new and improved ‘metalanguage’, and the fact that ‘Indigenous’ is accepted on the international scene. The UN speak often on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples around the world, and events like the World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education have been around for a reasonably long time now.

So the term ‘Indigenous’ was a very attractive option for many people. It appeared to tick all the right boxes and address everyone’s key issues: Wiradjuri people were still Wiradjuri and Aboriginal people were still Aboriginal, but now both also fell under the broader category of ‘Indigenous’ which included not just all Aboriginal people but also Torres Strait Islanders. Moreover, it could also be used when appropriate to talk about our shared status with other people around the world who met the peculiar criteria that seem to classify a particular group as being ‘Indigenous’.

When a word becomes a proper noun, rules of grammar often come secondary to personal preference. Muhammad Ali is a prime example of how many people can callously refuse to acknowledge a change that goes against their personal views (for many years after officially changing his name Ali was still referred to by many in the media as ‘Cassius Clay’). This same attitude is believed by many Indigenous people to be at the heart of the media’s refusal to capitalise ‘indigenous’ when referring to Indigenous Australians. That it represents a belief that Indigenous people do not deserve respect or acknowledgement, that rather than being in the same category of Greek, Catholic or Australian, we are once again being referred to in the terminology of ‘flora and fauna’.

Whether it is a matter of grammar, of malice, or even one of ignorance is impossible for me to say, but I would suggest the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. What I am far more confident in saying about the media’s refusal to capitalise Indigenous (as well as their use of Aborigine/s) is that to many Indigenous people it is both a practical and symbolic example of a lack of cultural understanding, respect and a general lack of awareness and sensitivity when it comes to reporting on Indigenous issues. If media outlets are incapable of seeing linguistics in the same way that many linguists do (as a ‘descriptive’, rather than a ‘prescriptive’ process) and acknowledge that the role of Indigenous Australians is indeed significant enough to warrant capitalisation along with other groups of humans (like English people, Christians… or the Newcastle Knights), how on earth can we expect them to appropriately report on the complicated and multi-faceted issues which face many Indigenous communities? Semantics and choice of grammar or phrasing in writing reflect to the reader a sense of the author’s attitudes and values to a topic. This is one of the obvious problems when it comes to ‘reading between the lines’, it usually leaves itself open to interpretation and juxtaposition.

To give an example of how terms like aboriginal, Aboriginal, indigenous and Indigenous overlap and co-exist, according to my own personal understanding, Aboriginal Australians are in fact aboriginal, but we are not ‘aboriginal Australians’. The same is true for ‘indigenous’. Indigenous Australians are in fact indigenous, but we are not ‘indigenous Australians’. In the strictest dictionary context, I may be an aborigine but I do not personally identify as an Aborigine, I identify as an Aboriginal Australian. I have no objection to referring to myself or being referred to as an Aboriginal Australian or an Indigenous Australian, but I never refer to myself as an Aborigine.

To be referred to as an aborigine, aboriginal or indigenous Australian I believe to be disrespectful. This is especially true, when being mentioned as a part of a larger list – i.e “Dutch Australians, English Australians and indigenous Australians”.

I am Gamilaroi, which contemporaneously means I am Murri, I am an Aboriginal Australian, I am an Indigenous Australian, I am one of the world’s Indigenous people and I am an Australian.

It really isn’t that complicated.

Luke Pearson is a proud Aboriginal man living and working in NSW. He is a qualified teacher, researcher, social commentator, Cultural Awareness Trainer and frequently tweets as @LukeLPearson. He blogs at AboriginalOz.blogspot.com. This is a crosspost with his own blog.

There are any number of academics, professionals and bloggers offering advice on working in aid and development. Dave Algoso’s post is a one-stop shop if you are seeking a round-up of disparate opinions on career advice. However, in light of some more recent thoughts about motivation, well being and knowledge in aid and development, I have been thinking about the space in-between motivation and jobs: education. That is, pursuing higher education for future work in aid and development. More specifically, about what a ‘development studies’ curriculum looks like and what it should/might include. This is not a guide to where you could or should study, although that would be extremely useful. Dan Drezner, of Foreign Policy, offers ‘A useful primer of higher education choices for international affairs‘. Drezner’s analogy for undertaking a PhD is attacking the Killer Bunny:

“And, just to be clear, aspiring Ph.D. students:  I’m the guy with the weird Scottish accent, the bunny is the Ph.D. program, and all y’all are the ones suffering from the blood and gore.

Unless you really want to kill that bunny, just walk away” (Dan Drezner).

Good advice. Such is not available, to the best of my knowledge, for undertaking ‘development studies’ in higher education (Chris Blattman and Alanna Shaikh are exceptions). In particular, undergraduate and postgraduate (Masters) studies in development in Australia. Degrees in ‘development studies’ have multiplied as the aid and development industry grows and expands, particularly across Australia. UNSW, Deakin, Monash, University of Melbourne, ANU, USYD, Murdoch, University of Queensland, University of Melbourne all offer degrees in ‘development studies’. ANU’s Development Studies Network has a great summary of these courses, but no real critical insight for prospective students. Perhaps if the results of the graduate exit surveys taken were publicly available, students could make a more informed choice.

So, I want to open a forum and think about what should/might be included in a ‘development studies’ curriculum. This stems from my own experience as a postgraduate student and the ebb and flow of dissatisfaction I experienced in terms of relevance, value and skill development.

My experience in higher education is both as a student and a researcher. The latter, in teaching & learning for business and economics. There was, and still is, a radical shift occuring across global business curricula in terms of students’ outcomes, skills and learning. Life-long learning has become a key concept, as it is now recognised that education should not be for employment, but for employability. Students face an uncertain future. This has also seen a shift to a discourse of ‘transferable skills’, which I am sure you are all well aware of (and have). Academic standards are also being developed in partnership with government, industry and universities to engender greater accountability, quality learning and employer satisfaction.

I do not believe that ‘development studies’ has benefited from this shift (nor have my majors in Ancient Roman & Greek History or Near Eastern Archaeology). And I believe this is because there is not the same impetus to invest in research for improving the teaching and learning of ‘development studies’ (again, neither for Ancient Roman & Greek History or Near Eastern Archaeology). Investment is being geared towards those degrees that attract the most number of students and that are considered to contribute most effectively towards the ‘knowledge economy’ (apparently, a nuanced understanding of the prosprographical characteristics of consular elections in 2nd Century BC Rome is not valued in the knowledge economy). The Global Masters in Development Practice (MDP) was set-up and developed thanks to a $16 million MacArthur Foundation grant. Many universities offering ‘development studies’ do not have the same resources at their disposal.

Following are some thoughts about different aspects of studying ‘development studies’.

Skills & competencies

Surveys from across the business world, of students, academics, employers, have usually found similar  desires in terms of skills. However, there is the constant problem of matching education and skills with available employment. The problem of skills mismatch arises even in growing economies. There are severe labour shortages for some kinds of workers and a massive oversupply of others. Often this is in spite of market forces rather than because of them, since markets and higher educational institutions tend to lag behind employers’ skill demands before oversupplying them.

A 2008 Tuning Report on the design and delivery of business programmes in higher education in Europe found very similar rankings of the most important skills and competencies by employers, graduates and academics.

What skills and competencies are the most important for those working in aid and development?

Aid v. Development

As with other higher education programs that lead into a profession and industry, we have to recognise that ‘development studies’ is in the same box. However, there is a key difference. Although aid and development are industries, they are not professions. Wanderlust posted a 5-part series on ‘Becoming an aid worker’, the second of which is titled – ‘Aid work is a profession‘. I disagreed, and had a very engaging discussion on this topic. A recent study from ELRHA, a collaborative network that supports partnerships between higher education institutions in the UK and humanitarian organisations around the world, suggests that the aid industry is a long way off from becoming professionalised. Essentially, there is no professional association body or a standardised qualification system. And, if these were developed, it would be very difficult to make this a universally, globally recognised body or system. They would first have to be developed at national levels, most likely in U.S, UK, Australia, Canada or the EU. This will require funding, research, collaboration, consultation, and more. At the moment, qualifications are fragmented; competencies, learning outcomes and curricula change from one Masters degree to another. In addition, there is no one profession that the aid or development industry consists of, unlike the medical, law, teaching or accounting professions. The aid and development industry encompasses all four professions and more.

Furthermore, there is the apparent difference between ‘aid work’ and ‘development work’. Aid work largely refers to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Development work is much broader in scope, time and place and can also cut across any number of disciplines and knowledge: law, economics, education, health, etc. However, the line is beginning to blur between what is ‘humanitarian/aid work’ and what is ‘development work’. This is from a recent report on aid policy at IRIN:

“A striking finding…is that humanitarian recipients are relatively predictable: the top five aid recipients – Sudan, oPt (occupied Palestinian territory), Iraq, Afghanistan and Ethiopia – have remained among the top 10 aid recipients over the past decade. Rather than aid being a short-term life-saving measure, the statistics indicate it is being used to deliver basic services year on year, according to Kellett, and in this sense, the divide between humanitarian and development aid may be far weaker than many think. ‘It’s not what it says on the box,’ he surmised…This points to the oft-repeated false division between humanitarian and development aid, said UK Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Humanitarian Policy Group researcher Sarah Bailey. ‘The reality is that our efforts to make a clear division between `humanitarian’ and `development’ are not well suited to the complexity of these contexts… We know that humanitarian assistance is not the best tool to address long-term vulnerability and the absence of basic services, so why isn’t development assistance doing more to tackle these problems?’”

Value

Alanna Shaikh once reasoned that she does not hire development study majors, but changed her opinion. Would you hire someone with a Bachelor of Arts, a Masters in Development Studies, an internship at ActionAid and has read ‘Dead Aid’? What would they have to offer that hundreds, if not thousands, of other students do not have? Enthusiasm? Good intentions? A knowledge of the rights-based framework? An academic understanding of neoliberalism and global trade imbalances? It is always a case of theory v. practice. Many courses would give you an excellent theoretical basis for understanding, but little practical experience or critical learning that will make you more employable.

The only advice that I would offer here is this – study something that gives you discrete knowledge, skills and grounding in a discipline and then do a postgraduate MA. Education, public health, engineering, architecture, medicine, economics, logistics, etc. will offer valuable pathways for entry into aid and development work. A MA in Development Studies has little value-added in terms of skill & technical knowledge development, but does look great on an application for the AusAID or World Vision graduate programs. It is perhaps better suited for those already working in development, particularly for graduates with a few years of experience. As a degree, it gains much more relevancy and value with work experience. If all those in the industry had a discrete background in one of the above, it would perhaps facilitate professionalisation.

Field experience: internships and work-based learning

Field experience is highly prized by both students and employers. Doing the time on internships and volunteer placements is necessary. Built-in field experience, whether it be an internship at an NGO or in-country research in India, should be part of any program in ‘development studies’. But, who should pay for it? Usually, the student bears the cost of gaining relevant field experience in the first one-two years. There are graduate programs in Australia, such as at World Vision Australia and AusAID. There are also a number of paid ‘volunteer’ opportunities through AusAID, such as the AYAD and AVID programs, but these require high levels of experience and usually an area of technical expertise such as nutrition, health, law, or education.

________________________________________

J. of Tales from the Hood laments:

“Professionalizing the aid sector – by definition applying standards which would mean excluding non-professionals from practice – means improving the quality of service provided to the poor. No, of course it will not solve every problem. But it will absolutely solve or eliminate many. Who knows? Maybe I’d even end up out of a job. But even so, professionalizing the aid sector is, or if it ever happens, would be a good thing. Absolutely.

I struggle to see why this is such a challenging concept”.

It is not the concept that is challenging, but the process, which starts with higher education and bringing together a hodge-podge of professions, curricula, stakeholders, studies, skills and interests. The following are some guiding questions for discussion, based on the above and more, as what I have written is by no means comprehensive nor necessarily of any value:

• What is the overall aim of a B/MA in Development Studies?
• What is ‘development studies’?
• Is there a difference between ‘aid work’ and ‘development work’? How should this be addressed in curricula?
• What is the value of a B/MA in the job market, global economy?
• What courses are essential? What courses are not so essential?
• Where does service learning, internships and field work fit into the curriculum?
• How can this help the professionalisation of the sector?
• Is higher education equitable and accessible?

China is, without a doubt, on a fast track to ‘development’ with an astonishing US$3.2 trillion in foreign reserves. But inequality, particularly rural and urban, is extreme with an estimated 150 million people living below the United Nations poverty line of less than $US1 a day. China’s growing wealth has resulted in multiple international aid agencies (including Australia’s Agency for International Development) pulling out of China. So, who is going to pick up the slack and help support 150 million people living in extreme poverty?

I don’t want to over exaggerate the influence that aid agencies have had on combating poverty in China. The Chinese government has done a remarkable job of lifting millions of people out of poverty and they will not stop achieving this, but 150 million people still living in extreme poverty is a huge number. As with most issues in China, it is the scale that makes the issue so significant.

Since working in CSR in China, I have noticed a further shift towards engaging corporations to contribute to NGOs who work in poverty alleviation. This concerns me for two main reasons.

1. CSR in China is currently not mature enough to significantly contribute to poverty alleviation and is still often used as a tool to improve companies guanxi 关系 (relationship) with governments.
2. Unless there is a shift in the way we view capitalism, corporations will never view themselves as part of a social security system.

Corporations in China, both international and domestic, will not fund NGOs or GONGOs (Government Organised Non Government Organisations) to the extent that is needed to support the poorest of the poor. This is not to say that companies do not engage in successful community investment, they do, but it is by no means at the level necessary to significantly contribute to poverty alleviation. At this stage, corporations can do more to alleviate poverty by focusing on improving their internal supply chains and employee working conditions.

International aid agencies in China have worked with (and therefore supported) domestic NGOs. Civil society in China, or the lack of it, is a real problem. Civil society, including community organisations and NGOs, has the potential to play a huge role in poverty alleviation. However, local NGOs are getting little support and now that aid agencies are leaving the situation for some is dire. I have spoken to a number of NGOs in China who are desperate to engage companies under the guise of CSR to fund their organisations. One of these NGOs was supported by an international aid agency that has now, in an official capacity, pulled out of China. It is my feeling that unless you are an international NGO or a GONGO in China, you are going to struggle to get support under the guise of Corporate Social Responsibility.

So, who will provide enough support to domestic civil society that in turn support the most disadvantaged and poor?

Well, in my opinion, it will not be the CSR departments of local and international corporations. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the government. The Chinese government has the money but still lacks the capacity and infrastructure to develop a social safety net that will support those living in extreme poverty. The issue around the government not supporting NGOs from a political perspective is also a contributing issue. The domestic philanthropy sector is rich (and making some progress) but riddled with challenges ranging from weak laws and regulations to outlandish corruption. China may get there in the end, but between now and then, the holes in the social security system are here to stay.

Emily is an experienced project manager with practical and research experience in sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. She has worked in Australia, China, Laos, Thailand and Malaysia. Emily currently lives and works in China.

The opinions Emily expresses on this blog are her own and do not reflect those of her employers or clients. This is a cross-post with Emily’s own blog.

In the past few days, I blazed my way through “Work on Purpose” by Lara Galinsky and Echoing Green, devouring the stories and winding pathways of the five social entrepreneurs profiled within.

This book is a reflection of our generation – slightly confused, constantly searching, never settling, seeking meaning. For Generation Y, work has been transformed from a simple means of supporting oneself to an opportunity, a blank space which we can paint with our passions and imbue with our spirits. Work is no longer about plain sustenance, but about creativity, innovation, and possibility. And most of all, our generation seeks a deeper purpose for our work. Helping large corporations make more money is no longer satisfying; being a cog in a robotic machine is deeply unsettling.

But you have heard all this before. The way the Millennial generation views work and meaning and life and purpose is nothing new to you. We have been inundated with blogs and articles examining my generation’s characteristics in painstaking detail.

Yet, many see my generation as entitled–we feel like we are above grunt work and endless spreadsheets and paying our dues. We do not want to settle for something we don’t love. And yes, perhaps this quest for meaning reeks of entitlement. But aren’t we all working towards a world where our children have the freedom to pursue their passion for a living? And isn’t it a good thing– no, a great thing– if this generation springboards from entitlement into a generation of social change leaders? And this, indeed, is what is happening. We are experiencing an unprecedented movement of young people passionate about tackling deeply entrenched social problems. And I would argue that our entitlement is, in part, what has allowed us to do important work. What has freed us up from the need to focus only on salary, allowed us to pursue work for reasons beyond supporting our families.

Work on Purpose echoes this quintessential quest that myself and many of my peers are undergoing. What is inspiring, and different, about this book is its painful honesty. The social justice leaders profiled did not follow a linear path to doing good work. Indeed, the roads they took were often winding, painful, and confusing. Most of them did not find their ideal job doing game-changing work that also harnessed their valuable skills immediately after college:

“Although the words and actions we absorb in our homes profoundly shape our ideas of what is important, when it comes time to start a professional life, we often put those early experiences aside. They can be overshadowed by the desire to earn a good salary, the pressure to follow a particular path, and the need to satisfy competing demands from our families, our peers, and ourselves.

Few people fall immediately into jobs or paths that satisfy all these desires, let alone stem from what they think is meaningful. Most people…wander or take misguided turns.”

Cheryl Dorsey, President of Echoing Green, did not find her place in the world until 38! She spent time meandering, learning, falling in and out of graduate programs and ill-fitting jobs. She went to medical school, got an MPP, and even enrolled in a history graduate program. None of them seemed to click or truly ignite her passion — she did not want to be a doctor or a policymaker — but she kept seeking. She found the right place once she joined Echoing Green. She got there eventually. And it’s a lesson to all of us that we can find the right fit — we may just have to exercise a bit of  patience and refuse to give up in our quest.

Along the way, we must ask ourselves certain questions:  What moments from your childhood shaped what you think is important? When in your life have you felt out of whack? In those out of whack periods, what was out of balance? What would you do if you were not afraid of failing? When have you felt in the zone, like you were doing exactly what you should be doing? What is your issue or cause to own?

Why do you do what you do?

Ultimately, Lara Galinsky comes up with a powerful formula: heart + head = hustle. The perfect career lies nestled in this combination: passion and love for what you do and your mission (heart) and the utilization of your concrete skills and talents (head). If you find work that allows you to harness your professional skills to your fullest potential while also allowing you to do something you love & feel strongly about, you have stumbled upon something truly magical.

This is the journey of our generation, and future ones. My pathway seems blanketed in fog for now, but at the same time I know where my feet are taking me. I am asking myself the questions that matter, while knowing things will become clearer with time. This book gives me faith that I, and you, will eventually find that magical balance that sets things in motion to change ourselves, and the world.

We just have to have a little patience.

Ed: What motivates us all in the workplace? In a most entertaining 10 minute animation, find out:

Akhila Kolisetty serves as a Development Advisor of Justice for All Organization (JFAO), a non-profit that works to strengthen the rule of law and expand access to legal services for women and girls in Afghanistan. Akhila also works with a civil rights law firm in D.C. handling fair housing and police misconduct complaints. She graduated from Northwestern University in 2010 with a B.A. in Political Science and Economics, where she studied at the London School of Economics and wrote an honours thesis on transitional justice in Rwanda and Sierra Leone. This is a modified post which can be found on her blog.

My name is Richenda and I *love* slacktivists.

I hate the title “Slacktivist” yet Mashable’s suggested term “Social Champion” doesn’t feel right either. To me, they are family. The World Vision family.

Working at World Vision USA and more recently World Vision Australia, I have built and engaged online communities of substantial scale. With this experience in mind, I will try to answer the questions raised by Weh in his recent blog post: Is it possible to engage slacktivists in more worthwhile causes, or should NGOs focus their energy elsewhere?

These are not easy questions to answer. 

Is it possible to engage slacktivists in more worthwhile causes?

Yes, without a doubt!

People that “like” or “follow” your organisation are choosing to publicly recommend your organisation to their network and/or choosing to receive communications from you! At World Vision, we call these people our “online family”, not slacktivists! They are new, current and prospective supporters who are happy to interact with us on a daily basis.

Mashable’s feature of The Dynamics of Cause Engagement study by Georgetown University’s Center for Social Impact Communication and Ogilvy Worldwide showing that slacktivists are more likely to take meaningful actions is no surprise to us.

Years of rigorous tracking and analysis has shown us that investment in our online family delivers consistent financial and non-financial returns. In addition to the activities listed above, we are also learning about the positive impact social media communication has on our long term relationships. This is important to us because our main product, Child Sponsorship, relies on long-term commitment to regular giving  to support complex, often misunderstood, community development.

An example of how we share content that aims to increase understanding of community development and affirm the commitment of sponsors

Not everyone in our family sponsors a child, recruits friends or rallies their local member of parliament. We know that some of our community will “like” a status once, while others contribute to content regularly and more meaningfully.

Some are silent readers, while others bring me to tears with their stories and their personal passion for social justice! (Tears from our team are not an uncommon response to these amazing stories!)

One of my favourite cross-channel advocacy examples. From WV Facebook, to a personal blog, to twitter. Love it!

Some share stories to entice friends to become involved, while others may never publicly share content but will personally click through to make a donation.

The level of commitment within the community varies from person to person, and is influenced by the content, opportunities and conversations you give them access to. Your online community will quickly discover whether the stories you tell, the opportunities you provide and the conversations you have are valuable. Which brings me too….

 Should NGOs focus their energy elsewhere?

Yes and No

Cultivating and mobilising online communities takes tremendous amount of time and resource. Any investment in this area should be well thought out, strategic and long-term. Honestly, there is no point investing in social media unless you  have a solid foundation. Before investing in building an online community, an NGO should be asking:

• Is our website in good health? Are people using it to find out more about us or make donations?
• Do we utilise website tracking to understand the behaviour of visitors to our site?
• Do we have access to meaningful stories and multimedia?
• Do we have communication that explain what we do?
• Is our media team able to respond to difficult questions and criticism?
• Does our organisation see a need to stay in dialogue with supporters?
• Does our leadership understand social media and are they willing to invest in it?

If you answered “no” to any of these above questions – you should focus your energy there, instead of, or before, building a social media community. Without these fundamentals, you will find it  challenging to create effective content, understand the impact of your community and engage in authentic meaningful conversations.

If you answered “yes” to all of the above – go for it! Start by building a social media strategy that aligns with your organisation’s goals for engagement and target demographic. Your strategy should drive your tactics -  directing how you build your online family and the style or personality you use to engage them. To help you on your way, I have started a blog series to help demystify social media strategy and give you some practical advice.

Critics may tell you social media will produce no return. I think you will produce no return..if you are doing it wrong.  If you’re doing it right, your online family will take their passion or ‘slacktivism’ into the real world.  You will grow to love and respect your ‘slacktivists’ for what they really are: passionate people keen to make a difference. Trust me, I’m that annoying person on facebook that says ..

Richenda Ghebrial-Ibrahim is World Vision Australia’s Social Media Manager. Trained as a social worker, she has worked in the non-profit sector in the USA and Australia for over ten years. Richenda is passionate about new media and innovative ways to engage people’s hearts and minds to make social change. At World Vision Australia and World Vision USA, Richenda has focused on developing cause-specific social communities, training communicators about social media specific content and developing digital customer service capabilities.

She blogs regularly at: www.imrichenda.com.

A recent post over at Mashable got me thinking about the issue of slactivism. It doesn’t take out much brainpower to work out the origins of the word (slacker + activism), and it’s now so much in common parlance that it has its own Wikipedia entry. Slacktivism is defined as “a pejorative term that describes “feel-good” measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it feel satisfaction.”

The word ‘pejorative’ is, I think, particularly accurate. Slacktivism has widely been derided as something that is lazy (hence the word “slacker”), and is done more for the benefit of the slacktivist than for the people who the cause is trying to support. An example of slacktivism that springs to mind occurred last year (twice!) when people on Facebook set their status updates to either describe the colour of their bras, or where their purses were. What was all this in aid of? Raising awareness of breast cancer. Quite rightly, there were some questions asked at the time as to whether anybody with a Facebook account could possibly not be aware of breast cancer.

Similarly, there have been countless jokes made about phrases like “Donate a Tweet” and “Like our Cause on Facebook”, and questions asked about the true impact of these actions. No doubt, asking questions about whether slacktivism itself is likely to promote any meaningful change is entirely valid.

Sites like donateatweet.com ask people to donate a tweet a day. But to what? It isn't clear.

However, a study cited in the Mashable piece suggests that perhaps we shouldn’t be writing off slacktivism after all, because, as it turns out, slacktivists aren’t all that bad. Here are the main findings:

In the 2010 national survey, people who frequently engaged in promotional social activity were:

• As likely as non-social media promoters to donate
• Twice as likely to volunteer their time
• Twice as likely to take part in events like charity walks
• More than twice as likely to buy products or services from companies that supported the cause
• Three times as likely to solicit donations on behalf of their cause
• More than four times as likely to encourage others to sign a petition or contact political representatives

One of the inherent assumptions about slacktivism already outlined, is that the action occurs more for the benefit of the slacktivist than for the cause. Particularly for development workers, this is an easy assumption to make. But before we assume this to be true, we need to spend a little time navel-gazing, and looking into our own motivations.

Last month on whydev, Brendan asked a very simple question: why do you work in development? Even though individual motivations differed, the common theme supporting the reactions we received was a desire to help, despite the difficulties that are encountered. In essence it seems, most people in aid and development not only genuinely care about the cause they are working for, but also work extremely hard in often trying conditions. The slacktivist, however, most likely cares about the cause he/she is supporting, but doesn’t need to do any difficult work to support it. In some ways then, the slacktivist is like the development worker, only a slightly more B-grade option. The slacktivist is the Diet Coke of the development worker.

It’s not difficult to see why looking down our noses at slacktivists is an almost instinctive next step. But this is where we need to separate the slacktivism from the slacktivist. Sure, write off slacktivism as having minimal effect. But what the research seems to show, however, is that slacktivists really want to help, and are actually more likely to do so than others. So instead of dismissing them entirely, perhaps we should engage them better.

Here are some simple suggestions as to how NGOs can harness the power of the slacktivist:

1) Despite a propensity for slacktivism, don’t assume that the slacktivist isn’t willing to do more. For me, this is the take home message of the study. It’s too easy to assume the slacktivist feels that simply tweeting about something or liking a cause is enough to satisfy their desire to help. Push them, and we might see some real results.

2) Engage with what people are good at, and use their skills wisely. In a previous post on CSR, I outlined how an NGO used people from the marketing team of a corporation to clean out shelves and move boxes, when devising a marketing campaign for the NGO would have been a better use of their skills. Similarly, using the skills of slacktivists could occur through further investigation. For example, let’s say someone has just “liked” a page. What next? The organisation could contact the person to detail some volunteer positions that require specific skills missing in the organisation. Hook, line and sinker.

3) Let’s explain to the public in clear and simple language, what good activism is. Rather than simply writing off slacktivism as poor activism, NGOs can help educate what worthwhile activity is, without the NGOspeak. Similarly, it should be the role of NGOs to educate on what damaging activism is.

4) Focus on the cause, not the action. Spend energy questioning whether the slacktivist is promoting a good cause first, before worrying about the fact that their action may be inconsequential. After all, as the research shows, slacktivism is not the only action that slacktivists take.

5) Following on from this, be skeptical about slacktivism which is more in the interests of profit than a worthwhile cause. Last year, KFC in Utah ran a promotion promising to donate $1 to diabetes research for every 64 ounce (1.89L!) soft drink bought. So really, what was KFC’s motive? To contribute to research into diabetes, or to contribute to the incidence of diabetes?

What do you think? Is it possible to engage slactivists in more worthwhile causes, or should NGOs focus their energy elsewhere? Or, are there many good examples of slacktivism that we can’t write off the activity altogether? Let us know in the comments.

You can follow this author on Twitter here.

As of yesterday, the Australian Labor Party has indicated that offshore processing of asylum seekers is dead. For now. But does this indicate a new era of clean conscience for our government? A born-again Machine Gun Preacher-like about face towards a more humane approach to those who need our help? Will it mean that Labor will start representing those on the left who originally stood tall with them, and desist from playing bare hairy-chested politics with the Opposition, who will stop at nothing to prove time and time again how masculine their party really can be?

Unfortunately, not likely.

The story of how our government treats refugees opened many, many years ago, but perhaps the final chapter in this section began back in May. Prime Minister Gillard announced the Malaysia Solution, which involved sending 800 boat arrivals to Malaysia for processing. In return, Australia would take 4000 processed refugees into our community. Even for the least cynically minded amongst us, this announcement was one that was hard to fathom, not in the least because of the lack of long term vision involved. Only 800 arrivals? In the 5 months that it has taken for that proposal to well and truly be buried, more than that 800 have already arrived on our shores.

This really begs the question – what was the government trying to achieve? Perhaps it was just dipping its toes into the water, testing it out a little to see if the deal would fly. Given the appallingly low approval rate of the Prime Minister, it seems like a rather risky tactic. Either way, come August 31st, the deal was well and truly pickled when the High Court ruled that the solution was illegal.

What we saw next was an appalling act of “leadership” by the government, who then sought to have the Migration Act amended, effectively overruling the High Court, so that the deal proposed could become legal. In what is truly an amazingly desperate move, Gillard then sought the support of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, saying that he would come off looking better if he was aligned to the government, because his political stance would be be more firmly entrenched on the “right”. In the end, Abbott refused to give support, not because, like the High Court, he feared for the safety and well-being of the asylum seekers being sent to Malaysia. Rather because it simply wasn’t the solution that he had chosen.

Is this the next step in the Gillard government's plan? Reposted with permission from Kudelka Cartoons.

Yesterday, we saw the Gillard government coming to grips with the fact that, for now at least, the Malaysia solution is dead in the water (poor pun I know). However, that is not to say that it will not be resurrected later. In fact in yesterday’s announcement, Gillard and Immigration Minister Chris Bowen made it clear that the Malaysia solution was something that will be actively pursued.

But, did the government take the opportunity to at least take the moral high ground on the matter, and rub it in the face of the Opposition to show them once and for all that offshore processing was a morally bankrupt policy? Let’s have a look at the message that our Prime Minister had for her opposite number:

“We are at risk of seeing more boats. If we do see that, there is one person to blame, Tony Abbott, for this mindless negativity, his reckless strategy which has brought offshore processing to an end.”

To put it simply, the cynic in me sees yesterday’s announcement as little more than a way to publicly put the Malaysia solution to bed (well for a nanny nap perhaps), while taking the opportunity to take a big stab at Tony Abbott and declare that any boats that arrived from here on in were on his watch, not hers. Frankly, she’d have more luck selling iPads to the Amish than that idea to the Australian public.

Amongst yesterday’s announcement were also some promising details about mandatory detention. If offshore processing is not going to continue, what’s going to happen to the asylum seekers who would otherwise be processed offshore? The answer is that while mandatory detention will continue, the government will be issuing more bridging visas and trying to process more refugees in the community. However, more detention centres, in Wickham Point in Darwin and at Yongah Hill in Western Australia, will be opened to handle the overflowing facilities currently used. I would have thought given that the cost of mandatory detention per asylum seeker is approximately $113,000, the government would be looking at other options rather than building more facilities, even if these facilities are overcrowded as is.

It’s worth making the point here that although offshore processing is currently off the cards, which is a significant step forward for a more rights-based and cost-effective solution for asylum seekers, mandatory detention is still an evil that exists. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship has stressed that mandatory detention exists for administrative, rather than deterrent value. If that is the case, then how come Chris Bowen is able to announce that the bulk of new boat arrivals will be processed in community using bridging visas? More to the point, why are almost all asylum seekers who arrive by plane not kept in mandatory detention? How are they able to be processed free of hoopla?

The fact of the matter is that mandatory detention, like the Malaysia solution, is a way in which the government can look like it has a control over the situation, and on those who arrive seeking asylum. It’s important for them to look like they have control over the situation when in reality, there are much greater causes at play, as Brendan has already outlined on this site. The entire point is deterrence (or at least the pretense of it). In which case, the policy is flawed either (a) morally, because it seeks to harm the people who are needing our help the most, and/or (b) pragmatically, because it’s just for show and doesn’t work.

Recently Prime Minster Gillard was nominated in the Atlantic’s list of Brave Thinkers for 2011, because of her insistence at pushing through the Carbon Tax, despite great opposition to it, and the damage to her popularity. The write up admitted that it wasn’t sure whether this act was a move of political expedience or principled values, but it acknowledged that Gillard was following what she believed in, and staking her claim on it. Now that we’ve seen a softening of Labor’s stance on asylum seekers, will we see some clear direction that her party will follow a line that it believes in, instead of changing their course when it suits them at the time? Only time will tell, but for one, I won’t be holding my breath.

Footnote: It’s difficult to believe that in this tough political climate, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott once flirted so outrageously with each other on television. Prepare to be nauseated.

You can follow this author on Twitter here.

In the lead up to the Fourth High Level Forum (HLF4) in Busan, South Korea, in late November, development thinkers and practitioners are debating what the outcome document could and should reflect, and the role of South-South Cooperation (SSC) providers (often referred to as ‘emerging’ or ‘non-DAC’ donors) in influencing this process. It is within this context that the discussion about Chinese aid in the Western discourse has now shifted from concerns about motives and objectives to broader questions regarding the impact of China on the dominant development agenda.

This post will briefly cover four components that are significant to examine: China’s conception of development & the underlying norms and principles; the relationship to the aid effectiveness agenda; forms of development financing; and China’s role in agenda-setting.

Aid and Development Norms

The Chinese Government’s White Paper on Foreign Aid frames China’s provision of aid as operating within the context of China’s position as a developing country but also as part of fulfilling its international responsibilities. The objective of providing foreign aid is to “help recipient countries to strengthen their self-development capacity, enrich and improve their peoples’ livelihood, and promote their economic growth and social progress” (White Paper 2011). Three things stand out in the Chinese discourse: the promotion of self-development and self-reliance; non-interference and non-conditionality; and equality and mutual benefit. These are used by China, Western governments, and recipients – albeit in different ways – to distinguish China vis-a-vis traditional donors.

Chinese foreign aid stresses the importance of stimulating economic growth and implementing a development model based on each country’s specific requirements and circumstances. Although China supports the MDGs and has used international forums such as UN Summits to call upon all countires to help promote and achieve them, they are not in themselves a core focus of its aid programs. There is no rights-based or gender-mainstreaming programing and very little inclusion of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms – especially regrading the quality or impact of projects.

Although like other donors China utilises foreign aid towards a range of objectives, there is an interesting distinction in the rhetoric used to promote and justify its policy. ‘Mutual benefit’ and ‘win-win’ outcomes mark the cornerstone of Chinese aid – and SSC in general. China’s aid policy is conceptualised with the belief that recipients’ development contributes to China’s development and vice-versa. There is no strong domestic moral imperative for aid giving, nor is it steeped in a colonial, imperial, civilising mission. China also does not deny that it gets some benefit too; rather than approaching foreign aid as a form of giver-receiver relationship, the ‘gift’ of aid is generally explained as benefiting both governments. China dismisses the notion of ‘charity’; instead stressing the idea of ‘friendship’. In being grounded in notions of friendship rather than charity, China presents its aid as being normatively different from that of traditional donors; based upon equality and mutual benefit. This discourse serves both domestic and international imperatives for the Chinese government, but arguably also represents a significant discursive distinction –- and one that is symbolically important to many other developing countries.

A significant difference between China and ‘traditional donors’ appears in terms of the norm of non-interference and no political conditions. Chinese aid policies do not adopt the language of ‘good governance’ or ‘failing vs. effective states’, and in fact utilise the backlash against these (excessive) policy prescriptions by continually highlighting China’s own policy of ‘non-interference’ in other countries’ internal affairs. This is the element that Western donors are most critical of and that China (and many recipient governments) highlight to create a distinction between China and other donors. Of course, as China’s engagement intensifies there is an increasing disjuncture between its rhetoric and practice – particularly when commercial and foreign policy objectives diverge. The Chinese insist that the difference is that they don’t impose or require policy changes: “we’re not trying to change the structures of recipient countries”. This has the advantage of allowing more policy space for developing countries and is thus highly valued. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence thus far that this component of Chinese aid is fundamentally affecting traditional donors’ aid conditionality practices – though prompting a reassessment of the relevance of some of these conditions would be a good outcome.

There is much talk and consternation that China is presenting competition for ideas of development – the so-called ‘Beijing Consensus’. China clearly gives developing countries more options and more experience to draw upon, and can offer some potentially useful ‘lessons’ based on its own (ongoing) development experience. The reality seems to be, however, that most countries view China as a complementary source of development assistance, rather than a complete alternative. China itself doesn’t have a clearly articulated ‘model’ and it is not seeking to turn other countries into ‘Chinese-like’ structures. Of course, its authoritarian system will be appealing to some dictatorships – but arguably these countries haven’t listened to the advice of Western donors & Bretton Woods institutions anyway.

Aid Effectiveness Agenda

Western donors are also concerned that China may be undermining the aid effectiveness agenda and accepted ‘best practice’. Because many DAC donors themselves don’t necessarily follow the recommendations, one could argue that they are already weak and that China is no different in that regard – although it might slow down the process of adoption if other donors are disinclined to reform their practices if this means giving China a comparative advantage. Not being a DAC member, China is not required to be ‘measured’ against regime rules and expectations, nor has it agreed to be subjected to DAC reviews or comparisons (compared with other non-DAC donors such as the UAE). China has signed the Paris Declaration, but as a recipient not donor country.

Paris Declaration Components:

Unlike traditional donors, China doesn’t develop specific country strategies or country programs with multiyear plans detailing individual projects and objectives. It does, however, advocate country ‘alignment’, frequently relying on recipients to select projects and prides itself on its aid being ‘recipient-focused’ and ‘responsive’ to a country’s needs. Its norm of non-interference arguably coincides with the idea of ‘ownership’, and the Chinese Government stresses the importance of each country developing and articulating its own development path. There are cases of nascent involvement in coordination and harmonisation efforts, though only when led by the host country and only at a participatory level rather than through support for sector wide approaches and pooled funds. Its aid is substantially tied to Chinese contractors – in line with its mutual benefit norm – and this is unlikely to change dramatically.

Other rules and expectations:

Like other donors, China has issued quite extensive debt relief throughout the world, and in this regard is abiding by one of the expectations of the development community. Because China doesn’t attached explicit conditions to its debt cancellation, however, there are concerns about debt sustainability, and potential problems posed by China’s resource-backed loans for the IFI’s preferred creditor status. Chinese lending is usually based upon an assessment of the individual project’s risk, not risk at a broader country level – which enables countries greater access to development finance as well as commercial loans. This has benefits and drawbacks and depends much upon the country’s ability and willingness to manage its levels of debt.

Transparency is a strong norm and is likely to be a key element in Busan. 18 donors that are not members of the DAC report through the DAC, and the IATI movement is gaining prominence. China’s transparency is still minimal – and is a concern of Western donors and within recipient countries. It has, however, improved markedly in recent years and in countries that have strong requirements there are cases where China is involved in recipient-led coordination and reporting efforts – the most significant being Cambodia where China reports its aid projects to a common database alongside other donors. The transparency norm currently only extends to ‘ODA’ – in terms of OOF (such as export credits) traditional donors are often as untransparent as China and there has been recent debate about this short-coming of the aid effectiveness agenda.

A common concern about Chinese aid relates to issues of corruption and governance. Since the majority of Chinese aid is ‘in kind’ or tied, the Chinese system doesn’t actually transfer funds to other developing countries. The Chinese (rightly) argue this reduces likelihood of aid money being siphoned off. However, details of contracts and procurement are often scarce and recipient communities have a legitimate issues with ensuring whether they are getting best value for money. There is also scope for corruption between Chinese actors, and Chinese Embassies have significant leeway to select projects and disburse grant funding (not the larger concessional loans though) – meaning that (good) project decisions depend on specific individuals.

A little surprisingly, China has actively advocated for countries to support LDCs and direct 0.15% of GNI to them, which is one of the DAC’s recommendations. A MOFCOM spokeswoman at the UN LDCs Conference in Istanbul in May this year stated: “We also call on the developed countries to fulfill their commitment as early as possible to allocate 0.15 percent to 0.2 percent of their Gross National Income as development aid to the LDCs“. The Chinese Government states that two-thirds of its aid goes to ‘least developed’ and ‘other low-income’ countries – though no definition of these categories is offered. It is an interesting example of China speaking of and embracing an important global development norm.

Development Financing

In most countries China is now a mid-level ‘donor’ but in some cases it is one of the main sources of development finance. The White Paper reveals an aid program that has been increasing at approximately 30% per year for the past few years, and its annual budget stands at about $4 billion (caution: not directly comparable with DAC ODA definitions) or less than 0.05% GNI (2009 PPP figures).

Interestingly, China now articulates a distinction between what it considers ‘foreign aid’ (see White Paper) and other forms of development finance (though definitions and boundaries within these categories are not coherently defined). This is arguably the combined result of pressure from the international community and a desire to be seen to be responding to the discussion about its expanding aid program.

However, it is crucial to realise that Chinese ‘aid’ is not conceived as a separate policy; aid flows are but one (small) element within China’s economic statecraft. The government draws upon a range of financial mechanisms when formulating economic and development agreements with other developing countries. Most of these –- such as official loans at commercial rates, export credits, suppliers’ credits – would be classified as ‘other official flows’ (OOF) under DAC definitions. The Chinese Government also utilises aid and investment ‘packages’ and (occasionally) resource-backed loans known as the ‘Angola Model’. As these other development financing mechanisms fall outside the DAC (and Chinese) definition of ‘aid’ they are also not encompassed in the aid effectiveness agenda. In the lead up to Busan some scholars are now starting to advocate for an extension of the effectiveness and transparency agendas to incorporate broader forms of development finance and thus include the dominant financing from providers of SSC.

China’s aid and development policy places emphasis on diverse economic initiatives such as (free) trade, reduction in tariffs, use of public and private sector within aid projects, establishment of special economic zones, and so forth. China (somewhat ironically) advocates utilising aid as a catalyst for generating profitable projects. Its grant-aid funded agricultural centres, for example, are explicitly designed to be run as profitable joint-ventures within the medium term. Aid is just a small part of its development relationship. Western donors have been working for years to ensure a distinction in their commercial and aid endeavours in a country and thus criticise the commercial aspect of Chinese aid as being self-interested. However concepts such as ‘aid for trade’ and the EU’s policy coherence for development agenda highlight the importance of thinking about the links between different aspects of global and bilateral relationships. China’s substantial new investment in the infrastructure sector, particularly in Africa, has also been a catalyst for renewed private sector interest and the reengagement of Western government apparatus’ such as US EXIM.

A new development agenda?

Whilst in the 2008 High Level Forum in Accra traditional donors were encouraging donors like China to follow the Paris Declaration, the Busan process has shifted towards finding ways to ensure the Paris Declaration remains valid in the context of other forms of development funding. It is possible we will see a stronger focus on outcomes rather than inputs, and a shift towards development effectiveness instead of the more specific aid effectiveness, and a change in language from ‘aid’ to ‘development cooperation’. Commentators such as Jonathan Glennie have suggested a ‘twin-track’ approach as a likely outcome, to take into consideration the differences between ‘traditional’ and ‘south-south’ development assistance.

Providers of SSC ardently stress its distinctiveness but appear reluctant to be subsumed within any more definitive framework or grouping. This is particularly the case for countries like Brazil, India and China, who’s provision of SSC and aid is part of their articulation and demonstration of rising global power. Despite the buzz around SSC – and the real potential benefits it can bring – definitions and guidelines for this modality are yet to be agreed upon.

Chinese aid – alongside other providers of SSC – is undoubtedly prompting reexamination of traditional donor aid policies and practices and provides the impetus and opportunity to reconsider the dominant development and aid structures and processes, but it is difficult to determine a clear normative challenge at this stage – nor is it certain that China wants to play its part in formulating it.

By the very nature of it’s involvement China is changing the development dynamics. The involvement of China and others should provide fresh opportunities for developing countries to further their own development agendas and for traditional donors to engage with them on new terms; not just as poor aid recipients.

At this stage, China is not attempting to overtly challenge the traditional donor development agenda, but appears to be embarking on a dual process of increasing acceptance of some norms and practices whilst continuing to stress its distinctiveness in other areas and it is likely to pick and choose which elements it accepts based on an assessment of its own best-interests at any given time.

Philippa Brant is completing a PhD on Chinese aid and the implications for the international aid regime. She is a Prime Minister’s Australia Asia Endeavour Award Holder (2010) and has recently returned to The University of Melbourne after living in Beijing. She can be contacted via plbrant[AT]gmail.com or @pipbrant

Links:

State Council, White Paper on China’s Foreign Aid, April 2011

Busan conference offers chance to tackle aid effectiveness Jonathan Glennie

Who should lead the aid effectiveness debate in the future? Overseas Development Institute, Public Event, 6 July 2011

2011 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration, OECD

Indonesia’s stretch of territory is made up of over 17, 500 islands and is the world’s largest archipelago. The nation is dense in tropical forest and has the third largest coverage in the world (behind Brazil and the Democratic republic of Congo), of approximately 100 million hectares of tropical forest. Due to this wide geographical spread, different types of forests can be found, such as the evergreen lowland dipterocarp in Sumatra and Kalimantan, seasonal monsoon forests and savannah grasslands in Nusa Tenggara, nondipterocarp lowland forests/alpine areas in Papua and extensive mangrove regions nationwide. Within the different sub zones lives an amazing diversity of wildlife including the iconic red haired Indonesian orang-hutans (forest men), proboscis monkeys, gibbons, tigers, rhinoceros, elephants, cassowaries, birds of paradise and numerous other rare insect, bird, reptile and mammal species. Indonesia has a precious and unique ecosystem, but as exploitative forest practices are on the rise, many animals dependent on forest ecosystems have become endangered and face very real threats of extinction.

Collecting traditional herbs

It is not just animals that are affected by detrimental forest practices, many indigenous Indonesians (warganegara pribumi) are facing major upheavals in their lives as these practices increase. Those most affected are the isolated indigenous communities living deep in the jungle (masyarakat terasing) who depend entirely on forest resources to support their survival,livelihood, traditional culture and lifestyles. It is these masyarakat terasing who are most vulnerable to detrimental impacts of forest management decisions that determine their access and ownership rights to land. In an era of increased outside interest in Indonesian forests by parties involved in a number of fields including Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) projects, mining companies, oil and logging companies, plantation projects, industrial developments (both government and private) and other interested industries, there has never been a more arresting need for confident legal protection of indigenous people’s land and human rights.

Although discussions, debates and internal negotiations regarding indigenous rights have been on the UN table for three decades, it was not until the 13^th September, 2007 that an official Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly by a majority of 144 states in favour and 4 votes against (out of interest, those states against were Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States). The fact that this declaration has been adopted for less than four years reflects an historical poor state of protection and a startlingly delayed rights-based representation of indigenous sovereignty worldwide. The declaration codifies and articulates a series of rights relating to customary law, natural resource use, land ownership, self-determination and lastly, indigenous autonomy in decision making processes under the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

Article 19 of UNDRIP states that:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

While Article 32(2) outlines that:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

As a declaration, UNDRIP does not have the status of binding International law and as is, Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) can only be considered a principle of best practice. Although FPIC is not a legal requirement, many private companies and governments recognise the vital importance of this realisation and are working towards implementing meaningful FPIC with Indigenous communities. FPIC is a rights based model that has been designed to give more autonomy and ownership to Indigenous populations. It is not a set of consultations with already established outputs that is ‘presented’ to a said community; it is a process of informed and mutual negotiations that benefit counterparts and stakeholders involved in an ethical fashion.

To gain a deeper understanding of the issues, let’s take a closer look at what each of these principles entail.

• FREE. Indigenous people exercise free choice void of coercion, force, manipulation, bribes or alcohol to come to a consensus. Independent bodies not related financially or politically to the project developers should conduct negotiations to eliminate bias, act as a safeguard against misconduct and provide judicial remedies if conflict arises.

• PRIOR: Clear and sufficient notification is given to the community so that people have space to comprehend the project, request additional information, seek advice, clarify points and ask questions. In Australia this is 12 months, however time frames vary according to communities and projects worldwide.

• INFORMED: All relevant project information is provided in local languages and people have access to independent legal or technical advice from an outside party. Information can include preliminary assessment of the likely impact of the project, stakeholders involved in construction and operational phases (including local people, researchers, sponsors, commercial interests and partners), potential risks involved eg spiritual land concerns or pollution and projections of foreseen implications eg commercial, economic, environmental, cultural and conditions for 3^rd party involvement.

• CONSENT: Approval of the project happens when negotiations are complete and legal documents produced that do or do not give permission for a project to go ahead. Indigenous people have the right to say YES or NO to a presented project and if the community says NO then projects cannot go ahead.

Because FPIC is ‘relatively’ new there are still many roadblocks involved in implementing and fulfilling indigenous people’s rights in practice. As you can imagine, if the negotiating party has private, for profit interests in forest resources, there is a real danger of manipulation or lack of transparency in the negotiating process, particularly considering the unequal levels of power between counterparts. If FPIC is to be a principle of delivered dignity and real equity, monitoring needs to be consistent and impartial to ensure fairness and authentic representation of indigenous rights holders.

In Indonesia, complications in delivering FPIC can arise because it is difficult to establish legal ownership of lands by indigenous communities living in and with the forests. It is difficult to claim rights if land ownership is not even in community hands. In a recent Forest Dialogue in Riau province, one of the root causes of problems discussed was state land. “Most communities in agricultural lands are considered to be on State land and almost all forests are classed as State Forest Areas. As a result, State agencies are granting leaseholds to palm oil companies on agricultural lands and to forestry companies in State Forests without taking community rights or views into account.” This issue is not an isolated or one off concern for Indonesia. One government representative from the National Land Bureau declared that there are over 3,500 land disputes associated with the palm oil industry in Indonesia, most of which stem from land acquisition processes that take indigenous land without allowing for customary rights or FPIC processes to be.

FPIC is a right of prime importance for indigenous people worldwide. The author has recently developed a keen interest in this field while researching indigenous people’s role in benefit sharing agreements through carbon trading projects in provinces of Indonesia. The author feels that more people should investigate and learn about FPIC as a principle of development and human rights and keep watch of how it is delivered in current and future projects in Indonesia and indeed, worldwide.

I was listening to Triple J’s Hack (episode for 8th September) the other day, which was part IV in a series looking at the decade since 9/11. One of the interviewees, an academic from ANU, spoke of the correlation between conflict and migration. And, how 9/11 and the subsequent conflicts have been a catalyst for increased migration. In particular, of forced migration; or in Australian terms, ‘why people are getting on bloody boats and coming to our shores’.

This crucial and central ‘push’ factor of migration has largely been ignored in forums. Have we have forgotten what the nature of conflict is like, and that both Iraq and Afghanistan are very much still in states of conflict? Yet, public discussions are shaped by finger-pointing and blame – on who is responsible. We look inwards, rather than outwards. We rightly question Australia’s continued presence, purpose and role in both these countries. Then, separately, we question Australia’s immigration policy, human rights obligations and treatment of asylum seekers. But, rarely do we talk about both at the same time. About the connection between conflict and migration.

The current discourse in Australia focuses on immigration, often beginning with people on a boat, at a border. Although a recent New Matilda piece rightly questions the ethical premise of Australia’s immigration policy, it only focuses on what happens in and around Australia’s borders. Next, the Gillard Government proposed some very radical changes to the Immigration Act. In particular, 198AA, which gives extraordinary executive power to the Immigration Minister irregardless of international obligations or domestic laws. And then, the Herald Sun decided to attach a very loaded question to recent reporting on asylum seekers – “Is the Federal Government too soft on asylum seekers cheating their way into the country? Yes/No”.

Ludicrous. With the weight of all this talk about pull factors, it “feels like a midget is hanging from my neckless” (Ludacris). Australian discourse shows a lack of imagination. Migration is much more than about the arrival at a border. Migration involves multiple borders with many histories, politics, and agendas. Invisible yet tangible, following contours that are neither linear nor defined. When people are forced to move through these complex webs, we tend to only care where they are going, not why or from what.

Conflict causes, exacerbates and acts as a catalyst of the forced movements of people. Just look at the table below (Fig. 6 from UNHCR’s Global Trends 2010) and the top 7 sources of refugees. So, indulge me and engage in a historical hypothetical. What if Iraq and Afghanistan were not invaded? What effect could that have had on the movement of Iraqis and Afghans both globally and to Australia?

(Sorry, I wish I could present this as a minimalist infographic, but I lack the skills).

From UNHCR's Global Trends 2010

By the end of 2009, there were an estimated 10.4 million refugees around the world.

From UNHCR's Global Trends 2010

Almost half (45%) of those refugees were from Iraq and Afghanistan. By some estimates, as many as 7.8 million since 2003 from both countries combined. But, really, we do not actually know. It is disputed, in particular for Iraq. This can be attributed to: mixed migrations of internally-displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees, both leaving and returning; the capacity of host countries to identify, register and track their movements; and the swift and disruptive nature of the war. For example, since 2003, 2/3 of Iraqis returning were IDPs. According to UNHCR, over 460,000 refugees have returned to Iraq since 2003. In 2010, 230 refugees in Australia returned to Iraq.

Over 3 million refugees have been forced from Afghanistan, with over 96% of them being hosted in Pakistan and Iran. Most Iraqi refugees have also sought protection in neighbouring countries, particularly in Syria and Jordan.

But, how many refugees came from Iraq and Afghanistan in the years prior to 9/11? Well, this does not really elicit the point I am trying to make, but in some ways ito does. Since the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, there has been large movements of refugees from Afghanistan into neighbouring countries and around the world. The same goes for Iraq, but without the Soviets.

Between 1980-2o01, the highest number of Afghan refugees was in 1990 at over 6 million, eventually dropping to 2.6 million in 2000 after a total of 4.6 million were repatriated during the 1990s.

How many came to Australia?

According to UNHCR, in 2001, there were 3,600 Afghan refugees in Australia. Comparatively, in the first 6 months alone of 2010/11, over 1,000 claims were lodged by asylum seekers from Afghanistan who came by boat. Between 1991-2001, 12,000 Iraqi refugees were resettled in Australia. In that same period of 2010/11, 480 claims were lodged by Iraqis who came by boat.

So, it comes as no surprise, that the two countries which top the list as sources of refugees, are also the two countries that (arguably) have experienced little sustained stability and peace since 1980. For Iraq, it was the Iraq-Iran war, followed by two more Gulf Wars with the U.S and its allies. For Afghanistan, it was the Soviet invasion and occupation, periods of civil war, and then the current war and occupation. It is also no surprise that it was during the relative stability of the Taliban’s governance that over 4 million Afghans were repatriated and asylum claims declined (that is not to speak in absolute positive terms about the Taliban, but only to demonstrate the effects of stability and peace. The human rights violations, discrimination and repression, particularly of the Hazara and women, are well documented). I am sure that if not for these successive wars, a result largely of geopolitical concerns, we would between 45-50% less refugees around the world. And, considering that it is predominantly Afghan and Iraqi asylum seekers who come to Australia by boat, would ‘boat people’ even exist today? I doubt it.

I would like to see the discourse shift to one framed around conflict and forced migration, simultaneously with a more rights-based approach (‘humane’ does not cut it. It is a word you use when referring to animal welfare). Here is what the Australian government, with the support of civil society, could do:

• Communicate a better understanding of how conflict affects the movement of people: shift from immigration to migration. This is subtle, but of significance, as it moves from the who and how to the why. That is, it is not about who immigrants are and how they arrive, but why they are migrating. Migration is about causal, origin issues, whereas immigration is about the consequences of migration and is focused on procedures, identification and security.
• Messages that are win-win-win. The Australian Government should be communicating our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq as that of peace-building, conflict prevention and development. This can then be tied in with how these efforts will contribute to not only a decrease in the number of asylum seekers coming from these two countries, but increases in repatriation. Or, in other Australian terms, ‘stopping the boats and making sure the buggers go back to where they came from!’ For example, that 430,000 refugees from Iraq have returned home. The Australian government supporting the transition of two nations to democracy (win); the opportunity for Afghans and Iraqis to return home (win); and the decline of asylum seekers coming to Australia (win).
• This can be supported by communicating AusAID’s role in these countries. The ODA budget for 2011/12 in Afghanistan and Iraq is $165 million and 36 million respectively. Relatively small compared to Indonesia and Papua New Guinea’s, but potential to be scaled up towards 2015 and receive a larger slice of the proposed $8 billion AusAID budget.

“Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind

…

The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori”.

(It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country)

In Part 1 of  ‘How do we develop happiness’, Weh Yeoh looked at the increasing trend of governments to enact policies aimed at increasing their citizens’ happiness.

In Part 2, Sophia Kagan looks at how governments can measure happiness and how these measures can impact on government policies. Is there, hiding amongst the empty political rhetoric, a real way in which policy makers can genuinely make people happier?

The origins of measuring ‘happiness’

Ever since the invention of the abacus, increased income has been the holy grail of progress. Both in rich and poor countries, increased GDP was a constant mantra, almost synonymous with development and growth. That was until a realisation started to creep into the minds of economists and policy makers (based as much on personal anecdotal evidence as on empirical studies) that money doesn’t necessarily make us happy.

Of course, they were not the first to come to that ‘ground breaking’ realisation. Artists, writers and philosophers from Artistotle to Kanye West have assured us that money doesn’t equal happiness. Psychologists have meanwhile been mining for data on happiness levels for decades through surveys and experiments and have also come to the conclusion that the correlation between rising income and subjective happiness is weaker than once thought (yes, the rich are generally happier than the poor but as countries get richer they often don’t get happier).

Although Bhutan’s trial of Gross National Happiness began back in 1972 (see How Do We Develop Happiness? Part 1), the debate about the inadequacies of the GDP measure didn’t reach Western shores until perhaps the 1980s when economist Amartya Sen coined the concept of the “capabilities approach” as another way of figuring out how to improve people’s well-being through public policy. The focus of his new approach was to look at the opportunities or freedom that people have to choose the life they want to lead rather than their consumption (example: a traditional approach might classify a man who has not eaten for 2 days as deprived. However, if he is fasting for religious reasons, the capabilities approach would reflect the fact that it is his decision and freedom not to eat).

Sen’s new approach became so influential that it came to form the framework of the UN’s Human Development Index (‘HDI’), which was created in 1990 with the purpose of shifting “the focus of development economics from national income accounting to people-centered policies’’. Though Sen was loathe to fix in stone a list of capabilities to be measured (arguing that this depends on personal value judgements), the HDI does just that – propounding indicators of human development across three themes of lifespan, educational attainment and income. Over 169 countries are now included in the HDI’s annual league tables (that rank countries according to their performance on indicators) making it perhaps the most widely used index after GDP.

Since the development of the HDI there has been an explosion of splinter indexes and league tables including the Happy Planet Index, the Genuine Progress Indicator, the Satisfaction with Life indicator, the World Values Survey and the International Social Survey Programme. The concept has even made its way to the UN General Assembly, which, in July this year, adopted a non-binding resolution that acknowledges happiness as an indicator of a country’s success. The UN resolution calls on countries to “pursue the elaboration of additional measures that better capture the importance of the pursuit of happiness and well-being in development with a view to guiding public policies”.

A closer look at different ways of measuring ‘happiness’

1. Capabilities approach: Examples of this approach are the HDI, the MPI (discussed below) and the Millennium Development Goals. This type of measurement (built around objective measures rather than subjective levels of happiness) has been particularly common in the international development sector where it is perhaps most relevant. Although traditionally measurement of poverty has been focused on household income (think of the seductive simplicity of the $1 or $1.25-a-day measure), this often doesn’t give a comprehensive picture of why and how people are poor. Enter the Multidimensional Poverty Index, a sister index of the HDI which measures acute poverty across 104 countries through indicators including child mortality, nutrition, years of schooling, access to electricity, drinking water, sanitation, cooking, and, even, the flooring of your abode. A household is identified as multi-dimensionally poor if it is deprived in some combination of indicators whose weighted sum exceeds 30 percent of deprivations. Sounds great in theory (after all, the measurement can at least provide policymakers and donors with information about the most vulnerable households and groups), but the indexes are not without their share of critics. Some lament their failure to include more factors (such as environmental degradation or other ecological factors). Others quibble over the formulas used in the number crunching, arguing that it gives an overly negative image of certain countries, such as many of those in Africa (for more info see here and here).

2. Measuring ‘subjective’ happiness (ie through self-reporting and analysis): One example of this is the UK, where the government proposes to collect statistical data about people’s perceptions of their well-being and life priorities (through self-reporting on such questions as how happy or anxious they have been feeling, how satisfied they are with their lives). The advantage of this approach is that you can directly gage what is important to the population using flexible indicators. In addition, this type of measurement can be seen as a democratic way of impacting on government policies. The difficulty is that subjective happiness is just that – subjective. It can be hard to analyse and use to draw useful conclusions.

Of course, both subjective and objective factors can be used together in measuring happiness. In the report commissioned by France’s president Nicholas Sarkozy, drafters Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen attempt to marry objective measurement with self-reporting (though the report is fairly vague on exactly how this is to be done). The OECD has also attempted to combine the two types of measurement in its own index which allows the users to play around with the weighting of the indicators, depending on what you think is most important.

Measure this! How do you objectively measure the intensity of (un)happiness when priorities can be so drastically different? You also run the risk of collecting a whole lot of contradictory data that is hard to use for the purposes of decision making

Are the indexes fairly similar though? Does data from one support the other?

Instinct might tell you that these measures should fit together. After all, if I live in a country with high life expectancy, good education opportunities, good healthcare, then presumably my life satisfaction will be fairly high. And if I have overall life satisfaction then I’m likely to respond fairly well in ‘happiness’ surveys?

Not so, it seems. Partly this might be due to the fact that short term happiness and long term happiness aren’t identical and the fact that self-reporting surveys might measure short-term ‘hedonic’ contentment (or discontentment) or they might measure long-term satisfaction (see Part 1, which discusses how having children may result in short term unhappiness but long term satisfaction). Partly it may be because there are just so many surveys asking so many things that ultimately there’s bound to be some contradiction without coherence and consistency.

Take the case of Australia. Australia has consistently rated high on HDI, moving from 4^th place in the world in 2008 and 2009 to 2^nd place in 2010. It also ranks very highly on OECD charts. However, some argue that this characterisation is inconsistent with other data and incorrectly implies that Australians are ‘happier’ than they really are. For example, Blanchflower and Oswald (2006) use life satisfaction statistics to find that Australia’s performance is only mediocre, and even poor in some categories such as job satisfaction: looks at all the various indexes long enough and you’ll see a myriad of other contradictions for other countries as well.*

This is confusing. If there’s little correlation between the various happiness measures, might it not be best to stick with something clear like GDP measurements in policy making?

Measuring happiness and using it for public policy is a little tricky but that shouldn’t cause governments to give up. In fact, governments already take well-being issues into account when governing – for example, they look at air quality, urban planning such as community areas and parks to improve citizens’ wellbeing even though they are not strictly speaking GDP-related concerns. Should governments, however, take the step of quantifying citizens’ happiness (both through a needs and an outcome assessment), to make the process more rigorous and scientific? Considering the difficulty of measuring happiness, would it be useful, or just a costly and distracting exercise in navel gazing?

My conclusion is that measuring happiness (or well-being, satisfaction with life or whatever you want to call it) is a good thing when using the right tools because it provides transparency and incentive to government. It is without measurement that government can give lip service to these concepts without taking any genuine action. For example, quantifying greenhouse gas emissions has been important in making real progress beyond aspirational grandstanding. However, overcomplicating the issue with too many measuring sticks is also not ideal. Perhaps it’s best to focus on a few measurable indicators (those employed by HDI can be a good starting point), particularly on measures that are quantifiable, but supplementing where necessary with targeted subjective surveys. Despite scepticism, both objective and subjective indicators have been shown to provide meaningful and reliable data when used in the right way. Not only does this hold the promise of delivering a good measure of quality of life, but it also gives governments a way to better understand their citizens, beyond just knowing what they earn and how much they pay in taxes.

In summary, a matrix of indicators, not just GDP, is likely to give us a much better picture of development in both wealthy and least developed countries. Although the indicators can be hard to determine, there are plenty of measures which gives us a good guide that can be followed and tweaked in future.

Sophia Kagan is currently at Programme Officer with the International Labour Office for China and Mongolia. Prior to moving to Beijing she was a lawyer in Melbourne, Australia.

*See article here for a response to Blanchflower and Oswald’s assessment

“Learning to live the paradox of action as reflection, and reflection as action”

- Westley et al., Getting to Maybe. How the World is Changed.

"We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves." — Dalai Lama XIV

Supposedly carved into the temple of Apollo in Delphi was the phrase ’Know Thyself”. I often wondered if in itself self-knowledge holds the risk of turning into self-obsession. And whereas the risk is there, knowing oneself – understood as cultivating self-awareness – holds immense possibilities of change: within, and outside in the world. No effective change is brought about without a degree of self-reflection and self-awareness. Great leaders and social innovators from Nelson Mandela, to Aung San Suu Kyi, Thich Nhat Han, the Dalai Lama, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, all have held together the paradox of action and reflection, they all seem to have started their engagement in/with the world as an inside out process. This because we cannot just expect others to change: ‘wanting to change others means accepting a profound change in oneself. Self-reflection and self-revelation are necessary’. To me there seems to be a link between psychological/personal awareness and social/political awareness. Jon Kabat-Zinn himself, the founder of the mindfulness-based stress reduction programme, emphasises how a reflective practice such as mindfulness has wide effects in the body-politic (see ‘Healing the body politic’ from the his book Coming to Our Senses). So it comes as no surprise that for social innovators ‘there is gold in a reflective practice’, and ‘it is essential to understand that there is a connection between self-knowledge and worldly knowledge’. Self-knowledge as self-awareness requires us to get out of the constant ‘doing mode’, to cultivate who we are. Which, in my opinion, is what makes all the difference when it comes to serving as an aid worker, a volunteer or an NGO manager. Nevertheless what prompts many into aid work is activism, the desire to make a difference, ‘to do’ things that matter. It is somehow a quest for a meaningful life. Here reflection should not be understood as a state of passivity, but as moment of ‘being’, where we nurture those qualities that will inform our ‘doing’. Reflection becomes important because the way we think about the world, and how we understand it frames our actions. So it is of no secondary importance to learn the art of standing still, seeing that the world is not simply acted upon, but rather it interacts with us, with who we are. To paraphrase the work of my friend and colleague Jennifer Lentfer‘it is not what we do, but HOW we do it’ that matters. Engaging in personal enquiry and reflection is therefore part of the action, it becomes an essential component of how we do things and who we are. Learning to standstill helps us to take stock and move forward effectively.

'Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself'. — Leo Tolstoy

The story of the woodcutter from The Barefoot Guide to working with Organisations and Social Change (a wonderful, inspiring guide) conveys the message of why learning to pause is crucial:

‘Once upon a time an old woman was walking through the forest near her home when she came across a man chopping down a tree. They exchanged brief greetings but he continued chopping. He was working very hard, determined to complete the job and see results before sundown. She watched him a while and then disappeared. A little later she returned, bearing a stone and a small bucket of water. When he paused in his work to wipe his brow she handed these to him and said, “Sir, I see that you are very busy. But, to put it bluntly, it looks to me like you need to pause a while, take a breath and sharpen your axe.” “Go away, woman, I am too busy I don’t have time for this!”’

When do we sharpen our own axes? Do we take the time to standstill, take a breath, reflect? How many of us are just too busy for that?     For further reading, check out: The Barefoot Guide to working with Organisations and Social Change (free download); Kabat-Zinn, Coming to Our Senses: Healing Ourselves and the World Through Mindfulness   — This is a reposting of an original post on Mindfulness for NGOs. Alessandra Pigni is a clinical psychologist and has worked with with Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders in Israel/Palestine, and China, and for other non-profit organizations in the UK. She is a partner of The Oxford Mindfulness Centre (Oxford University), and the founder of Mindfulness for NGOs, a project created to offer aid workers a set of self-care practices through mindfulness-based training, and to help humanitarian practitioners to develop psychological awareness. Alessandra is an advocate of the idea that caring for ourselves is crucial for those who serve others.

By Emily D’Ath, Weh Yeoh & Brendan Rigby

This is a joint post in response to the first discussion for the ‘The Aid Blog Forum‘; an initiative started by J. at Tales from the Hood.

The first topic is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Emily, Weh and Brendan present each of their responses to the guiding questions for this discussion. Join in!

How should we think about CSR?

Emily – Firstly, there needs to be a clear delineation between CSR and what is called ‘community investment’. Community investment is basically a more sophisticated and structured type of philanthropy. It is through community investment that most NGOs will interact with the private sector. Without delving too far into the depths of the definition debate around CSR:

CSR involves the recognition by private enterprises about the challenges the world is facing in relation to sustainability, both social and environmental. The main aim for a company engaging in CSR is to balance the interest of all stakeholders related to their core business e.g. the environment and shareholders. CSR, in my view, should be voluntary and goes beyond the law.

For an example of a company that is practicing CSR check out Marks & Spencer and their ‘Plan A: Do the Right Thing’.

We need to be clear that most NGOs in the development sector currently, or will, deal with corporate foundations or CSR departments who want to contribute money to the community. Whether or not you agree with this is a personal choice but something NGOs need to think about. Do you want to take money from a company that does not have the best ethical standards in other areas of their business?

Brendan - We need to think more broadly and inclusively about CSR. The biggest concern I have about CSR is the that fact that it largely operates within the traditional business model, but almost as a separate entity. An afterthought. Another avenue for raising a company’s profile, albeit under an altruistic banner. For CSR to evolve into a more holistic practice, we really need to unpack the underlying concept of CSR. That is, sustainability. What does sustainability mean to different actors? To business? To communities? To government? Currently, the ‘business as usual’ mantra still dominants many notions of sustainability. Sustainability has been co-opted into the business of growth, expansion, and the bottom line. However, we need to understand and enact the social, cultural, and environmental dimensions of sustainability and ensure that CSR be about future generations, not just our own.

What existing practices or ways of thinking about CSR should be stopped or change? Be specific.

Emily – CSR is not philanthropy. Particularly in Asia, CSR is still viewed in terms of simply donating money. In China, it can even involve donating money to local government officials. As mentioned previously, CSR should be systematically changing the way businesses work to become more sustainable. In an ideal world we would not have CSR departments, as sustainability would be integrated into every aspect of how a business operates.

Brendan - I agree with Emily, and would go further to say that sustainability cannot be thought of as ‘sustainability’; as this separate entity that we are required to consider. Rather, it should be so deeply embedded in our thinking and our lives that it does not need articulation. To point where business just is sustainable. Food production just is sustainable. We do not try to be sustainable, we just are sustainable.

Weh – I agree that the partnership between NGO and private enterprise is inevitable. But I think the most important part about this is thinking about expertise, and it’s important that private enterprise is able to release control of situations and rely on the expertise of NGO partners. I’m thinking about this in the context of Australian politics, where, under people such as the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, no one is an expert anymore. A scientist disagrees with my world view on science – screw him, I’m going to discredit him. An economist thinks my direct action plan is too expensive – screw him, I’ll discredit him too!

Along these same lines is the idea that because private enterprise is funding a lot of “charitable” activity, and not government, we are now coming to the situation where we’re using a non-democratic way of deciding which of community’s problems are being solved. By comparison, when government decides which problems are to be solved, at least we have some control over that, in that we democratically elect them. However, nobody democratically elects private enterprise, so what right do they have to pick and choose which of society’s problems deserve attention? The only way to get around this problem, is again, to consider the question of expertise. In deciding which areas need the greatest attention, the expertise has to come from the community, not from the boardroom. If, and only if, private enterprise can do this, can CSR be effective. (Yet I personally doubt it).

Finally, the existence of CSR should not, I think, absolve the government of it’s responsibility to continue to fund development work. Rather, CSR should be an addition, a bonus if you like.

Brendan - Specifically, CSR and notions of sustainability have to be embedded in education. And, not just higher education, but right down to primary schooling. Sustainability is a concept that crosses boundaries and disciplines, encourages creativity and new ways of thinking. It can find its expression in art, business, economics, geography, science, history, etc. This is not a new idea, but one that needs to see greater adoption in education systems around the world. The upcoming Rio+20 would provide a great platform to push such an agenda.

What principles should guide NGO marketing and corporate relations departments as they engage with counterparts in the corporate CSR world to consider partnerships and opportunities for programs in the field?

Emily -

• Partnerships should be mutually beneficial otherwise it can be hard to justify to both parties why they should renew or engage in ongoing support for an initiative.
• Partnerships should be 3-5 years, to ensure both parties are committed and programs can have real medium to long-term impacts.
• Programs need to have a strong monitoring and evaluation system in place, to ensure accountability and feasibility for both parties.
• Do due diligence about potential partners before entering an agreement. Be clear about what your expectations are and make sure you are comfortable with a company’s expectations. Don’t assume the only reason a company wants to engage with you is for PR or marketing purposes. Private companies aren’t fundamentally immoral but amoral. In fact some of the most committed environmentalist I have met work in executive roles for private companies.

Weh –

• At the risk of harping on about one point, expertise is the key. We need to think about what private enterprise can bring to NGOs, and money is not the only thing. We need to think outside the box about what private enterprise is good at, and then use these skills. One example I can think of is an NGO that engaged corporate types to voluntarily clean out their office, organise files, stack shelves and the like. When it came down to analysing what these people did on a day to day basis, it turned out that they were from the marketing team of their company. A far better use of resources would be to use their skills to create a marketing campaign for this NGO, as this was something that the NGO lacked experience in. I would much rather see NGOs using resources from the private sector wisely, instead of only looking to that sector for funding, which can often come with stipulations and rules that make using the funding impractical or tiresome.

The global economy, even before its evolution and sophistication, was and is about access; about controlling access to resources, knowledge and markets. Economic growth for any one nation is also predicated on this same concept of access. However, as the many of the current economic, political and social systems are set up, only a small percentage of a given population benefit from a nation’s acquired access. They have privileged access through geography, patronage, gender, status, nepotism, corruption, and family history. For example, in the U.S, the top 20% of the population have 85% of the wealth. This year, the poverty rate in the U.S hit 15.1%, or 1 in every 6 people. In Australia, according to a report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the wealthiest 20% of households in account for 62% of total household net worth. Research has also shown that such wealth inequality is not truly understood by the public.

“I think one of the reasons that we see people having a disconnect between understanding how much wealth inequality there really is, is this very strong American belief in the ability to be socially mobile and to be mobile with your wealth. So people have very strong beliefs that across generations and even in their own life they can go from rags to riches. And it’s certainly possible. I mean one of the fantastic things about America is that that is in fact possible. But it’s much, much rarer than people believe, and especially wealth transmission, so money that goes from generation to generation to generation is very flat. So it tends to perpetuate a great deal over time” (Prof. Michael Norton, Harvard Business School).

Wealth in very uneven in its distribution, both in the U.S and Australia, and across the world. Yet, international institutions continue to push for economic growth-oriented policies in international development contexts. These policies are deeply rooted in a particular understanding and histories of industralisation, capitalism and growth. However, there are others, such as many UN agencies, smaller actors such as Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), Community-Based Organisations (CBOs), and individuals like Amartya Sen, who push for a broader understanding of, and approach to, development. Ones that encompass well-being, social, environmental and human development, reframing concepts of freedom and happiness without the intense focus on wealth.

However, this concept of access has trickled down into our articulation of these new spaces in development, and into sectors such as microfinance and education. It is believed that greater access to, and control of, finances and credit will empower and reduce poverty. Yet, the evidence is far from conclusive. In education, for example, the eight Millenium Development Goals (MDG) articulate access. In particular, MDG number two and three which relate directly to education say nothing of learning. Indeed, it is not even stated in the MDGs whether children need to learn once they are in a classroom. It was wrongly assumed or just not considered. It is only recently that international attention has prioritised a post-access agenda as data reveals declining standards, high dropout rates, and low achievement rates in countries such as Uganda, Ghana and India. Although there has been remarkable success in striving towards the MDGs, in some cases, we are seeing rising levels of inequity. For example, according to a World Bank report on Ghana, a girl in a rural area from the poorest quintile is 13.9 times more likely not to have attended school than a boy in an urban area from the richest quintile. This is despite the government achieving almost universal primary school access and an average GDP growth rate of 5% over the past decade.

It is not such a far leap to then say that the access agenda is characteristic of very individualist societies, and has perhaps contributed to a blindspot on equity.

The conventional wisdom holds that if a child has access to education, then it is their responsibility to take advantage of it. Traditional educational pedagogies encourage individualism and competition. Through learning activities, standardised assessment tasks and even whole systems. Complimented by extra-curricular activites, children are constantly encouraged to compete against their peers; even when with a team, they compete against a team of their peers. Education systems are geared towards giving children a competitive advantage throughout their lives.

But, what if we were able to change this narrative? To encourage truly collaborative learning, in which children share knowledge, ideas, resources rather than compete for access? If we want to challenge the current economic growth model, then it must start with education. An initiative of the Post Growth Institute, an international group seeking to inspire people to explore paths to global prosperity that do not rely on economic growth, is beginning the challenge through an innovative and participatory approach. On September 15th, at various public locations worldwide, people will hand out their own money to complete strangers, two coins or notes at a time, asking the recipients to pass one of these coins or notes on to someone else. The aim is to raise awareness and start conversations about the benefits of economies based on sharing, as well as offering a learning experience that gets us thinking more critically and creatively about our relationship with money and how we could have new types of economic activity. It would be great to see this event adapted to schools to include children, teachers and parents in conversations about not just economies, but education, based on sharing.

To learn more, and to participate, visit: http://freemoneyday.org.

This is a cross-post with the Post Growth Institute

Recently, two heavyweights in the aid & development online community, and respected professionals in their own right, posted reflections on why they work in the sector. This was followed by very reluctant, but wise advice from Dave Algoso (who wrote ‘Career advice (from people smarter than me’ on whydev for us). I highly recommend that you read what they have to say (the symmetry of their titles is beautiful):

• Testify: by J.
• Justify: by Alanna Skaikh
• Clarify: by Dave Algoso

Rather than write a post of my own reflection (which would be called ‘Electrify‘), I want to open this thread of introspection to you. Why do you work in aid and development? Or, if you are not yet working, why are you studying for your MA in Development Studies or similar? Why are you currently volunteering at [large or small NGO]? To quip, why dev?

We often hear from, and read, the same bloggers. But, rarely do we hear from other voices. From you. Occasionally, you make a comment, post a link on Facebook or hire an airplane to write a message of smoke in the sky.

So, read the above posts. Think about Dave Algoso’s two sub-rules about knowing yourself: 1) Know what you value; 2) Know what you are good at. And, let ourselves and others know why you do what you do. If anything, such introspective writing will help you at your next job interview.

_____________________________________________

I also highly recommend reading:

• What David Foster taught me about development: by Weh Yeoh
  
• Aid worker: first, know thyself: by Jennifer Lentfer

Preface: TADNSW is an Australian charity providing personalised equipment, modified bikes, refurbished computers and advice to children and adults with disabilities and their carers. I am a former employee of TADNSW who now works as a rehabilitation advisor with Handicap International, a Belgian- based international NGO that focuses on supporting people with disabilities who are living in poverty. My views in no way reflect those of my employers, past or present.

I have to admit that when I left TADNSW to work with Handicap International in China, it was with a mixture of excitement and trepidation. Sure, we faced difficulties working in the disabilities sector back home all the time, but here I was going to a country that I had no experience working in, with language skills that I would rate as barely passable, and in a disabilities sector that I was very unfamiliar with.

Apart from studying a Masters in International Development, I worked for 3 years with TADNSW as a physiotherapist alongside the current physio, Brendan Worne. Here in China, my role is similar, but instead of concentrating on the provision of assistive devices to people with disabilities, my input is more on the systems that Handicap International is helping the Chinese government to build and strengthen.

You might think that working in Sydney, Australia, and Guangxi, Southern China, are so far away from each other that it’s almost like being on a different planet. That is true in many (important!) respects. Good coffee in Guangxi is extraordinarily hard to find, and you don’t need to take out a small business loan every time you want to buy a bunch of bananas (they cost about Aussie 60c a kilo here).

But even though I am regularly stared at for my outlandish height (which, at 6 foot, is nothing to write home about by Australian standards), there are many similarities between the disability sectors here and back home. The same underlying problems that we face in Australia are here, often just amplified.

At the base of many of the issues that people with disabilities face in Australia is a lack of dignity. There is no dignity in living a life that doesn’t allow full participation in society, that involves sitting on the sideline and observing play as it carries on. As many people would know, this can involve not having the correct pieces of equipment to enable the people with disabilities to participate. Often the gap between what is needed and what is available in the market place is huge, which is a good justification for TADNSW’s existence.

TADNSW - helping through innovation.

Assistive devices is a big buzz phrase here in Guangxi as well, although the rationale and logic is a little different. While we spent much time trying to keep the cost of equipment down in Australia, to make it affordable for everyone, equipment that is provided here is very much given value according to the price tag. In other words, low cost assistive devices are always going to run second rate to expensive, complex and often unsuitable devices. As such, the common practice is to ignore low cost assistive devices that would provide the children with much benefit, in favour of stuff that is factory made and expensive.

Financial support is another area that is highly topical in the disability world, with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) hopefully being a step forward in the right direction. Just as you see very few rich families with children with disabilities in NSW, poverty only amplifies the problems associated with disability in China. In my first week here, a visiting professor from Beijing said something that really struck a chord with me. He worked in the agriculture sector and had visited Australia before. He said that in Australia, the cities are less developed than those in China, with less infrastructure. Those who regularly complain about Sydney’s public transport would be interested to know that using Beijing’s subway is a dream by comparison, and riding bicycles in most Chinese cities is almost always a safer, and more enjoyable experience. Yet, in the countryside, the gap between Australian and China is enormous. As tough as farmers are doing it in Australia, they face nowhere near the amount of poverty that rural China faces.

As a result, children with disabilities do not often have access to education in rural areas. The closest school that is able to take them may be too far away, and their parents do not have the ability, time or money to get the children out there. Compounding this is often a lack of funding for equipment and rehabilitation that will assist the child to maximise his or her potential, so that being able to get into the classroom and participate is just a distant dream.

Without access to education and participation, the cycle of poverty continues, with the barriers that exist to prevent children with disabilities getting involved only exacerbating it.

Handicap International - giving children with disabilities the chance to participate fully.

In Guangxi, China, Handicap International works at various levels to promote the independence and participation of children with disabilities. We work not only to support inclusive education, but to get back to what the true definition of disability is – the barriers that society builds. For example, are there physical barriers in the environment that need to be addressed? Are there attitudinal barriers amongst the child’s peers or teacher? Is the child able to receive rehabilitation to improve his or her abilities, and can assistive devices help to overcome any of these barriers?

At the very heart of all these problems is the level of poverty in rural parts of Southern China. Just as lack of financial support is a huge problem here, the very same problem amplifies disability in Australia. Which makes me often think that the two settings are not as far apart from each other as you would initially guess.

You can follow this author on Twitter here.

In order to learn more about who you are and what you’re interested in, a number of bloggers have banded together to create a joint survey of our readers:

Please take the survey here

The survey is a project of the @Smart_Aid initiative. International aid and development blogs have expanded rapidly in the past few years, and our audience has expanded too. We want a better sense of just who is reading these blogs and what they’re interested in. The survey will take just 5 minutes. All responses are anonymous. After you take the survey, we encourage you to tweet it, blog it, and otherwise share it with others who read aid and development blogs.

If you have a blog of your own, please post it! You can contact Dave Algoso at findwhatworks@gmail.com for more information.

“Contestants on the one-off game show from the public broadcaster VPRO, part of an annual week of experimental programmes, comprise five asylum seekers who have exhausted legal avenues to stay in the Netherlands and await imminent deportation to their country of origin.

They compete in a quiz about Dutch culture, history and language, with the winner awarded €4,000 (£3,500) to help cushion them when they are expelled. Consolation prizes include a bulletproof vest”. (Peter Walker, Guardian)

To what extent can we use entertainment to exploit communicate messages concerning the humanity of asylum seekers and refugees? It is like playing Russian Roulette, but the empty chambers are actually loaded, and the loaded chamber empty.

There are two premises to this show that are false. First, according to the Guardian article, “the intention is, far from mocking asylum seekers, to instead demonstrate how well integrated many are”. I’m sorry, I am afraid the answer we were looking for is ‘entertainment’. Any pretence that the underlying purpose of this show is to raise awareness of the country’s tightening immigration laws is false. The stakes are too high for those competing. The entertainment value is right where the producers want it to be. This is why we love game shows. We love to see people lose – it’s very satisfying. Besides, to measure the affect of this show, and determine whether it ‘raises awareness’, the network would need to run a randomised controlled trial (RCT), for which a control group watches Keeping Up With the Kardashians.

Second, that the intention of the show is to demonstrate integration. So, how does the game show work? How do the contestants demonstrate how well integrated they are?  Well, like the author of the Guardian article, I Google translated the Weg van Nederland website. Apparently, the host, flanked by two air hostesses,

“bombarded them with quiz questions that they can prove how much they have learned in the Netherlands, including for the Dutch royal family, history, map of the Netherlands, Dutch artists and the Dutch language”.

Photograph: Desmet/Paul Weijenberg / EPA

If people had to prove how well integrated they are by answering questions concerning a nation’s history, culture, language, and politics, I’m afraid many natural-born citizens would lose. Hell, I would probably lose if I was bombarded with questions about Australia. I could competently answer questions about 2nd Century Roman history or about the offensive line of the Minnesota Vikings, but many Australian-related questions would probably elude me:

1) In what year did Federation take place?

2) What are the three levels of government in Australia?

3) What was Don Bradman’s test batting average?

4) How fast could Prime Minister Bob Hawke skoll a yard glass?

5) Which one of these celebrities is NOT Australian? Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, Nicole Kidman, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo?

6) How many kilos did Warnie lose in order to get hitched with Liz Hurley?

7) What exactly is a ‘flaming galah’?

How many steps between this game show and Big Brother is there? Why not just skip those steps, and install cameras throughout places like Christmas Island, which will broadcast directly into viewers’ homes? Before the Australian Government’s political agreement with Malaysia was scuttled by the High Court, a recording of the swap was to be uploaded onto YouTube. There are other ways to effectively use media as a medium to advocate, educate and raise awareness about issues like immigration.

Depending on the ratings, I’m sure there is already talk of spin-offs. Why not have a children’s version of the show, in which unaccompanied minors compete in the style of game shows such as, ‘Are you smarter than a 5th grader?’ or ‘Amazing‘? We could even skip the need to remake the 1987 classic, The Running Man, and just adapt it to a reality TV format:

“Damon Killian is the host of THE RUNNING MAN, a game show wherein convicted felons asylum seekers are given the chance to run to freedom but have to elude the stalkers; men who hunt them down and kill them in gruesome manners”.

Tony Abbott could be Dynamo, Chris Bowen, Subzero, and Bob Katter, Buzzsaw.

Dynamo

Subzero

Buzzsaw

The only saving grace from this new form of game show is that despite the cruelty demonstrated towards its contestants, it comes no where near that displayed previously on some Japanese game shows. Well, not yet at least.

An interview with Godifri Mutindi. 

Working overseas in development can often create some rather sticky situations. One such situation occurs when there is a considerable gap in pay between foreign NGO staff and local workers. Very little is known about the true effects of this gap, both in terms of relationships between foreign and local staff, and on the effectiveness of programs. This week on whydev.org, we have a special interview with Godifri Mutindi, a development consultant who grew up and studied in Zimbabwe. His opinion on the subject is both raw and insightful.

Godifri, thank you for taking the time to answer a few questions on this topic. What is your professional background and what is your particular interest in aid and development?

I trained as a secondary school teacher and taught for 12 years in Zimbabwe. I am concluding my Masters of Business Administration with a South African university. In Mozambique I worked as a teacher of English Language and then for an international NGO.

I am interested in bringing positive change to developing countries which are victims of several historical injustices – cruel chiefs, mercantile capitalism, slavery, colonialism, destructive and bloody liberation struggles, civil wars (in some countries), dictatorships, coups (in some), corruption and the list is endless. I believe that despite all these challenges, especially Africa has a very promising future. And the countries which bring ‘aid’ and ‘peace’ planted these conflicts in the first place and are coming to do business.

In this post on How Matters, you stated that “ large gaps between the locals and the expatriate conditions of service, even for people with the same qualifications” constitutues a form of corruption. Can you please expand on that point?

When a person’s hiring criterion or their conditions of service do not depend on competence, but on their country of origin, I submit this is corruption. It is the same issue we have in developing countries of leaders employing their party supporters or tribes. And usually, they bring non-Blacks to developing countries (nothing racial here).

Do you think that gaps in conditions, such as salary, between expatriate staff and local staff contribute to creating a divide between these staff members? If so, what is the effect of this divide?

There is obviously frustration from local staff, who may be of equal or higher qualifications or performance. There is also animosity that the development partners appear as seeking to create equality and human rights, but they actually further the difference.

Developed countries have a responsibility to and legal obligation to help the developing countries, for our poverty and problems are directly related to slavery, colonialism and neo-colonialism. We are not campaigning for people to sit and relax but it should not be presented as if we are beggars.

On a wider scale, do you think that the gap in conditions can actually lead to less effective delivery of aid? If so, how so?

It can not be exactly like that. The Western people are intelligent and at a higher level that developing countries. They actually budget for these issues, like the USAID’s Buy America, in which they create their home industries through buying a certain percentage of goods from the US. But on performance yes, there is a negative point. These people will be earning big money and other perks and the local people will be sweating. This, unfortunately, is the reality.

And Western countries, as always, continue shifting goal posts. They easily manipulate international law and recuse themselves of the commitments they signed some years ago (Denmark and the Netherlands have pulled out of education despite developing countries being very far from reaching Millennium Development Goals).

Poverty is a multi-million dollar business which