Aid agencies as substitutes to the State?

[M.]

hello to all,

I was recently confronted to the issue of a potential ngo employer considering itself (and all aid agencies) as the "substitute for the State" in a certain country in Africa who is evaluated as a "ghost state".

I am wondering how concepts such as general development (including governance), partnerships and also negotiation, could be influended by this claim/observation.

I generally think the State in Africa should have a greater role, if only becasue it is the warrant of human rights and receiver/administrator of EU sector budget aid, biggest donor in Africa. So accountable to the populations, if not to the donors.

I always thought the susbstitution of the ngos to the state was a dangerous thing, not leading to development. States receive enormous annual budgets from the EU each year, that in the name of ownership are just given out with little or no accountability to anyone. (For different and compex reasons, it does not work, and development does not happen.)

Now, if the State is "weak"/ghost/absent and ngo's job is to go do its job (health, education, finance) how do we, as representatives of the ngo towards national authorities, implementors of general donor agendas, place ourselves?

There is something unsatisfactory about : "we have to do it becasuse they don't"

Would be really good to have your insights, specially of experienced aid workers having worked at country representation level.

:-)

thanks

[M.]

Lisa,

J,

thanks for your views. I was starting to feel surprised this isssue did not interest anybody...

Lisa, you say "the job done"... well, that's precisely part of the inirect questioning: how to position us=what is our job? I was talking this time more of development rather than emergency interventions, in my post. Our job is certainly not to susbtitute ourselves to the role of the state/governments....

Then, perhaps it could be, humbly, and mostly as para-governmental implementers/spenders of government aid (EU, UN....) to support the government of the country through, say, training programs so they can do it themselves when we leave?

BTW, sustainability an the inustry's total inability to include it in the programs design could be a nice subject for a post...

But I was also speaking of governments who, in the best of cases, are indifferent to the ngos and in the worst obstaculize their work or fire them from the country. and who frequently, consider buzzwords such as "partnership" (I have come to loathe an fear this term) as a mere "give and shut up". What relationships to build with them? what if the honest, open approach ("We're not exactly here to give an shut up") does not work?

"Failed states" still have some form of govt or another when we land at the aiport, some representant or another, with whom I'll be sitting. In some cases, illegitimate (not elected) assassins (by direct action or by omission) of their own people, the same people who my ngo employer is here to help. So even if they will change when we leave, or before, I still will need to deal with them then...

J, your distinction is interesting, but I am tempted to go one step further and ask, "if so, why can't they"?. On the reasons will depend, then, my re-action an positioning. I dont have in mind terrible earthquakes. Rather, chronic complex emergencies in a countries with a history of coups and military regimes one after the other since 1960. Cant they? or won't they? the excuse of not havoing enough funds seems weak, knowing that they are infused with funds from institutional donors (I think the EU here) to precisely, make fiscal/governance/educative reforms since approximately 50 years now, no strings attached,  in the form of bugetary support ("do as you want with it, we need to give it anyway"), and also knowing that they have mineral and other ressources.

"political will" is also a good theme for a post...:-)

We can't grow mangoes on rocks.
And we can't transform rocks into tropical earth no matter how much we water them.

development is not about money and I wish people in all parts of this industry would finally one day acknowledge this. yet the economicist analysis in development prevails, as if it would be enough to water a stone enough, for it to become tropical earth. and when it does not work, we say there was not enough watering.

NGOs are not really open to questioning their positioning even internally, becasue generally they perceive any critical analysis as a threat to their very reason for being, and thus their existence (and all those jobs...!).....

anyway, thanks for your insights..:-)

[Lisa F.]

I worry about this all the time. It's also something I thought about a lot while reading "Dead Aid." It's also something that I don't only worry about in the context of the developing world, but something that I had important conversations about while doing community work in Canada.

I honestly don't feel like it's about humility or competence or capability - it's about NGOs often coming in with loads of money and just trying to get the job done. Often, getting the job done in a timely fashion stops us from taking the necessary measure to find effective ways to work WITH government. It can be frustrating and slow and is so much about building relationships - often with people we barely speak the same language as and who often don't seem very interested in building a relationship with us.

But I think that is part of NGOs and aid workers responsibility. The state - in one form or another - will be there long after aid workers leave. It will be there long after any crisis. It will be there and with its one main duty - to serve the people. Only by working with the state (when possible) can we be sure we aren't substituting, but rather enhancing or strengthening that work.

[J.]

I'm interested in the differences between "we have to do it because they *don't*", and "we have to do it because they *can't*." Of course it's never totally cut-and-dried, but in general I am more comfortable with the latter. If we espouse the former, we're full into the humanitarian's dilemma.

To the larger issue of NGOs claiming to be, or even to simply be capable of, being a substitute for the state is as ridiculous as it is arrogant. I mean, the mathematical realities around the scope of what we bring to the table, alone disqualify us from substituting the state (even a really poor one). That plus the reality that we have repeatedly proven ourselves incompetent even to good development on a community level (we sometimes get it right, but for all of our RCTs and 'evidence-based programming', you have to admit it's pretty random) ought to cause massive cognitive dissonance to anyone making such a claim. It's on the table: the world would not be a better place if it was run by NGOs.

I'm not sure of the best way to represent ourselves to host governments, constituents... but I'm pretty sure the confident humility is a place to begin. We have good things to offer, absolutely. Even more to the point for me, though, is that we need to start representing ourselves honestly to ourselves.