A rant or two...

Recently a little article entitled "7 worst international aid ideas" from the Matador Network has been making the rounds on the Facebook and the Twitter. A friend of mine shared it, then her friend commented on it. Then I filled up her page with counter-comments... then I deleted them because I thought they needed a blog post, rather than a discombobulated commentary on Facebook. 


A long blog post at that: Aid is criticized in the media (and it should be, like anything), but often people focus on things that are exaggerated by some sexy, dramatic, shocking story and hence myths are born. Here I'll comment on the article, then I'll talk about exaggerated issues. As an aid worker, I obviously believe in aid and I think you should too, despite its issues.


First, I like the article: I think it did a good job of choosing several higher-profile examples of dumbassery that occurs everyday (1, 2, 3, 4, and 6), as well as highlight two bigger issues (5 and 7) that no one really talks about, but should.


Second, the article is talking about bad aid ideas, not problems with aid. There is a subtle, but important, distinction here. 
> Bad aid ideas like this: What should we do to help the poor? Oh, let's send them used underwear.
> Problems with aid are more like this: Why isn't aid working? Oh. Shit. That's a hard one, but let's blame the NGOs. 

* * *

The 7 Worst Ideas + 2 more bad ones

#1 - SWEDOW, or "stuff we don't want", a now ubiquitous term coined by my favorite aid blogger Tales from the Hood (though I like to say "shit we don't want"). 'Nuff said. The article got it covered,  just to say there are a bazillion examples of this: used bras, pillow case dresses, motel soap bars... the list is endless. 
I personally would choose another as the WORST example: old, outdated baby cribs "that do not pass new safety standards".  Most mamas living in a poverty stricken slum in Nairobi don't want a crib, don't have room for one in their home, and much less one that could perhaps strangle their child. 
(Here is some more on SWEDOW from Good Intents are not Enough, an excellent blog about aid. I couldn't get the link to Tales from the Hood to work... sorry.)


#2 - TOMS shoes is SWEDOW, but with a hint of bad CSR (corporate social responsibility) - or vice versa. Not much to add here, this probably is one of the WORST examples because it is so popular. TOMS raised a hullaballu in the aid-blog world sparking the "Day without Dignity" campaign by Sandra over at Good Intents (my contribution to that campaign). 


#3 - Crazy dudes with guns claiming to save kids. Bad. Very Bad. Crazy dudes without guns are bad enough. I am glad there are not very many examples of the armed type, but sad to say there are too many of the unarmed type. I'd put the hot aid-worker marrying a warlord in this category as well. The article definitely got the WORST crazy dude example, especially since this one was made into a movie... (nice transition to #4).


#4 - Crazy celebrities and their stupid ideas, perhaps a subset of number 3? I might say that when Nick Kristof purchased the freedom of 2 prostitutes maybe a WORSE example. 


#5 - USAID "buy American" is indeed the WORST example because this is a government (and a big one), not a corporation, but this is basically an example of bad CSR. Grants for aid (by a do-gooder government or corporation) who then says "Okay but you gotta use (or even worse, you gotta promote) our products in your project" whether or not their product is the most appropriate for the project or context. 
  Some commentary on the Facebook feed mentioned that USAID has loosened their guidelines on this recently, but not by much.


#6 - Food looking like landmines. Oh god, say it ain't so. Definitely the WORST example of confusing packaging of aid products. Other examples that I have seen include oral re-hydration salts and water purifiers that look the same, chlorine tablets that look like medicine...


#7 - Aid as foreign policy. This one is a little heavy and really beyond my expertise. But I agree, it is evil (though not only American).


So, that's my take on the article's 7 WORST ideas. I would add 2 things to the list... 


>  Orphanages: Please read more by Good Intents who asks "Does funding orphanages crate orphans?" and has many other enlightening posts on the subject.


>  Products that don't always work: I hate the LifeStraw because, while it may work for a little while, it is going to ware out and get gummed up pretty quick. I also think it's a little un-dignified to walk around with a straw around your neck. Another example is the bio-sand filter, which seems cool because it can be made by local masons, but which doesn't always clean the water. Both of these would often give the idea that the user is drinking safe water, but that in fact she isn't. Dangerous.

* * *

7 myth-buster comments on Why Aid Doesn't work

My subtitle is a little misleading: I do think that aid is helping. Aid is making the world a better place, although I would have to say that poverty is not being eradicated: the subtle distinction between "helping" and "working" that I won't address here. 

Anyway, let's get on with it. My goal here is to address a few misconceptions highlighted about how aid works (or doesn't work). 

> 1: "Emphasis on building large dams" - First, I don't think there is an emphasis on dams in development. No grand conspiracy to dam all the rivers of the world. Second, sorry to my environmentalist friends, but dams have the possibility of being an excellent project for a developing country to alleviate some poverty. I don't like dams either, and no they are not always good, but they aren't all bad either (electricity, jobs, exportable commodity...).

> 2: "NGOs that crowd out weak or disinterested governments": NGOs substituting for governments is indeed bad news and happens all too often. But sometimes the goal is to save lives, not to develop the country, in which case substitution can be appropriate and acceptable. Also, NGOs don't have as much power as this statement implies. NGOs are more often manipulated by governments for political gain than the other way around.

> 3: "The creepy emphasis on combating the 'brain drain' ": Well, it works both ways - aid can increase and decrease brain drain. In the long run, it probably will decrease it. Again, there also isn't any hidden agenda on this.

> 4: "The principle of paying immense salaries to mildly-qualified foreigners and putting them in charge of local specialists": Oooooooh, a touchy one.  When this happens (and it does) it is indeed bad. Very evil white men. Neo-colonialist. Bad. Bad. Bad.  

  (Full disclosure: I am a foreigner paid to be in charge of aid projects.)

  BUT, it actually doesn't happen that often in NGOs. The basic fallacy in this statement is "mildly-qualified" and "immense salaries". Foreign aid workers are brought in with skills that the host country doesn't have. You might not think so, but host governments regulate this pretty well, and NGOs are pretty transparent about it too. Addtionally, local hire salaries and expat salaries aren't usually very different for the same job. (Full disclosure: expat benefits are often significantly better than for a local hire.)

  The other fallacy this brings up is that aid-workers have to suffer to do good work. How ridiculous is this idea. So for me to do good aid work, I need to be a volunteer? To get good people, you need a living wage. I volunteered for 2 years (Peace Corps), then I needed to make a living. And I do. And I am not ashamed of the money I make. I deserve it. I'm good. You want me out there doing aid work. Trust me. (And by the way, it isn't a lot. But it's enough.)

> 5: "Spectacular programs to eradicate various diseases, instead of spending much less money to provide the basic medical services that would control them, and take care of many other ailments as well": Says he who lives in a country where malaria has been eradicated... First, eradicating certain diseases can be the most cost effective program ever, especially in the long run. Imagine how much money in curative care that would be saved if malaria were eradicated globally, not to mention savings in terms of deaths and suffering. (I've had malaria, trust me one suffers.) Second, providing basic medical services that would control them also is VERY expensive and complicated.

(The next two are not in quotes because these misconceptions didn't come from the Facebook comments, just one I know exist.)

> 6: All those NGOs with high overheads are inefficient, ineffective because they are just lining their greedy pockets: Basically, overheads are necessary to do good work and the "overhead figure" is easily manipulated. Again, I'll refer you to Ms. Sandra and her wisdom over at Good Intents here or here. She has basically written the book on this myth. No need to really re-hash it.

> 7: There is one solution that will alleviate poverty: Nope. That's the thing. It's complicated. 

   Something that worked in India won't always work in Africa. In fact, something that worked in village X might not work in a village 5 miles away. 

   It won't just take more money. That money needs to be well spent. 

   A little technological gadget won't solve it. Not even the cell phone. 

* * *

But you know what'll help? Continuing to question aid, continuing to think about it, and continuing to do it.

Indicators

The answer is 42.
But what does 42 mean, really?

Remember two things: Heisenberg and Bias.

* * *

Dirty old Heisenberg

If you look my way
I might smile or scowl
or curse
depending
on who you might be
friend or foe
or dirty old man.
Even when I seem
to do nothing
know that ignoring you
is a calculated reaction.

* * *

Inherent Bias

We wear yellow glasses. We are looking at a blue world. We see a green world. If we know our glasses are yellow, then hopefully we will remember that the green world we are looking at is actually bluer than that which we see as green.

* * *

The problem of measurement or observation or knowing is not new. Heisenberg was mentioned and there is Schrödinger and his poor cat or the quantum suicide scenario, which are more obtuse discussions about observers and the observed, whose practicality is questionable.  I am a scientist and aid worker, so that’s what’s practical to me.

An interesting and practical discussion about the perspective of being outsider on the Tales From The Hood blog rung true with me in certain situations, but he left something out.  He is right, sometimes an outsider can filter out a local bias, but sometimes an outsider can exaggerate a local bias as well. The important thing is to be aware of one’s effect and one’s biases and the situation and the complex interactions therein. We can never eliminate these things, but we can at least be aware of them.

* * *

Intelligent scientists and aid workers alike know that by measuring something you do indeed affect it. We also know, despite not being quantum physicists, that we will never know the exact value or position or whatever. Whether numbers or simple observations, we are careful to minimize these things by triangulation, awareness and thoughtful measurement methods.

An example: Hydrogeologists poke holes (i.e. dig wells) into aquifers and in doing so disrupt what was once, and in being aware of that, we accept it because it is good enough to understand the system. It is that, in fact, our goal in observing anything: to understand what is going on. 

When we do science in aid work, we are still scientists and indeed report a range of values or other interpretations that reflect uncertainty. The methodology (how these numbers are arrived at) is rigorous and has been peer reviewed, published and duplicated by experts. The documentation of such methodology is available, transparent and clear, even to someone outside the relevant technical field who has basic mathematics background, some curiosity and half a brain.

An example: We measure a certain number of randomly sampled children to represent a greater population which is very specifically defined and say, for example, that for this defined population there is an 80% chance that we are beyond the emergency threshold of global acute malnutrition or that the level of X problem is Y% with a 90% confidence interval of +/-Z.

* * *

On NOT understanding Heisenberg: The danger in science and in aid work is when people do not take the time to understand what a number or observation means: how it was measured, the constraints and limitation inherent in it, some people don’t even know the units associated with that number (e.g. 42). Without some knowledge about the mechanics of the observation, you will never know what anything actually says about the system or population or, really, about anything.

On NOT understanding Bias: This can be your bias (your yellow glasses), as well as the bias of the presentation. The most dangerous and common thing of all is to talk about a number or to compare two numbers that are not related at all and then draw some wide-sweeping conclusions from them. There are many particularly worrying examples of this. Some examples of this are well intentioned but careless, and some straight-up-dirty manipulation of data.

Back to practicality. We make observations to come to conclusions. I hate conclusions. They are usually wrong because they depend on a complexity of things. But alas, conclusions are a necessary evil.

Understanding Heisenberg + Bias = better conclusions. Knowing what the number or observation means helps filter some bias, but can’t get it all. By being aware of bias, and especially the bias of the audience, and by trying to take off or lighten the yellow glasses makes the conclusion stronger, more realistic and inherently better.

* * *

One problem with my argument is that it is too idealistic and simple. Bad science, bad measurements and bad observations are rampent. Which makes pretty much any view of them moot. (But can you expect me to address everything in a single blog post? Really?) And the point is, by using the noggin a little and not just accepting what you read, you can identify this "badness."

Another problem with my argument is that I am guilty too, I sometimes draw conclusions too fast, I have biases, I have a sick sense of humor that gets the best of my biases. But sheesh, I am human. The point is not that I know best, it is that I am thinking about it and you should too.

* * *

Did I bore you? Confuse you?
If so, read it again.
If not, enjoy lighter side of indicators.

* * *

In every niche there are standard, quantifiable indicators. For me professionally, this often boils down to things like the prevalence of WASH related diseases, number of people per latrine, liters of water per person per day, fecal coliforms per sample etc. We also have qualitative indicators which may give another, less number-full view of the situation, but equally valuable.

I have come up with a few indicators of my own, which mean nothing, are not scientific and are most undoubtedly influenced by my sick sense of humor and biases. The ones I will present here relate to the level of development of a place, mostly the economic development of that place.

I hoped I didn’t have to say this, but I guess I need a disclaimer: In all seriousness, these are really complicated subjects. Please realize that by presenting these ridiculous indicators, that I am demonstrating exactly the danger of this entire discussion. My apparent hypocrisy is intentional. I am a sarcastic person and I intend to remain that way.

* * *

Fire: And god said let there be light, and it was good. And man discovered fire and flint. And then matches were available on the local market. And then lighters. And then lighters with flashing lights inside. And then lighters with flashing light and a button to make those flashing disco lights be projected onto a close wall or floor.

Beer for your buck: The bigger and cheaper the beer, the more dire the economic situation of the country.  Can the average cost per swig of beer be positively correlated to the average income of a household or somehow be an inverse proxy indicator for GDP? You find big, cheap beers in Congo and Guinea; smaller, expensive beers exported from Europe. Do note that Budweiser has a pretty cheap, twenty-two ounce beer. America is going to shit.

McDonalds for peace: Some people claim that there are fewer wars and less strife in countries with McDonalds. Clearly a chicken-vs-egg argument should ensue, but in my recent history I have lived in countries with relatively high levels of strife and not one had a McDonalds. (Not my own idea, just one I thought was worth sharing.)

Gambling as an indicator of early recovery after displacement:

I see Haiti eight months after the earthquake. Life is not normal here and won’t be for a long time, but it is transitioning back slowly. With this bias, I look for signs of normalcy. I search them out. And I found one. The lottery is up and running, people are gambling again, so one can conclude that this place is getting back to normal.

The lottery kiosks or shacks or buildings are newly painted. They say “BANK – LOTTO- CHEZ TITI.” Other types of kiosks haven’t been repainted, even if they are starting to reopen. Not the water sellers. Not the pharmacies. But indeed the lottery bosses are back in business. Folks are crowded around the blackboards on the walls and doors which are updated twice a day with the winning numbers. A clear early warning indicator of recovery.

So my boss asks, can you assess Maya Camp, where people are re-settling?  How is it there? I visit. I don’t even have to get out of my air-conditioned, white Land Cruiser to draw my conclusion. I see that a Chez Titi kiosk is up and running within the camp and I know that these people are ready to get back to normal. They are doing fine.

* * *

Perhaps I can solicit Paul Collier and his army of ingenious grad students to run an in depth retro-analysis on existing data to check the validity of my new-fangled-sarcastic indicators.

* * *

On inspiration: This post was gourbled out of my head, somewhat, by checking out the aforementioned blog, and in particular his post about Skynard and simplicity, actually many of his posts. Clearly I dig this dude’s style and outlook on aid work. Take some time to check out his posts.

Editorial note added afterwords: Hey number-geeks and aid-workers, here is some interesting questions posed by statiscians dealing with the MGDS. It's a start. (Thanks Trish, for pointing this out to me.)

My first buck

* * *

Business, first:

Contest #1) Helium… That's where it started, and it will apparently continue into oblivion, but is none-the-less an interesting background to my adventrue in writing. I haven’t submitted anything new here since the last posting, but I am earning good money. To date: $1.05, at this rate I'm going to need a piggy bank! The biggest earner by far is my masterpiece on beauty tips- more than 1/3 of my total earnings are from this article alone. How about that. Deep. Fufilling. $1.05.

Contest #2) Poetry contest for charity… 2nd round of cyberetic-domocratic judging completed. The quality of poems is better in this round, so I guess that should give me confidence in the merit of the contestant-come-judge approach. There is no feedback from the contest organizers if you passed to the second round or not, so I have no idea what people thought of my poem. I will only know if it passes to the final 12 in the next few weeks. If not I will never know how far it went. Oh woe goes the fragile Ego who sits atop her fence.

Contest #3) The more professional poetry contest… No idea. The contest is closed, and if I don't win then I don’t expect any feedback. Wish I had a clue. Wish I had a chance.

Both #2 and #3 should have results in July. I am honestly pretty nervous at the idea of the outcomes. Discouragement? Depression? Elation? Egomaniacal striation?

 * * *

Writing, second:

So, the artist. Is so deep. Is so idealistic. The process is supposed to be moving and personal and involve a muse. The artist is not supposed to create for the audience or for appreciation, but for the pure and simple joy of creation.
Creation of any sort seems to involve some evolution.
And evolution involves some reflection and adaptation and revision to improve upon that creation. And sometimes that involves some sort of opinion that is not your own. Which by definition is involving the audience and by-passing the muse and maybe isn't so deep. But it's still being an artist, I think.

So here is some creationist evolution by an amateur artist who is perhaps not so idealistic.

Here are two versions of something. Which do you think came first? Which one do you like better? Did it evolve at all? Should it have even been created?

*

Shifting nomadic sporadic emphatic
transient walking with steps automatic
a basket a bundle a trundle crate casket
reflective packing with questions to ask it

I tell myself I am not in the race,
not influenced by the incompetence
of the electoral college, not capitalist, not racist, not American.
I tell myself I am not in the bottom,
not affected by the incompetence
of taxes called inflation, not corrupt, not tribalist, not African.

*

I tell myself I am not
in the race, not
influenced by the incompetence
of the electoral college, not
capitalist, not racist, not
American.
I tell myself I am not
in the bottom, not
affected by the incompetence
of taxes called inflation, not
corrupt, not tribalist, not
African.

*

Here is my answers to my own questions: I sort of like the two part one because it is more playful, but it doesn’t seem finished yet, needs more to make it strong. The bottom one seems to take itself too seriously, trying to be deep, trying to speak for everyman - but could be complete as it is.

* * *

Personal, third:

We are moving. My next 3 months are pretty unclear, but (as life seems to keep on going whether or not one has a plan) the next month promises much more excitement in my life than just the outcome of the second two contests. I will definitely leave Kenya by mid-July. I might get a job. I might not. I might go surfing. I probably won't. Either way, there will certainly be some interesting blog posts. Currently I am a little bit reflective, as one tends to be upon the brink of leaving 2 years of inspiration, frustration and fun.

There is no fastlane

where 

potholes appear

with overnight rains, 

where

streetlights are standing

with bulbs dark, 

where

I saw a dead man

hit last new years eve.