.
In January, the Development Research Institute at New York University did what communities around the world have been doing – in Ethiopia, in Pakistan, in Haiti and Malaysia – since the provocative "Poverty Inc." documentary was released: They hosted a screening of the film, directed by Michael Matheson Miller and drawn from his interviews about philanthropic aid in 20 different countries.
The award-winning film features contributions from development and finance luminaries that include Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, and software entrepreneur Herman Chinery-Hesse of Ghana, while focusing on the voices and aspirations of global citizens. Poverty Inc. is raising mainstream awareness, particularly at Western universities, about how international development works, who benefits from it, and the unintended consequences of some efforts that negatively impact the very people they're ostensibly designed to help.
What was different at NYU isn't necessarily the academic or community discussion that typically follows "Poverty Inc." But in New York, DRI co-founder William Easterly, a former World Bank economist and longtime advocate for change in how development is done, served as moderator. Easterly's expertise centers on the question asked by human rights groups, NGOs, faith-based organizations and others: How do we better respond to development needs with strategies that elevate and include individuals within nations, rather than diminish their lives and economic potential and degrade their political systems?
There is new energy surrounding questions that are decades old, as Easterly points out in “The Tyranny of Experts,” his 2013 book that traces the history of authoritarian and technocratic development theories. “The disrespect for the poor people shown by agencies such as the World Bank and the Gates Foundation, with their stereotypes of wise technocrats from the West and helpless victims from the Rest, may become increasingly untenable,” he concludes. “Development may have to give up its authoritarian mind-set to survive.”
Research and the rise of corporate globalization
That's consistent with the tenor of two new reports on global development and corporate philanthropy. The Global Policy Forum, based in Germany, released “Philanthropic Power and Development: Who Shapes the Agenda?” in November. The independent policy institute uses a holistic approach to development that emphasizes economic justice, while linking it to peace, security, human rights and self-directed agency.
The report takes a comprehensive look at the growing role of corporations and private investors in “big philanthropy” that includes the Gates Foundation, but also Rockefeller Foundation and others in a landscape the authors note is still dominated by the US and UK. What's new isn't just the scale of funding from these foundations, including the UN Foundation, but the degree to which they influence discourse, decisions and development programs. A similar report, released by Global Justice Now as the latest World Economic Forum convened in Davos, explores the role of the $43.5 billion Gates Foundation in advancing corporate globalization, with a critique of poverty and inequality that cannot be defeated without “systemic social, economic and political change” found lacking in its priorities. Easterly, asked to comment, reiterated his view, based on his own research findings: The first step is not to identify technical solutions, but to ensure the rights of the poor.
The need to identify negative impacts and unintended consequences is made more urgent, the German authors say, by international climate change challenges and the significant role of the philanthropic sector in the global 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. The authors point to problematic concerns: Do wealthy actors wield undue influence in setting the development agenda, thereby shifting the UN away from its mission? What happens when development problems – and certainly solutions – are framed in a for-profit philosophy aligned with for-profit business strategies? What are the impacts on development financing and its stability? What about transparency and accountability, and who decides how that is measured and determines what it means?
Finding solutions that prioritize human rights
Some of the same thorny questions apply to the authoritarian governments that Western global development efforts so often endorse, tacitly or otherwise, in nations on the African content and elsewhere. Academic and public health expert Helen Epstein, who writes frequently on political development in Africa at the intersection of Western diplomacy and development aid, minces no words when answering the question, “Why do so many African leaders assume they can ignore their constitutions, cling to power, and get away with it?”
Whether writing about upcoming elections in Uganda, Ethiopia, or about two dozen African nations in total in the next few years – or in this specific account, on Burundi – Epstein directly confronts the “epidemic of folly” found in how foreign aid is done, whether through bilateral agreements, the World Bank or other development finance agreements. “Western aid pays for half of Burundi’s budget, roughly 40 percent of Rwanda’s, 50 percent of Ethiopia’s and 30 percent of Uganda’s . All these countries receive an unknown amount of military aid as well,” Epstein writes. “This money enables African leaders to ignore the demands of their own people, and facilitates the financing of the patronage systems and security machinery that keeps them in power.”
That's often a viewpoint shared by Africans, including development economist Dambisa Moyo of Zambia among them. Moyo, a former World Bank consultant and author of “How There Is a Better Way for Africa” and “Dead Aid: Why Aid Doesn't Work,” is widely recognized for her embrace of technology transfer, finance infrastructure and other requirements that advance emerging economies and the developed world alike. But Moyo also emphasizes the political and cultural aspects of development, including income inequality as a driver of unrest.
In her recent Harvard International Review interview, Moyo underscores the need for humility in understanding global economic development, the complexity of the challenges, and the tension between economics and politics. The Global Policy Institute articulates a similar conclusion in its research – and asks that the corporate development community “reconsider” its initiatives and its strategies. It's the same message that Poverty Inc. is now delivering to mainstream audiences who seek to alleviate suffering and stimulate growth, but who need better answers about how to support sustainable economic development in a world facing new challenges.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
New Direction Needed in International Development, Aid Community
February 3, 2016
In January, the Development Research Institute at New York University did what communities around the world have been doing – in Ethiopia, in Pakistan, in Haiti and Malaysia – since the provocative "Poverty Inc." documentary was released: They hosted a screening of the film, directed by Michael Matheson Miller and drawn from his interviews about philanthropic aid in 20 different countries.
The award-winning film features contributions from development and finance luminaries that include Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, and software entrepreneur Herman Chinery-Hesse of Ghana, while focusing on the voices and aspirations of global citizens. Poverty Inc. is raising mainstream awareness, particularly at Western universities, about how international development works, who benefits from it, and the unintended consequences of some efforts that negatively impact the very people they're ostensibly designed to help.
What was different at NYU isn't necessarily the academic or community discussion that typically follows "Poverty Inc." But in New York, DRI co-founder William Easterly, a former World Bank economist and longtime advocate for change in how development is done, served as moderator. Easterly's expertise centers on the question asked by human rights groups, NGOs, faith-based organizations and others: How do we better respond to development needs with strategies that elevate and include individuals within nations, rather than diminish their lives and economic potential and degrade their political systems?
There is new energy surrounding questions that are decades old, as Easterly points out in “The Tyranny of Experts,” his 2013 book that traces the history of authoritarian and technocratic development theories. “The disrespect for the poor people shown by agencies such as the World Bank and the Gates Foundation, with their stereotypes of wise technocrats from the West and helpless victims from the Rest, may become increasingly untenable,” he concludes. “Development may have to give up its authoritarian mind-set to survive.”
Research and the rise of corporate globalization
That's consistent with the tenor of two new reports on global development and corporate philanthropy. The Global Policy Forum, based in Germany, released “Philanthropic Power and Development: Who Shapes the Agenda?” in November. The independent policy institute uses a holistic approach to development that emphasizes economic justice, while linking it to peace, security, human rights and self-directed agency.
The report takes a comprehensive look at the growing role of corporations and private investors in “big philanthropy” that includes the Gates Foundation, but also Rockefeller Foundation and others in a landscape the authors note is still dominated by the US and UK. What's new isn't just the scale of funding from these foundations, including the UN Foundation, but the degree to which they influence discourse, decisions and development programs. A similar report, released by Global Justice Now as the latest World Economic Forum convened in Davos, explores the role of the $43.5 billion Gates Foundation in advancing corporate globalization, with a critique of poverty and inequality that cannot be defeated without “systemic social, economic and political change” found lacking in its priorities. Easterly, asked to comment, reiterated his view, based on his own research findings: The first step is not to identify technical solutions, but to ensure the rights of the poor.
The need to identify negative impacts and unintended consequences is made more urgent, the German authors say, by international climate change challenges and the significant role of the philanthropic sector in the global 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. The authors point to problematic concerns: Do wealthy actors wield undue influence in setting the development agenda, thereby shifting the UN away from its mission? What happens when development problems – and certainly solutions – are framed in a for-profit philosophy aligned with for-profit business strategies? What are the impacts on development financing and its stability? What about transparency and accountability, and who decides how that is measured and determines what it means?
Finding solutions that prioritize human rights
Some of the same thorny questions apply to the authoritarian governments that Western global development efforts so often endorse, tacitly or otherwise, in nations on the African content and elsewhere. Academic and public health expert Helen Epstein, who writes frequently on political development in Africa at the intersection of Western diplomacy and development aid, minces no words when answering the question, “Why do so many African leaders assume they can ignore their constitutions, cling to power, and get away with it?”
Whether writing about upcoming elections in Uganda, Ethiopia, or about two dozen African nations in total in the next few years – or in this specific account, on Burundi – Epstein directly confronts the “epidemic of folly” found in how foreign aid is done, whether through bilateral agreements, the World Bank or other development finance agreements. “Western aid pays for half of Burundi’s budget, roughly 40 percent of Rwanda’s, 50 percent of Ethiopia’s and 30 percent of Uganda’s . All these countries receive an unknown amount of military aid as well,” Epstein writes. “This money enables African leaders to ignore the demands of their own people, and facilitates the financing of the patronage systems and security machinery that keeps them in power.”
That's often a viewpoint shared by Africans, including development economist Dambisa Moyo of Zambia among them. Moyo, a former World Bank consultant and author of “How There Is a Better Way for Africa” and “Dead Aid: Why Aid Doesn't Work,” is widely recognized for her embrace of technology transfer, finance infrastructure and other requirements that advance emerging economies and the developed world alike. But Moyo also emphasizes the political and cultural aspects of development, including income inequality as a driver of unrest.
In her recent Harvard International Review interview, Moyo underscores the need for humility in understanding global economic development, the complexity of the challenges, and the tension between economics and politics. The Global Policy Institute articulates a similar conclusion in its research – and asks that the corporate development community “reconsider” its initiatives and its strategies. It's the same message that Poverty Inc. is now delivering to mainstream audiences who seek to alleviate suffering and stimulate growth, but who need better answers about how to support sustainable economic development in a world facing new challenges.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
