foreign aid:

the good, the bad, and the ugly

“Having a heart for the poor isn’t hard. Having a mind for the poor, that’s the challenge.” -Poverty, Inc.


101894271_271542037539689_7492547392487555072_n.jpg



“Despite an estimated $2.3 trillion in foreign aid dispensed from Western nations during the post-World War II era,

more than 2.5 billion people, approximately 40 percent of the world’s population, still live on less than two dollars per day.”

-When Helping Hurts

 

The Bad

Much of the money given to developing countries throughout history has had disastrous results. This has ranged from the horrendous promise by the king of Belgium to “civilize” the Congo through colonization, to well-intentioned “aid” from food surplus programs and companies like TOMS shoes that have crippled local producers.

The previous paragraph may have caught many off-guard. It sounds good to give food and shoes to poor developing countries. It even feels good to financially support these types of organizations. What isn’t often seen, however, is the carnage that well-intentioned donations can leave behind.

Food surplus programs can, and have, put local farmers out of business. TOMS shoes can, and has, destroyed local shoe manufacturers and businesses. Why go out and buy things when you can get them for free? After all, everyone likes free stuff, just ask any college student.

In the long run, these donations perpetuate a vicious cycle: since donations have caused so many local businesses to go under, people now must continue to rely on foreign donations because the businesses are no longer there. Businesses can’t grow and thrive because donations keep putting them out of business. And so on, and so on.

Disclaimer: While there is still more that could be done, TOMS shoes has started to move toward a more sustainable model, and for that we applaud them.

The Ugly

There have been countless well-meaning organizations that have not only harmed economies, but created a power dynamic that perpetuates a different kind of harm. Many in developed countries feel they are the only ones who can fix problems in poor countries, and then those in the developing world start to believe that it is true. This, in my opinion, is the worst repercussion of all.

People in developing countries have immeasurable amounts of skills, knowledge, and resources. Even though these strengths and abilities may look different than what people in developed countries are accustomed to, it doesn’t mean they are any less valuable.

The reality is the developed world doesn’t have all the answers.

That sounds easy to chew on, but it isn’t easy to swallow.

So what can be done? How can those in the developed world share their wealth without unintentionally colonizing other countries, or at best, pushing their culture on them? How can organizations nurture sustainable growth instead of a temporary flow of assets?

The Good

750948766-80867328.gif

Don’t be the hero

Organizations often depict themselves as the knight in shining armor. They’re the ones that swoop in to save the poor from their terrible plight.

This often manifests itself as a young teenager, fresh from a recent missions trip, changing their Facebook profile picture to them posing with a random child they barely know. It could also manifest as an organization that constantly talks about the free things they pass out, but never mentions the long term repercussions.

The hero is actually the mother that provided a future for her child, or the successful entrepreneur who gave their local community an innovative new service. The hero should never be the foreigner.

Don’t be the know-it-all

Most people would never approach a stranger at the grocery store and say, “You’re pretty messed up, but don’t worry, I’ll fix you.” Likewise, we should never tell a community what we believe is best for them, let alone begin a relationship focusing on their problems.

Foreigners should always ensure they’ve built relationships with local communities, and those communities want them there. If the general public doesn’t want the service, foreigners must be humble enough to move on.

After ensuring that the service is desired, time must be taken to assess the inherent strengths of the local community and evaluate the best intervention alongside people native to that community.

63915375.jpg

Don’t be the one who lingers

Many organizations don’t have an exit strategy. When the visa expires or the money runs out, the organization can leave people in confusion and disarray. 

If the community has determined they want services, the goal should always be for the foreigner to work themselves out of a job. If the foreigner is expendable, it is a good thing. It means the local community is able to run the intervention independently, or better yet, no longer needs the intervention.

don’t be the colonizer

There are inherent strengths and weaknesses in every culture, both currently and historically. It is the job of the foreigner to research and understand the ways their culture has historically oppressed the one in which they are now living.

When people from developed countries work in poorer countries, there is almost always a history of colonization and racism between the two that should not be swept under the rug. It is important to be aware of how that history affects both the views of those communities as well as our own. If a community is made to feel inferior to the foreigner, they may never feel empowered to take control of their lives and move to a state of independence.

Understand that both cultures have advantages and disadvantages. If done correctly, they can work together in a beautiful way.

What does this look like in real life?

You may interested in supporting organizations that truly are sustainably and ethically working cross-culturally.

Some helpful questions to ask:

  1. Is the organization consistently highlighting local community members, not the foreigners? -Hopefully, yes

  2. Are they repeatedly discussing the numbers of people they’ve helped or how large their organization is? -Should be a no

  3. Are they portraying themselves and their workers as the only ones who care, displaying their organization as a beacon of light in the midst of an immoral society? -That’s hopefully no

  4. Is the organization training local individuals to take their place? -Should be working towards this

  5. In what ways are they making funding sustainable once the foreigner is out of the picture? -Is there a plan?


 

"Machiavelli said, ‘the reason there will be no change is because the people who stand to lose from change have all the power.

And the people who stand to gain from change have none of the power.’ That’s describing the global aid system today”

-Poverty, Inc.