Disclaimer:
Some of you may
not like what I have to say. You may disagree, I may offend a bit,
and I might come off a bit too harsh. This is just a blurb of what I
had learned as of my third week in the field of development, followed
up by an even smaller blurb from earlier today. A few months ago, I
never thought I'd be writing something so critical; but then again,
maybe I needed a little more criticism in my life rather than taking
things so easy.
P.S. Don't worry,
laid-back Richelle is still alive and well! Just with a different
outlook on some things.
The Odd Sides Of Development
During my first
three weeks of working in development, I feel as though I have
already encountered many struggles within the field that are not very
often talked about. And if they are talked about, then they're
probably not highlighted—rather, I think that people tend to skim
over these issues because they are incredibly difficult issues to
overcome.
The first is the
shelf-life of NGOs. Somebody mentioned the other day that most NGOs
do not last past three to five years. To me, development sounds like
a rotating door of NGOs that all try to tackle really important
issues; however, if the door keeps rotating, that means that nothing
stays still. And if nothing stays still—at least for a little
while—then there is very little opportunity to create tangible
solutions. When I heard about this shelf-life I was very
surprised...I feel like you always hear of these really great NGOs
that are starting up, but you never hear about NGOs going under. I
suppose that they shut down due to inadequate funding/sustainability
or overreaching aspirations. Of course, I am making a complete
generalization. There are many successful NGOs in the world and I
really do believe that they serve an incredibly important purpose. I
love the idea of NGOs and the missions that they serve (at least most
of them). However, if the majority of them do not survive, then the
effectiveness is questionable. I have to ask: If a five-year-old NGO
falls down in a forest and only a few people are around, does it make
enough of a sound?
The second has to
do with an organization that I've had my issues with in the past:
TOMS. One for One. It sounds good! People feel like they've done a
poor child some good when they buy their $44 pair of canvas shoes
that fall apart in a few months. The purchasers are happy, so
everything's good, right? Wrong. I know that the downside of TOMS has
been discussed at length, but let me summarize it really quickly. There are small problems (the shoe sizes of the children not
necessarily being catered to, the rate at which kid's feet grow,
etc.) so I will focus on my main issue with them: the last of
sustainability. Suh.stane.uh.billITy. FSD's favorite word and one of
the biggest things I have been/will be learning about during my time
here in Kakamega. Plainly put, the shoes will be torn apart after a
few good months. The shoes will get their share of wear and the rocky
terrain and incredibly rainy weather tendencies are not very
conducive a long life span for canvas shoes. And what happens when
they are trashed? The child is without TOMS once again because they
definitely do not supply shoes for a lifetime.
If you can't tell,
I may or may not have participated in a TOMS shoes distribution the
other day. It's true, it does feel good to see the kids so happy when
they receive their shoes! They're excited and you're glad to see them
excited (and you also score a free pair along with it). I will give
the company some credit: it is a very good temporary way to avoid
jiggers, which is especially rampant in this area. These shoes are
also better than the rubber flip flops (or “slippers”) that I see
so many people wearing. Nonetheless, its long-term benefits are
absent.
While discussing
my frustrations about TOMS with her, my sister helped me remember the
root and branch methods of solving problems that I studied in my
United States Politics class last semester. It is exactly how it
sounds. When you tackle a problem using the root method, you take
into consideration every single issue involved and go straight to the
cause of these issues. From there, you reform. However, with the
branch method, you basically just put a band aid on the issues that
are going on. It is quick, clean, and easy. And this is how the
majority of our problems are solved.
TOMS is a perfect
example of Western intervention using branch methods to tackle
something that is caused by
poverty rather than contributing to alleviating poverty.
Sure, sometimes we need to have a quick-fix for some things, but do
we really need it on such a large scale? So large that it takes away
from the bigger ultimate goal?
Let's wrap up this
discussion about TOMS in a nice package with a bow on it: oh wait,
that's what TOMS is. It's a feel-good approach to fixing minimal
problems. But once the package is opened, there's nothing inside. The
mystique has dissolved and now you're without a pretty put-together
box.
Whoah. Just a side
note, a lot of the Kenyans I know like to speak in metaphor...I think
it's contagious and I apologize. But just a little.
This model has
gotten me to think more about what makes a successful organization.
TOMS is booming and incredibly successful despite its huge downfalls.
So is this what it takes to become a well-known, income-generating
NGO? Come up with a model that sells? Does it not have to be
sustainable as long as it appeals to the masses with money? Ehh, I
don't think so. I still believe that NGOs can be successful without
going the way that TOMS did. It just has to have the right timing and
management. What the right timing and management actually is, I have
no clue. But that's okay.
The whole TOMS
thing also brings up the good ole development vs. aid debate. Which I
don't really want to get into right now. In short, I have seen many
organizations so dependent on external funding that if the funding
stopped, the organization would follow. Which is pretty
disheartening. At the same time, though, many of these NGOs are
providing free and necessary services to the community that cannot
otherwise afford these resources. So how do you make an income off of
that? How can it really survive without the aid?
The main lesson
I've learned through my Kenyan work experience:
Starting and
maintaining an NGO is hard. Development is hard. Everything is hard
and requires a balanced equation that nobody really has the answer
key to.
So that's that.
That's my spiel about what I've observed in the past few weeks. It's
a bit jaded, but I still have faith in the field.
Fast forward
three weeks...
I have just completed my sixth week of my internship and my position
on the matter holds. I just have one more thing to add to my mini
epic on sustainability and aid and development and all the good
things in the world.
I remember one day in World Politics we had a discussion about aid
and the extent to which it is effective. One anti-aid stance was
focused on the argument of dependency. We discussed the possibility
that providing so much outside monetary help would result in the
receiving end being overly dependent. Of course, when we were
discussing this, I thought to myself “No way, everything's fine!
Everybody takes responsibility for their stuff and there's
cohesiveness in the development world!” In retrospect, I think I
had too much of a sunshiney, nearly pristine and Hans Zimmermany
outlook.
As much as I hate to say it, I have proven myself wrong. There is one
school community in particular that I am working with towards
sensitizing their community about the health services offered at the
hospital right down the street (side note: there's a large
misinterpretation of what the hospital actually provides...such a
gap). As I was discussing a hopeful relationship between the school
and hospital in the future, the community representative began asking
me about the free services they'll get and whether I'd be able to
fund them or have my “people” back home fund them. Wait a
minute...what?? I joked around with him and lightheartedly—but also
seriously—explained to him that I am on scholarship and have to
work hard to attend school. His response: “Yes, but you are in a
developed country.” My internal response: “Yes, but just look at
my mountain of debt.” I know that Kenya being an ex-British colony
has a lot to do with the general image of mzungus, but the
piles of aid doesn't necessarily help how I'm received when I'm
walking through a crowd of mutatu drivers; meanwhile, a box drifts
past me reading “USAID: From the American People.”
My final stance: No, aid is not the devil. It is very necessary for
programs and such to exist and run smoothly. As much as I'd like it
to, the world can not function without money. But when monetary help
on one side turns into dependency on expected incoming funds is when
we get into dangerous territory. For an organization—or even
society for that matter—to flourish, it must have the tools to
stand on its own two feet, not have the tools handed to them every
time. Weening is a good thing!
Once again, we have a very delicate balance. How do we manage it? Oy,
I don't know.