Rethinking the Aid Paradigm

(discussion 2)

Attendees:

Sandro Pampallona, (e.g. article) | Paula Bollini (e.g. article) | Felicity Jones | John Wood

• These notes by John derive from a Zoom meeting on 11th January 2024
  • (see summary notes and video)
  • See also the previous discussion on 14th August 2023)
  • See other meetings on different topics

How might we manage Aid Projects better?

Much of our previous discussion began with questions about the deep meaning of value and how unit-based currencies (see notes) affect our perception of those values. Traditional aid programs therefore reflect the long-held assumption that, in order to help local communities, NGOs must devise appropriate actionable tasks and draw upon requisite levels of funding. Also implicit in our discussion has been the normalisation of philanthropy. In the USA it appears to be seen as a politically preferable alternative to raising wealth taxes. In practical terms, this means that highly successful business entrepreneurs are able to prioritise their preferred issues, and how they might intervene in the lifestyles of the less prosperous.

Capitalism and Individual Empowerment

One possible reason why aid systems fail is that, although they may be driven by international capital and protocols, all local communities have their own unique cultural habits and expectations. Sandro alludes to incoherence in the whole system. But he also asks why so few individuals seem interested in contributing to their local communities. He had previously sent a video advocating entrepreneurial activities predicated on the quest for power. As he said, the values implicit in this message "make him shudder". While some of the video advocates better public health and the empowerment of marginalised groups, these fit uneasily with the video's glamorisation of career success and personal wealth creation.

Reinventing the language of aid

Although we are discussing practical, down-to-earth issues it will be important to consider the language that we use to describe them. The metaphors behind meanings often reveal unconscious assumptions that may have outlived their usefulness. For example, familiar managerial terms used in aid projects, such as project / mission / outcomes / targets derive from the simplified mechanical logic of military hardware. They emerged from the bureaucracies of the major Middle Eastern and European empires over that last few thousand years. Their methods have become familiar to non-European countries such as India and Nepal. It is customary for aid organisations to outline these managerial parameters within a top-down delivery timeline that affords little time for discussion, reflection and modification. While the quest for efficiencies is not always a bad thing, real world cultural attitudes and behaviours are immensely richer and more complex than Newtonian ballistics.

A more progressive aid discourse

Despite the desire to make aid systems more consensual and co-creative this has yet to happen. Even though newer, more progressive buzzwords such as: transdisciplinarity / deep listening / co-creation / participation are beginning to enter the conversations these terms may take more time to be fully understood and implemented. In short, greater humility on the part of aid agencies may not redress long-established asymmetries of power. How could it, if everyone expects new practices to be imposed on a top-down basis? In today's meeting Sandro reminded us that human conversations naturally produce synergistic change, therefore this would be a good starting point from which to re-design the way we conduct aid practices.

AUSPICIOUS CONVERSATIONS

1. Sandro reminded us that conversations are collective change systems
   • Go to auspicious conversations