The NGO Game

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,370
3,150
113
Personally, I dislike many NGOs working in the DR. At first glance you think they are doing good things as they claim (and quite a few actually are doing what they claim to be doing), but the moment you begin to scratch the surface things turn sour and fast.

Not surprisingly, I'm not the only one who have noticed this discrepancy and in fact, another DR1 member provided a quote on another thread in which it equated NGOs to modern imperialists or something of the sort.

Now, to be fair I will quote Chiri (there could be a conflict of interest there, but lets continue) when she once said to me "well NALs, there are NGOs and then there are NGOs". The meaning being that some NGOs do their work while others don't. Ok, fair enough, but lets focus on the aspects of NGOs which are less than ideal.

I will provide a few quotes below from a source and at the bottom you will have links to various sources criticizing NGOs for various things that are not apparent at first glance, but with further investigation of your most favorite NGO you will notice how much truth exist in such criticisms.

"Western NGOs are the heirs to the Victorian tradition of "White Man's Burden"... They closely collaborate with Western governments and institutions against local governments and institutions. They are powerful, rich, and care less about the welfare of the indigenous population than about "universal" principles of ethical conduct."

"...[NGOs] attract narcissistic opportunists who regards NGOs as venues of upward social mobility and self-enrichment. Many NGOs serve as sinecures, "manpower sinks", or "employment agencies" - they provide work to people who, otherwise, are unemployable. Some NGOs are involved in political networks of patronage, nepotism, and cronyism."

"If [the NGO own or run commercial enterprises], it is a corrupt and compromised NGO involved in conflicts of interest."

" [NGOs] disrupt local economies to the detriment of the impoverished populace. They impose alien religious or Western values. They justify military interventions. They maintain commercial interests which compete with indigenous manufacturers. They provoke unrest in many a place..."

"The trouble is that, as opposed to most governments in the world, NGOs are authoritarian. They are not elected institutions. They cannot be voted down. The people have no power over them. Most NGOs are ominously and tellingly secretive about their activities and finances."

"The assumption that the West has the monopoly on ethical values is undisguised cultural chauvinism. This arrogance is the 21st century equivalent of the colonialism and racism of the 19th and 20th century. Local populations throughout the world resent this haughty presumption and imposition bitterly."

"...NGOs are proponents of modern Western values - democracy, women's lib, human rights, civil rights, the protection of minorities, freedom, equality. Not everyone finds this liberal menu palatable. The arrival of NGOs often provokes social polarization and cultural clashes."

The Self-Appointed Altruists

Imperialism and NGOs in Latin America

How Genuine Are NGOs?

Why NGOs Will Never Change the World

You let her into your house?: Reflections on the politics of aid in Africa

Sins of NGOs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think NGOs working in the DR are doing what they claim?

Do you have knowledge of NGO abuses or arrogance within the DR?

Have you witnessed something from an NGO you been wanting to get off your chest?

Speak now or remain quiet forever.

-NALs
 

Chirimoya

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2002
17,850
982
113
I'd be interested in hearing what you base your dislike on, Nals. I know you've read the articles, but have you had the chance to visit communities where NGOs are active and see for yourself?

Before I launch into this, please note that my observations about good and bad NGOs are not necessarily DR-specific.

Some of the quotes in your post can be true at times, although they appear to come from quite a reactionary perspective that sees certain progressive values as negative. All these assertions, while they may be true in the case of some organisations out there, are in definite conflict with what constitutes genuine development work.

Proper development work will never involve inappropriate cultural impositions, takes great care not to disrupt local economies, and a legal charity by definition has to publish its accounts, or lose its status. In my experience the ones that impose inappropriate cultural elements are the ones like religious missions in countries like Guatemala that use 'aid' to convert people and then make them give up traditions like indigenous dress, split up families and create conflict within communities. Purely assistentialist* aid often undermines local economies by taking away business from local traders.

In a nutshell, the good NGOs are the ones that listen to the people they plan to work with, jointly identifying what they see as their priorities without imposing an agenda, consulting and planning accordingly, and empowering them by training and enabling. If an organisation I'm working for does not work this way, I'm out of there.

The bad ones are the ones that do more harm than good with paternalistic, patronising and assistentialist* work that doesn't tackle the causes of poverty or help people get to the point where they are able to address their own problems. These organisations merely perpetuate poverty and powerlessness, making the situation worse by increasing dependency and lack of initiative.

Something I've seen quite a lot in the DR, but certainly also happens in other places, is that some local people who manage to rise up in these organisations use their position as a means to obtain power and wealth. They act like mini-caudillos, blatantly giving jobs and contracts to their family members and buddies, promoting the yes-men/women and suppressing the ones who won't dance to their tune. The actual work they do - if any - is just incidental to their personal ambitions. Then you have cases of all-out corruption.

Speaking as an insider, it is painful and frustrating to be tarred with the same brush as the bad ones, as it undermines a great deal of effort, sacrifice and commitment.

*Not really a word in English, I know, but it refers to the culture of doling out handouts the way many Dominican politicians do.
 

Hillbilly

Moderator
Jan 1, 2002
18,948
514
113
I'll watch where this is going.
Basically, I side with Chiri. The religion (any religion) based NGOs are basically missionary activities. Their "work" carries a quid pro quo.
In the DR, the "NGOs" belonging (yes, belonging) to the deputies and senators are, as Lambada pointed out, mere troughs for feeding the pigs of the legislator's family and friends.
I am sure that there are NGOs belonging to drug lords, money launderers and other such ilk....

HB
 

Chirimoya

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2002
17,850
982
113
NGOs cover a lot of ground, from the serious, reputable and accountable to the slush funds for politicians HB mentions. It is unfortunate that we use the same term.

I really mean international development humanitarian organisations when I refer to NGOs, and the impression from Nals' OP was that he was referring to the international organisations that work in the DR - but please correct me if I am wrong.

These range from the biggies like the UN, USAID, WB, IDB, CIDA, Cooperaci?n Espa?ola, DED, GTZ, JICA etc (which are not strictly speaking non-governmental but bi-laterals and multilaterals, who fund the DR government but can also work through non-governmental counterparts) to the independent international organisations like Plan, World Vision, Aide et Action, Interm?n Oxfam, Catholic Relief Services, etc.

Then you have the local organisations, the counterparts - local NGOs (not the ones belonging to the politicians) and community groups through which international funds are often channelled.
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,370
3,150
113
I'd be interested in [reading] what you base your dislike on, Nals. I know you've read the articles, but have you had the chance to visit communities where NGOs are active and see for yourself?
I have seen the effect NGOs have had on certain places in the DR, however the anecdotal evidence that its all working as planned sometimes contradicts data which could be used to run various analysis and they show a completely different result than what litterally meets the eye.

For example, there is an NGO (will remain nameless) which supports and is a major stockholder of a not-for-profit enterprise specializing in coffee beans. At first glance it all looks good, the enterprise helps keep small coffee producers in business by purchasing their product and helping them reach market access in lucrative places such as Great Britain, where such coffee is sold at a premium not so much based on higher costs (although to an extent that's part of the reason), but based on marketing tactics which places emphasis on the organic aspect and supporting small farmers aspect of the business.

Sounds good at first glance and meeting such small coffee farmers would give the impression that they are doing well and all is good.

Turns out that further investigation into such enterprise reveals that the patronizing NGO organization has campaigned vigorously againts its coffee competitors (Starbucks for example), misrepresenting and misinforming the public of such competitors practices as anti-small coffee producers. There are some ethical implications here on the part of such NGO.

Further economic analysis reveals that such NGOs protectionist bias towards small inefficient coffee producers actually hurts them in the long run, more than help them. The small coffee producers are usually uneducated peasants who don't have the capital or know how on how to produce a superior product; the production process at that level fails to take advantage of economies of scale and maintains production costs too high.

Other inefficiencies due to such NGO support of small coffee producers is that the subsidies the NGO provides often encourages overproduction when the central problem in the global coffee market is oversupply; thus they are causing the profitability of all coffee producers to decrease as oppose to helping the small producer at the expense of the larger producers.

Other inefficiencies includes the necesity of more land to fall under cultivation for coffee in order to farm free-range produce vs. conventional techniques, such NGO subsidies keeps peasant producers tied to small-scale inefficient farming methods when the countries in which such producers are found actually needs large-scale agriculture which can take advantage of economies of scale, and fewer crops are produced by organic farming in the same amount of land as conventional production, among other issues.

Thus, in the long run small coffee producers will be hurt as the inefficiencies eventually catches up to them, inefficiencies that are being maintained in place by the NGOs believing they are helping the small producer without realizing that they are condemning the small producer. They are simply postponing what is inevitable and the longer its postponed, the more harm it creates not just to the small producers, but to the entire industry.

So yes, anecdotal evidence shows the "positive" effects such NGO is having on small producers, but further analysis of the data shows that the gains are short term and temporary and on the long term they are being set up to lose.

-NALs
 

Chris

Gold
Oct 21, 2002
7,951
28
0
www.caribbetech.com
Here is what Ifad has to say specifically in Latin American and the Caribbean. Ifad is The International Fund for Agricultural Development, a specialized agency of the United Nations.

I'll quote a small piece on the Impact of going organic for small farmers.

"The shift to organic production has led to higher net revenues for all farmers studied by the evaluation. The different prices paid in 2001 for organic and conventional produce varied from 22.2 percent paid to banana producers in the Dominican Republic to 150 percent paid to cacao producers in Costa Rica. Organic farming reduces health risks, as farmers no longer handle toxic chemicals. Indeed, the whole community benefits as farmers practice erosion control, soil fertility and biodiversity increasing the chances of a less-polluted environment. Sustainability depends however, on farmers? ability to maintain similar or higher yields and on future price fluctuations. If organic agriculture expands too rapidly, it will have a detrimental effect on small farmers who will be hit by falling prices. Organic production should be promoted as one of several options for farmers to diversify, reduce risk and increase productivity and income."

Going organic: an attractive alternative for small farmers?
 

Chirimoya

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2002
17,850
982
113
In a nutshell, all well executed fair trade programmes with producers include training in business skills, and encourage diversification - to ensure that the farmers are equipped to deal with challenges like the effects of free trade treaties, natural disasters, and market changes generally. It is pessimistic in the extreme to say that they are postponing the inevitable as if all farming is destined to become agro-industrial - there is a space, and a need for the small/medium scale to survive, to preserve rural communities as well as the rural environment. Coffee farming has an important fringe benefit in that it promotes reforestation, which is essential on so many levels.

What is true is that it is a long process towards sustainable self-sufficiency, but these coffee farmers in particular were virtual serfs only several years ago, selling small amounts of unprocessed beans to intermediaries for knockdown prices, so the development that has taken place has been remarkable: they now pool their crops, process their own coffee and transport it to the exporters - there we have economies of scale.

It will be a challenge for fair trade programmes to succeed completely, and some groups have made more progress than others, usually depending on their educational and organisational levels when the process started, but part of the process is to work on this.