Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (0)

Related articles and links |  1 of 1

What's the biggest change needed in how charities and federal agencies deliver aid to developing nations? Brian Fikkert, co-author of When Helping Hurts, David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, and Dale Hanson Bourke, author of The Skeptic's Guide to Global Poverty, suggest the best way to help.

When my husband and I were first married, he would spend Saturday mornings washing our cars. A clean car is important to him, so he lovingly and diligently took on washing my car. I don't really notice if my car is clean, so I viewed the car washing more as a waste of time than a gift. Eventually we learned a basic principle of marriage: Don't assume you know what the other person wants. Ask.

Without oversimplifying, there's quite a bit of car washing going on in international development. We act out of good intentions, believing that others will want what we want. Sometimes they do. But often their desires are different from what Americans are giving. Effective development really is like a good marriage: a give-and-take relationship that requires time and improves with good listening skills.

The best international aid organizations spend much time listening, employing nationals with local understanding, and then learning from their mistakes. They view the relationship between donors and recipients as a two-way street. Both sides give, both sides receive.

It all sounds lovely, but how does it actually work? My belief is that many international development organizations, wanting to please Western donors, are too driven by expansion and spend too little time listening to recipients. As a result, they work in too many places on too many types of projects. They measure progress in American terms: bigger budgets, more countries, additional specialties. Even more challenging is the need to produce results on an American timetable when many cultures value the time spent in discussion, collaboration, and compromise before work begins.

The best groups concentrate on doing one type of work very well. They hire people who are experts in their field, and evaluate rigorously to determine how much the work benefits the recipients. Others concentrate in a few geographic areas, building infrastructure, developing national leadership, and working within cultural norms. They continue to learn, and they don't spread themselves thin. They are committed for the long haul.

In tough economic times, resisting the offer of a donation to expand the work can be difficult. But board members and leaders should keep asking, "How can we do what's important and do it better?"—not the more seductive, "How can we grow, expand, and increase?" Effectiveness metrics should be audited as independently as possible to provide meaningful feedback, and leaders should be evaluated less on dollars raised and more on lives changed.

Says Michael Nyenhuis, president of MAP International: "Too often we think of our role primarily as listening to donors, then talking to those we serve in the field to educate them. We ought to spend as much time listening to those in the communities where we work, and then educate donors about the realities on the ground."

Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

David Beckmann is president of Bread for the World, a Christian voice urging decision makers to end hunger at home and abroad. Brian Fikkert and Dale Hanson Bourke also suggested the best way to help.

Previous Village Green sections have discussed technology and abortion.

 1 of 1

December 2009, Vol. 53, No. 12