D.I.Y. aid might inspire but doesn’t address the underbelly of feel-good projects

• Share

Committed, generous white American women are dedicating themselves to improving lives of those less fortunate in poor African and Asian countries. These smart women could be making lots of money on Wall Street but instead are trying to create a supply of low-cost sanitary napkins and provide high quality education in poor countries.

Their efforts are noble. Their stories are inspiring. Nicholas Kristof dedicates multiple pages to such anecdotes in this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine.

I don’t want to diminish these individuals’ work, but unfortunately, Kristof barely addresses the fact that all this do-it-yourself aid has drawbacks. I’m not a professional aid worker, and I’m sure those blogging at AidWatch, Texas in Africa or Chris Blattman will have much more insightful things to say. But I have been to places overrun by D.I.Y. aid projects and seen them cause crowd-out, duplication, inefficiencies, high inflation, and capacity extraction from the public institutions.

Good intentions are not enough and even can spur deleterious effects. A veteran journalist like Kristof should know to at least note that. Below is his only concession to the critics:

“It’s fair to object that activists like Doyne are accomplishing results that, however noble, are minuscule. Something like 101 million children aren’t attending primary school around the world, so 220 kids in Doyne’s school constitute the teensiest drop in the bucket. … Well-meaning individuals like Doyne help at the edges but don’t fundamentally change the nature of the challenge; indeed, charitable construction of schools and hospitals may sometimes free up governments in poor countries to use their money to buy weapons instead. All that is true — but it’s equally true that if you happen to be that drop in the bucket, Doyne is transforming your life.”

Balancing investment in small-scale innovation with investments in large-scale  institutional change and capacity building is challenging. Balancing investment in strengthening the private sector versus the public sector is challenging. The key is balance. This story provides no balance that D.I.Y. aid is limited. The innovation is certainly important, but at the end of the day, the frustratingly slow bureaucratic system and homegrown civil society advocates will remain people’s largest safety net.

Related posts:

1. New York Times Magazine Examines Individual-Initiated Foreign Aid Projects
2. Hospitals and innovation
3. Innovation and prizes
4. Visualizing inputs to innovation for maternal/newborn health- by cause of…
5. Mobile Phones and Development: An Analysis of IDRC-Supported Projects

Posted by Sarah Arnquist on Oct 22 2010. Filed under Aid, Hub Full-Length Features. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry