Product Description

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #91656 in Books
• Published on: 1994-01-10
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 256 pages

Customer Reviews

Fascinating if one sided- a must read for all development workers. Unfortunately outdated
Disclosure time- I work in the aid industry.

While I agree with much of what Hancock has to say (see below), this book is somewhat one-sided. Aid can reasonably claim a share in some positive world developments, such as rising life expectancy rates, decreased infant mortality, increase in primary education and literacy, growth in per capita GDP, and others. Undoubtedly, success has been patchy, and some areas, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, are worse off than they were fifty years ago, before the advent of the international aid industry. But in detailing its extensive failures, one should not completely ignore its successes (even if they maybe much less than what the aid industry claims).

With all that being said, I think a book of this sort is a must read for all aid workers, to bring us face to face with dark side of our work.

Here is a list of criticisms Hancock has about the international aid industry, and my own impressions.

1. International aid is a big bureaucracy more intent on keeping itself going than helping the poor.

My response- true- International aid is a huge bureaucracy. I spend my time writing and reading memos, and trying to get them 'cleared' as fast as possible. I literally spend no time with the poor.

2. International aid agencies spend money on big, wasteful projects that harm the poor and decimate indigenous societies.

My response: True depending on the development agency/country mission. Agencies (and agency sub-divisions, such as country missions) with lots of funds go this route. The ones that don't have such large accounts hire 'technical experts' instead.

3. Aid agencies hire expensive foreign 'technical experts' who lack local expertise; they bypass the concerns and wisdom of the local population.

True to a large extent. Most experts do not even speak the language of those they are trying to help. Some of our experts do supposedly meet with the local population, and address them through means such as surveys, interviews and 'focus group discussions.' I have no idea how hard they really try, as I sit in the office writing and reading memos. In either case, nothing really innovative comes from these efforts. This is because these experts already have blanket solutions (which are the same throughout the world) and try to impose them on the local populace through 'behavior change and communication' and other similar methods. Thus, the surveys and interviews, to the extent they take place at all, are not really a means to partner with the local people; rather, they are means to learn about the 'barriers' to implementation of blanket solutions.

4. International aid is actually a means for subsidizing western businesses.

Undoubtedly true. As Hancock points out, this is one reason why development agencies go for big projects, and why they hire 'foreign experts.' If I am not spending my time writing and reading memos I am spending my time reading project proposals for my development agency's money. Most of these, of course, come from Western businesses and NGOs. I also spend my time enforcing or waiving regulations stating that organizations that receive our money can only buy goods (including but certainly not limited to automobiles and pharmaceuticals) produced in my nation.

5. International aid has allowed wicked despots to make themselves richer, and allowed ruling thugs to escape responsibility.

True- but I think there has been somewhat more of an emphasis today on funding being tied to concepts such as 'good governance,' controlling corruption, and so on, at least in theory. Of course, reality is sometimes different, in that nations of 'strategic importance' get large amounts of funds despite poor governance, incredible corruption and other failures.

5. Development workers are lazy and mediocre. They are often under-educated, make lots of money, live in big houses, have conferences in the best hotels and eat gourmet cuisine.

Partly true. Most of the aid workers in my particular aid agency are highly educated- the minimum entry requirement is a master's degree, and many of us have PhDs or the equivalent. Our base salary is not very impressive compared to others of a similar educational background- certainly many of us could make much more outside of the official aid industry. That being said, the fringe benefits are quite lavish- one may even say over the top: I admit that I am a single woman living in a large 3-bedroom manor, I attend conferences at ritzy hotels and dine on great food- in an impoverished third world country, all at government, or should I say tax payer, expense.

So, the aid industry has gone seriously wrong- what can we do about it? Unfortunately, while Hancock goes into great depths about the problems of aid, he gives us very few solutions. He believes we should dismantle the aid industry- but then what? How can we as citizens of our planet help our world become a better place? Some possible solutions suggested themselves to me when reading the book- one wonders why Hancock decided not to write an extra chapter with ideas such as these:

1. Clarify and purify intentions. As Hancock points out, the mixed intentions of the aid industry (help the poor AND aid western businesses AND further political interests AND AND AND...) is responsible for many of the problems it has caused.

2. Partner with local communities. I mean truly partner with them, listen to their concerns and ideas, and let them take the lead in coming up with solutions. Note, unlike Hancock, I do think there is a place, with careful thought, for some `Western' knowledge and technology. The best solutions maybe ones arrived at through our collective wisdom. However, don't just try to impose blanket solutions through means such as 'behavior change.'

3. Keep things small as much as possible. Some big projects such as large-scale famine relief, refugee assistance, etc, maybe necessary, but these large-scale efforts are much more prone to corruption, and much more often bypass local communities.

4. Speak the local language- this is the only way to effectively partner with local communities.

Finally, as others have pointed out, the book was written in 1989, so its quite dated. While much of what it says still holds true, an updated version offering modern examples of aid failure would be much more powerful.

good points marred by over-the-top rhetoric and no solutions
Hancock makes important points in this book: many aid projects do more harm than good, many aid officials are overpaid, too much aid money gets funneled to US companies (for more on this, see Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins), and publicly funded aid organizations are insufficiently accountable to the public. But his extreme rhetoric warns us that if there is a good side to aid, it certainly won't be represented here. Here's a sample of his accusations: "These lords of poverty are the druids of the modern era wielding enormous power that is accountable to no one."

On the one hand, Hancock's anecdotal evidence is unconvincing. He tells us that his often-chilling anecdotes are representative, but we have no way of really knowing. That said, he provides so many anecdotes that - by the end - we start to feel like they are, if not representative of all aid, at least insightful into an uncomfortable proportion.

But the litany of anecdotes is also tiring. The writing is not particularly great, and I felt that some of the analysis was flawed. (For example, in two places he argues that Western nations don't give nearly enough in aid, but most of the book argues that everything we give is wasted anyway. It's not clear how giving more would help, given his theses.)

Eventually I tired of simply hearing one aid horror story after another. He also misses the fact that there have been some major successes in aid, particularly in the realm of public health, in which organizations like the World Bank and UNICEF have played a part. (To read about some of these successes, look at Millions Saved by Ruth Levine et al.)

I'm glad I read the book, but I wish Hancock had made it a little less exhausting and a little more balanced. I also wish we'd gotten more solutions in the end. His only solution is to dissolve the aid industry (as it is "inherently bad, bad to the bone, and utterly beyond reform"), after which we have the vague promise that "it will become possible for people to rediscover ways to `help' one another directly."

A wonderful account
This sobering account of the truth about aid and the turth about what the 'lords of poverty' are doing to africa is wonderful. Let us first understand the thesis. The new NGOs and those who make their living on aiding 'Africa' are in it for the money and their racist idea that africans cant do anything without the white man has led to disaster in africa. THe one solution to africas problems would be for all the aid workers to leave. Let Africa walk on her own legs. This book tells the dirty details of the how the aid organizations lie to the western public to get massive amounts fo money so they can drive expensive cars and pray on teenage african prositutes and what is worse these aid organizations constitute a new colonization of Africa by the europeans, here we have entire countries who budgets are planned by the IMF and whose food is distributed by the WFO and whose schools are built by NGOs. Where is the African in all this? COlonization is alive and well in Africa and this book exposes it.

Seth J. Frantzman