Saturday, February 23, 2008

Hope is not (yet) in the Headlines

After an overview of what has been accomplished empirically in the past weeks, I would like to address a few pointed questions offered graciously by a dear advisor of mine. (And in his tenacious spirit I encourage you also to read and challenge the entries as well!)

My analysis of country-year data on HIV rates, changes in HIV, and country financial, policy and institutional indicators has revealed clear results: despite our best efforts, there is NO correlation between countries who receive large amounts (or ANY amount) of AIDS-specific foreign aid and the change in their national HIV rate. Quite bluntly, if we measure our efforts to end AIDS by dollars poured into AIDS relief projects, our efforts (whether or not they are our best is undeterminable) to relieve the pandemic have failed.

However you don’t need to be a professional statistician or researcher to realize that results revealing “no correlation” are not nearly as interesting or significant as results revealing a positive or negative relationship. As expected, there are negative relationships between HIV rates and GDP, GDP per capita, and polity ratings (higher means more democratic), and positive relationships between HIV rates and unemployment and ethnic fractionalization (see Lieberman’s interesting paper, “Ethnic Politics, Risk…”).

When we look into the factors that make the HIV change up or down, variables that appear more powerful than AIDS-aid are variables like national public health expenditures, number of children immunized, and success in treating tuberculosis. Suggesting that instead of throwing money at AIDS, perhaps it’s more effective to throw money at improving financial systems, health institutions, and health resources.

When AIDS-aid is brought back into the picture, indeed, it does appear to be more significant in countries who spend more on health, who immunize high percentages or children, who have a lot of success with treating TB. Countries who already have the financial commitment and infrastructure capability of addressing AIDS effectively.

Though far more remains to be said about how we can give aid more effectively, I will pause for this week on the presentation of results, in order to address a few thoughtful questions regarding the last entry on the selectorate theory. Confronting the challenge of the ‘dreaded administrator’, the national leader/s who act not on behalf of an ambiguous ‘national interest’ but purely out of desire to maintain political survival, I am asked ‘why not just influence the selectorate?’ - the people who make a Presidential or Congressional candidacy viable. The question points us in a great direction, but the plague of caring first about ones only survival persists at every level. Which means, for America and comparable givers, that unless the citizenry – you and I – forcefully and passionately, on a large scale, begin to pressure our local leaders to take responsible action on issues of AIDS or poverty in general, they will not. And if they do not, higher-level administrators will not, right up to those with the power to make significant change in good time. Unless they believe they will be voted out immediately if they don’t support a certain cause, they will not individually bring up the cause as something to support. Quite frankly, because sick, starving Africans do not threaten our own personal survival, I do not forsee anytime soon this revolution taking place.

And with our voting cycle, this can all be manipulated by time as well. Why is President Bush so vigorously supporting Africa in his outgoing months? He’s a lame duck – he has no opportunity for reelection, and his power now is to at the least leave Americans with a positive image of the GOP, the “compassionate conservatism” he used to launch his election bid so strongly, and then proceeded to neglect for most of his 8 years.

[And not sure I have to address it, but what this means for a small selectorate country is that we have to befriend and win over the AK-47 toting cronies. When your fear of being ousted increases, so does your willingness to do violent and inhumane things to others to keep your power. I, and many westerners who are born into security and stability, would rather not step into that risky cycle, if at all possible, which is disappointing, because it means the large portion of the population who has been disenfranchised and unrepresented remains stuck in the cycle indefinitely.]

An alternate suggestion was made, also in a great direction, that instead of relying on the bureaucracy of public politics, we focus on and invest in pragmatically compassionate philanthropists, the Gates and the Soros’ of the work. Amen! Agreed! As a global community I believe we should definitely focus on and promote such wise and careful investors. Though they retain full control and do not need to listen to the masses, they do, and their sensitivity to others’ interests goes for both donors and recipients. But while their plans are reasonable their power scope is limited.

At the end of the day in foreign aid, it is a nearly impossible task to bypass the recipient government. No matter the corruption level of the leader or lack of rule of law and accountability, national leaders still control the natural resources and provision of basic public services. If an NGO or charitable/philanthropic foundation wants to provide public services to a suffering, disenfranchised community, they can do all they can, but if the government shuts off electricity, or worse, water, then they cannot do their work. They are still at the mercy of government.

Our Reynolds Program in Social Entrepreneurship recently hosted a lecture by the brilliant Jacqueline Novogratz of The Acumen Fund, an organization that uses philanthropic and charitable funds to invest in a variety of local businesses and institutions in South Asia and East Africa to building sustainable local routes out of poverty. She explained our present predicament in several ways, such as her disappointment at local registrars whose corruption significantly slowed down her real estate endeavors. Acumen can work, but they are forced to work at the pace of the government. Capital becomes, as she euphemistically terms it, "patient capital."

Ms. Novogratz also made a point that a Gates or Soros representative might also make, that "there are reasons why we don't work in Sudan or Chad or such places,” conceding that because of political instabilities, some people will simply never be served. At the end of the day, America and rich countries’ nuclear weapons, exponentially strong military, and history of brutality make us a force to fear, and deter countries from crossing our path. I think this sounds ridiculous, but it is true. Aid-recipient governments will cooperate and negotiate with the US more readily than with any NGO or charity or philanthropy, because they know they can renege on any promise to a charity, as the charity cannot send in troops or bomb the nation if they 'misbehave'.

It's the same logic that explains the failure of the United Nations to have ever solved any genocide, civil war, or act of massive violence. There is no enforcement mechanism, no threat, no counter-force to effectively punish perpetrators. My heart sank to the floor this summer as I took a few hours in Arusha, Tanzania, to sit in on hearings of the Rwandan Genocide trials. Endless trivial questions were asked, perpetrators taking their sweet time to answer, knowing that the longer they were in 'custody', the longer they would enjoy staying in nice hotels, eating full meals everyday, and being part of this official UN cadre. Perpetrators blatantly lied, were told they were lying, apologized, and perpetuated this foolish cycle, and after three ALL that had been determined was that the man in question had been wearing a red, not a white, sash on the day of a church attack.

Seriously. That's it. Millions still suffering from the aftermath, while the UN hosts a trial that is wasting time and resources and doing nothing. No one takes them seriously because they don't put forth any realistic threat.

Also, although large-scale philanthropic endeavors are effective and are reaching many, they are possibly not as effective as small NGOs who will only reach small communities. Large amounts of money are simply impossible to hide from recipient country leaders; where as small efforts and investments from foreign funds can be done more easily under the radar. Therefore, large amounts of aid are more likely to be stolen from or misused, as it is difficult to not involve the recipient government in large transactions. A few cases of such corruption:

1. Red Cross missing millions
2. Post-Tsunami funds not getting to victims – Red Cross, Save the Children, Oxfam
3. Red Cross financing of development can't begin due to corruption

Now the HOPE is that Gates, Soros, Acumen and their peers continue to be satisfied with piecemeal their progression, small projects that can go under national radar. As of now, little, if any, accusations have been made on corruption in the ranks of these philanthropists, and I think this is largely due not only to character (I think almost all aid efforts - including UN trials - have good intentions) but rather to the system of distribution they have devised. Even on small scales, as Ms. Novogratz noted, there will be unavoidable issues that slow down work. But at the end of the day, donors need to work WITH and not AGAINST governments, no matter their record on corruption, violence, and abuses. Acumen's "patient capital" maintains hope in that capital to make change, but acknowledges the reality of the challenges before them.

Even in my minor work in Tanzania, my hands were tied on making progress unless I involved the local Health Ministry, which took ages, but with persistence, happened and allowed out HIV testing program to flourish. The local NGO with which I was working soared from unrecognized peer-health-educators to local superstars based largely on a sheet of paper declaring their worthiness by the Regional Health Minister. They did not do very much to change their composition, energy, or work, but the mere recognition of a local government agency boosted their ability to serve exponentially.

Personally, my faith and my funds are invested in the next generation of leaders, as I am privileged to know many brilliant and strong youth determined to change the reputation of their current leadership - both in poor communities and in rich nations. Especially notable are the youth who have a fraction of that I/we have been given to work with (in terms of basic resources, access to health services, education opportunities, many not even having the basic love of a parent figure), yet are succeeding to make change locally in impressive and creative ways. I believe investing in young people so that they can be great leaders– a broad goal, but considering the daunting needs of that poverty inflicts generally, a specific focus and end-goal - is globally our best bet for progress out of poverty and into a more just, meaningful and humane world.

But unfortunately this hope is not in the headlines. We do not see or realize how much people, without any voice, want to make change and are making change. We also don't hear that our own efforts, proud as we may be of them, are not working as intended. We have an issue admitting our own failures, and an issue in acknowledging others' success. Very obvious globally, but probably something we're each individually guilty of at one time or another.

So whoever you are, Bill Gates or Reynolds Scholar or a 'no name', start making headlines with your positive change. Look harder at what is being done and why it is not working, and then direct your efforts at what will work. Recognize and promote those whose efforts ARE working, even if on a small scale.

Please always feel free to use this blog as a place to post such headlines, and as always, comments, criticisms, and questions are always most welcome.