Malawi 2004 - 2007

 Six Development Issues:

1. Who Gives the Most Aid?

A recent BBC programme illustrated that the amounts of AID given by rich countries is many times less than the amount of money sent home by the Diaspora of Africa. Many families are supported by money from those who managed to get work in the west. Mr Brown's visit to Africa has been welcomed but accompanied by reminders that trade is the big block to development. Many are sceptical that he can do much about national greed and see AID as a minor side issue.

2. Culture

The African family is a truly socialist institution. From each according to ability, to each according to need. Everything must be shared with the family. If I eat we all eat. We starve together. This is a wonderful welfare system but absolutely hopeless for development. It is extremely difficult to invest in the future when family members are on your doorstep demanding their share - especially when they do not want to generate their own solutions. There is a lack of incentive in almost all aspects of economic life.

In Malawi, jealousy (tall poppies) is a big problem. Especially in villages, people will often take delight in the failure of others and seek to promote it. If one person gets something the others are more concerned with the unfairness than the potential benefits it might bring.

A second practice is just as obstructive. In Kamuzu Banda's totalitarian state chiefs and villagers did as they were told. Each year there was a youth week in which the hail and hearty worked on village projects. Roads were mended, ditches were cleared, and good deeds were accomplished. There was an expectation that people would serve the village and glorify Kamuzu, or suffer the consequences. When democracy came people realised that they were no longer obliged. On top of this politicians were quickly learning that the easiest way to get votes was to buy them. Chiefs were given allowances for attending meetings and gradually the promises of politicians led people to feel that development is the responsibility of Government.

There is now an uncomfortable stand-off between the traditional leaders on one side and the Government and the N.G.Os on the other. At the base of this is the expectation that when a chief receives an outside visitor, his status is recognised by the presentation of a gift. Some smaller Malawian NGOs get funding and ingratiate themselves with chiefs by paying large allowances for meetings and then disappear leaving Chiefs with raised expectations. When a Traditional Authority (The District Chief) receives only 1,500 (£7.50) per month for the local authority duties linked to most Ministries, and the District Assembly it is easy to see the attraction of a system that delivers extra cash.

Now the key issue for many Chiefs is the allowance. If CEYCA asks them to talk about a programme that will leave lasting benefit for their villages, they will judge its value by how large is the allowance. In our research with villages our ability to mobilise the adults was compromised by the fact that we were not offering enough to the Chiefs. After all CEYCA must have lots of money so why should we not get some of it? No allowance, no development.

The International NGOs and even the Government are committed to fighting the allowance culture, but once the cat is out of the bag..?

3. What is Developed?

  One of the Millenium Goals is free primary education for all. This is a wonderful goal that cannot be argued against. But education for what? Unless the economy is developing jobs and opportunities many are being educated for unemployment. If the teaching force is unskilled, lacking resources and de-motivated then what use is going to school? If you live in a village living on subsistence farming what is the use of education in your eyes? If you are starving when you arrive at school what will you learn? If the curriculum does not fit your needs what do you do with the learning? In spite of this people make tremendous sacrifices to gain an education. It is the only hope for a better future for the children.

These are big challenges within the education system. My own view is that there should be a better balance between Primary and Tertiary/Higher education development. One of the key elements in stagnation has always been the lack of a dynamic middle/business class to create jobs and run essential services. In Malawi a tiny percentage of people reach university. About 4% go to further education to gain vocational training and qualification.

It seems that educated Malawians mainly become consultants, run NGOs, work for medical services or the government, or get work abroad. The real business hub of the economy is the Asian communities who own and control speculative land development, imports and retail, for ICT, agricultural implements, the construction trade, household goods, and some textiles. South African companies run major supermarkets, the Casino and exports to Malawi.

There is little space at present for indigenous people to own and develop businesses unless they are given training and starter support.

4. What Is Sustainable?

  We always have to think about how the things we create will continue when we have left or the donor funding is no longer available. There is a constant theme that communities should become able to solve their own problems. The development world is full of good examples. Micro credit schemes that fund people through loans to buy land, start businesses etc and are sustained by repayment of the loans with interest. Teaching farming skills that improve practice and are passed on to others etc. low cost and easily maintained technological improvements like the treadle water pump. It is important to recognise that development has its successes and its place.

But there is also another side. Bore holes with broken and abandoned pumps. Buildings handed to communities, left to decay. Dams left to silt up. Many will point to faulty processes. The lack of true ownership by the community. The imposed solutions of do-gooders from the west etc. Sometimes this is true but sometimes these things have been 'owned' by communities which have run out of steam.

In the west we have recognised that whilst voluntary effort is indispensable it is also not sufficient. We have councils, which undertake tasks on behalf of the community that require consistent effort and service over time. We do not leave education to voluntary groups alone. If you have a pump that breaks you may not know how to mend it, where to get spare parts etc. or you may not care about others if you are not affected. A small amount of funding would provide the technical support and monitoring to maintain schemes. If the intrinsic motivation is not present there is no incentive to sustain or improve things, and circumstances change over time. Sometimes I think donor money would be better used to reward communities and chiefs by results. All of the communities I have seen are motivated to attend meetings, undertake tasks for things they want etc on the basis that they may lead to money, jobs, or a hand-out. When we trained young people to do village contact work and then took them to villages we provided refreshments and a small allowance for lunch in cash which they could choose to use for food or keep. When I spoke to a local Peace Corps worker about the successful attendance she said "yes, well they got paid didn't they?". Nevertheless, they did a huge amount of work for basic expenses, learned a lot, and bonded as a group. Would this have happened had we simply asked them to bring benefits, identified by them, to their communities if they had sat there all day feeling hungry knowing we were being paid? In spite of our intention to help them gain the skills to become self-sufficient I wonder how long and how strong this group will remain without attention, encouragement and support from the outside world. NGOs are like small businesses. Huge numbers will start, most will have short lives, some will become the huge long-term success stories.

There is a criticism of NGOs with 'founder syndrome' i.e. the founder becomes the dictator of the organisation, which is dependent upon them. There is another side to this. Most of these NGOs have only survived because of the single-minded determination and drive of the founder. Like democracy in all of its forms it takes time to develop the values, skills, structures and understanding required for wider participation.

5. What Constitutes Failure?

  The Development Industry, like all bureaucratised systems, has a built-in interest in success. Whilst monitoring and evaluation employs rigorous monthly reporting systems, the usefulness of these figures depends on who is counting, who reads them and who checks their accuracy. There is a suspicion that in many cases everyone reports up the line that development has been successful even when it is obviously flawed or limited.

The constant changes in donor priorities from plan to plan could be seen as adjustment through learning or an admission that past money has been used ineffectively. Either way NGOs have to change with the priorities, which means that the exit from communities or areas of work can be too rapid for sustainability.

On a macro scale one observer commented that Aid had not created sustainable growth in Africa. He pointed to the boom economies over the past decades in Ghana, Uganda, Kenya etc. The stars of yesterday were the failures of today. Development has been around for a long time and we are still a long way from sustainability. Countries don't develop solely by local community solutions, however useful they are.

6. The New Colonialism?

  There are well known criticisms of the World Bank and IMF's policies of neo-liberalism involving the privatisation of service industry, opening of markets and slimming of Government.

The donor industry is also a piper that calls the tune. Whilst many donors now try to work with Government Departments and plan eventually just to hand funding to the Government, there is often a heavy hand grasping the money. To some extent this is an expression of the frustration of pouring buckets of water onto the sand and watching it sink from sight with no visible effect.

Government donors are increasingly creating 'basket' funding administered by NGOs or Government. They simply set the rules for success and allocation of funding. DFID (UK) and Norway are good examples. They seem to be trying to build more local decision-making and responsibility.

International donors, however, appear to have more of a domineering agenda. They will often seek weaker, cheaper partners to carry out their objectives. These may be laudable but tend to be based on partnerships of unequal power and influence. Indigenous NGOs will accept projects because they need to pay workers and overheads, or because they are ambitious to grow.

The scent of this relationship wafted into CEYCA one day in the form of Effie from CARE. I was the first person she met.

"Is Collins here?"

"No, did you make an appointment with him".

"No but I must have a report today."

She went on to seek out a project manager from another department who was nothing to do with the project and insisted that he stand in for Collins while she interrogated him for two hours. His work was lost for the morning. It is normal for demands to be made by donors at short notice, impacting upon other work.

Even more unforgivable is the process UNICEF put some keen, but novice orphan carers through in one of our villages. They had started a Community Based Organisation and were seeking blankets and food. Having been frustrated by the Ministry's Social Welfare Officer, who promised but failed to deliver training and starter funding, they worked hard to build a proposal. They received promises of land from local chiefs. UNICEF promised an answer in two weeks. After 3 weeks they walked into town to visit UNICEF (18 kms). I took them to UNICEF, where they were told they would now hear in another two weeks.

" Come back then."

When they came 18 kilometres back after another 3 weeks they were told that a letter had been sent and they would have to wait for it to arrive. They had still not actually been seen by anyone.

After 11 weeks they received a letter saying that UNICEF could not deal with their proposal. It should go to the Social Welfare Officer who had failed them already. This could have been said the day the proposal was received. By now it was too late to plant for this year even if they received seed.

Isn't this the way a Colonial administration might have treated the natives?

Link back to Malawi Menu

***************************