Comments on: Come down from the mountain, we need the clouds

By: Nadejda Loumbeva

Nadejda Loumbeva — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:50:34 +0000

Here is something on transformative learning (innovation) in humanitarian organisations that I think goes some way towards addressing the problems discussed in this post:

http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/8rhach3.pdf

By: Nadejda Loumbeva

Nadejda Loumbeva — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:05:59 +0000

Paul, thanks for getting back on my earlier comments. Good. I agree with you on three points:

1. Yes, ideally the financial crisis will transform the international development sector, but not only! It will transform the private sector too, i.e., all of these companies who are all about profit and nothing at all about society and people. (Why are there no courts for their crimes? My point of view is a little extreme, it is on purpose.)

2. Yes, the whole idea of a ‘development sector’ is a little flawed as it is at the end of the day all about that, i.e., it is all about development. Why work otherwise, why do anything? All work, all that we do, be it with companies or non-profits, or the UN, can have a positive impact on the world we share with others … (I hope I do not sound too religious, I am not actually, not in that sense …)

3. Lastly, yes. The world can be too big to change as individuals, but we can, as individuals, fulfil our sense of purpose, and follow the internal call of destiny (let’s say destiny as writing it rather than as reading it …). (And so I agree with Denis, too – lots of agreement.) In this way we can hope we are doing the right thing, and such kind of hope and belief matters.

I may be beginning to sound like a priest (i.e., priestess … not bad, as change is needed in that sector, too .) … I think the point behind all this is that this conversation has been useful to those who follow you and so you should continue with it if your internal call of destiny makes you so inclined. : – D

Thank you.

By: Dennis King

Dennis King — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:28:23 +0000

Paul,

Although I have been only an occasional visitor to the humnanitarianinfo blog, I found it useful, insightful and thought-provoking and I am sorry to see you taking a break. As both a cynic and an idealist, it is easy to get disillusioned and frustrated with slow progress and artifical obstacles. As someone who has also tried to push the envelope and had some initiatives succeed and others fail, I came to believe the same as you that success is the result of luck (timing) rather than due to good ideas and hard work, and the best we can hope for is small, short-term progress rather than fulfillment of a coordinated strategy.

As others have said, your critical but reliable voice will be missed and served a role. Your contributions, including ECBP and Sahana, did have an effect/impact. That might be all that an individual can hope for…”Fixing” the humanitarian sector, like ending war, repression, injustice, misery, and stupidity forever, will never be achieved given our humanity. The only thing we have any hope of fixing and reforming is ourselves as individuals. Everyone must find their own answers to their unique questions. After a break, I hope you do become re-engaged and in the meantime, I wish you the best of luck in kayaking, creative writing and publishing, love, or whatever you decide to pursue.

Dennis King

By: Paul Currion

Paul Currion — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:17:16 +0000

Nadejda – It seems unlikely that radical change can come from within an organisation, since radical change is more likely to kill an organisation than cure it. As a friend of mine said this week, you don’t often hear about footballers changing the rules while playing the game. The financial crisis, however, is something that might lead to radical change – an exogenous shock to the humanitarian system that forces people to reconsider their entire strategy. The problem is that – from what I see – organisations are trying to do more with less, rather than taking the opportunity to do things completely differently.

In order to work in development, where should one work? To start with, I don’t know what “development” is – I think we’d both agree that seeing development from a solely economic point of view is faintly ridiculous, and that development should be seen in a more full sense. The problem with that is that development then becomes defined as pretty much everything that anybody does to improve their life or livelihood, which isn’t a very useful definition at all. There is such a thing as development, but whether the “development industry” is particularly meaningful seems more open to question; I see progress where I didn’t expect it, and lack of progress where I did.

The problem that follows from that is that nobody seems to be clear about what constitutes successful development at a macro level. One thing that the financial crisis exposes, when accompanied by growing environmental problems, is that the implicit goal of development – i.e. everybody in the world gets similar life opportunities to the rich west – is not actually a goal that is feasible or desirable. My personal response has been to start thinking about how my own life, families and communities are likely to change in the future, and work towards a more rewarding and resilient lifestyle, rather than imagine I have the answers for everybody else.

(I do have the answers for everybody else, of course, I’m just keeping it very quiet.)

By: Paul Currion

Paul Currion — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:02:35 +0000

Saga – It may be premature for me to say that I’ve left the humanitarian world behind entirely (cough cough) but I’ve failed to find answers to the questions that I’ve always had about the humanitarian sector. The hardest question is the one that nobody even wants to ask: what if the humanitarian sector can’t be fixed? What if the entire enterprise is fundamentally flawed in such a way that it doesn’t matter how many reform processes we start, how much tweaking we do, whehter we use technology more effectively – it will always fail to achieve what it claims to achieve? If that’s the case, then the fat cats, thrill seekers, bureaucrats and tourists are welcome to it…

By: Nadejda Loumbeva

Nadejda Loumbeva — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:41:20 +0000

Very good and interesting post. Very down-to-the-very bottom-of-it. Also, I very much like your response and comments to Eric’s remarks and the comments by Saga (and her reference to ‘humanitarian tourists’ … many, no?).

The big system … Yes, way too big to change with a sweep. The conflict between beneficiaries and the organisations …

You are very open and ‘out there’ articulating something, and things, that I think and hope a lot of people (working in the sector, or not), are aware of. Problem is knowing and trying to do something about the inherent problems, and doing it, yet is it really making a difference, i.e., the needed difference …? This is the question. How much can a person do from within the system? In order to work in development, where should one work, if not in the development sector? Nowhere …? Private sector? Partnerships? Your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. …

Also, how would you think would the financial crisis impact the system?

By: Saga

Saga — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:49:34 +0000

From what I have read of your blogs you know far better than myself that it’s a tough sphere! But being able to come across honest perspectives from others working in a similar field is hard to come by. I appreciate your input, and relate to much of it. As I am sure you have experienced, out in the field it can sometimes feel you are the only one to see such faults, especially when there is sometimes so much resistance towards even the most basic of changes. Take time out sure, decision to leave the humanitarian world behind won’t change it. Change can only come about if enough like-minded people persist, or else the whole profession will be left to fat cats, thrill seekers, bureaucrats, and humanitarian tourists.

By: Paul Currion

Paul Currion — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:37:29 +0000

Again, thanks for the supportive words. I wanted to explain why I’m off the radar now, rather than discourage others – I definitely think that you guys have some leverage on certain parts of the system, and you must continue to apply pressure. Like you, it still feels like the work we have to do, but the question for me right now is what is the best way to do that work. Who knows, maybe I’ll have an answer by the middle of next week

By: Mikel

Mikel — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:04:40 +0000

Paul, your reliable critical voice is going to be missed. That intersection of technology and humanitarian work is so vulnerable to over-hype .. you’ve definitely helped us keep things real. To me, invaluable service.

Myself and others, we’re going to keep scurrying around this system, on the lookout for lucky leverage points. I’ve personally come up against disheartening systematic blocks, but still have some fight left. No guarantee of “success”, sometimes this feels just like the work we have to do.

By: Paul Currion

Paul Currion — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:46:28 +0000

Erik, thanks for the supportive words. We’ll see if the separation leads to divorce…

I believe that deconstructing the system as an active goal isn’t possible. As an industry, the vested interests are too strong – you’re not just taking on the agencies, but the governments that fund them and the public support that’s behind them. Change is possible – I’ve seen positive change happen in my working life, and it’s been very satisfying – but the whole point of a system is that it contains a lot of mutually reinforcing parts, all of which will fight like hell to maintain their position. This of course is one of the reasons why co-ordination is such a nightmare.

The system will change – one of my other beliefs is that the current system will be radically undermined by developments external to the sector, such as the financial crisis – but it will be an evolutionary process. Actively attempting to shape that process is very similar to actively attempting to shape human evolution – definitely misguided, possibly impossible and a wee bit arrogant. The best we can hope for is to pursue projects that we believe address short-term and immediate issues, and hope that they contribute to change that we want to see. Anything else is labouring under the myth that success is the result of good ideas or hard work, rather than luck.