Good Help Bad Help
In Delhi, a usual workday starts with a long slow drive to the office. The radio is the only saviour that empowers the mind to stay calm despite all the honking and traffic jams. Another unfortunate but usual scene on Delhi roads is children knocking at the car window begging for money.
This day was no different. I stopped at a traffic light, a little girl 3 to 4 years old stood at my car smiling a trained smile and mumbling something. Her forced demeanour could not hide the joy she felt looking at a tiny white teddy bear hanging on my rear-view mirror. Her little eyes showed pain, desire, and happiness all at once. Those emotions squeezed my heart like a lemon. My throat struggled to swallow, and my eyes felt a familiar tingling. I immediately rolled my window down and handed her the teddy bear. She gave me a smile that touched my soul. I could feel her heart pounding with joy. She took the bear and left a permanent mark on my life.
This incident made me realise, that benevolence has considerable influence on me. Since then, trying to solve poverty related problems became my hobby. Likewise, a lot of people find joy in helping. However, for a few helping is not just a joy bringer but more of a responsibility. Helping random people, or even animals, to the extent of risking one’s life. Helping even though it does not bring us any obvious direct or indirect benefit seems to go against the classic academic assumption that helping behaviours evolved because they provided benefits to the helper. Examples like the man in California who jumped into a wildfire to save a rabbit erupt on the internet regularly. Behavioural scientists have now been able to establish that people’s helping nature is mainly (though not always) driven by moral preferences for doing the right thing. A recent study showed that people have a stable preference for doing what they understand to be the morally right thing in a given situation.
Even though categorised as a positive behaviour, is helping always a positive thing?
Positive and Negative Help
We all know people that tick every box of having a helpful personality, but we think twice before approaching them for help. Why is that? Just helping is not enough, the mindset with which we help each other matters a lot. The attitude and the action of the helper should be positive. This depends on whether the ‘subconscious goal’ of the helper is feeling better about themselves (e.g., receiving recognition, appreciation, or power) or is it making the seeker feel better. If the motive is truly selfless, it will make a huge difference in the decisions, tone, and the course of action that the helper takes. The motive decides if the helper will be able to emancipate the seeker by motivating them to take charge in a sustainable way. The word emancipate comes from Latin, meaning “setting free from control”. Having an absolute altruistic attitude to emancipate someone from their problem is difficult. But positive help comes from the helper having a selfless attitude. It gives the help seeker hope, unburdens them, and motivates them to take action. This holds true to a personal experience and in the same way it also effects the way an aid organisation i.e., NGOs operate or take decisions.
Are NGOs Providing Positive Help?
It is difficult to think that NGOs (non-governmental organizations) can do any harm. However, like a coin has two sides, every positive business can have some negative impact. There are an estimated 10 million NGOs worldwide. That means we have 1 NGO for every 750 people in the world. Since the 80s there has been an explosion in the number of NGOs. Although, the impact the NGOs have created has not been as massive. The reasons range from ineffective funding sources to structural issues. However, one of the biggest reasons is that, despite the best intentions, their approach is scattered. (More details here)
The problem seems to be in the business model itself. Like any other business, even NGOs’ business models must evolve with time. A new funding approach and style of working is essential.
What aspects of an aid organisation, can be seen as a negative help?
Working in Silos — To begin with, working with atomistic rather than holistic approach can have a big negative impact. When it comes to emergencies, we have seen many NGOs coming together and helping the affected area. Global collaborations like the CCD network are relatively common in emergency aid situations. Multiple NGOs work together with a vision of saving people’s lives with the available funds. Yet, when it comes to long-term projects, global collaborations are almost non-existent. NGOs forget the whole essence of power of alliance and go back to working in separate Silos. Some NGOs have started collaborating locally to expand on the services they provide and call it “holistic”. But, it is still extremely small scale and such alliances are not capable of even solving half of the interconnected issues in a area. To create a lasting impact collaboration of larger NGOs (INGOs) is essential.
Breaking Transmission Line — Another reason why positive help of NGOs can have an unintentional negative impact, is if the local government is not a part of the project. As per ‘The Africa Report’ one of the biggest criticism of NGOs is that they break the transmission line that puts pressure on the national leaders. In many African countries, people look to NGOs rather than governments to provide services. Taking away responsibilities from the elite makes them less and less engaged in uplifting countries’ economies. NGOs attract government workers by offering better incentives/salaries. In many countries, there are stories of NGOs crowding out the local efforts.
Governance Structure -Another interesting point to consider is the northern hemisphere-based governance structure. An analysis of governing boards of top 100 INGOs reveals that 72% of them have their headquarters in America or Europe and boards were predominantly of European origin with degrees from European universities. INGOs like Amnesty and Oxfam International sent a strong political message by moving their headquarters to Africa. Not questioning the actual interest behind the move, it will be interesting to see if this will bring a better impact.
Dependency Syndrome — The last aspect is short-sighted planning leading to dependency syndrome. To avoid dependency syndrome, NGOs need to provide sustainable aid by motivating the community to take action and or responsibility is crucial. The community should be inclusive of local government. Unless the community has contributed to the cause and has been involved in decision-making, the ultimate change is impossible to achieve. Therefore, NGOs with grassroot funding have a better impact. Despite a better impact, these projects might get low funding. Thus, combining international and grassroot funding will help avoid any deficit.
NGOs are venture capitalists in nature. They work in three phases, first, invest in a problem, second, help the affected in rapid restoration, and third, ‘the exit’. Many NGOs have understood that short-term help is not sustainable. Leaving the project area ‘self-sustainable’ at the exit is necessary. As with other transformations, to make people self-sustainable, the biggest and the most important change needed is a change in the mindset. This fully depends on the ‘subconscious goal’ of an aid organisation. Is the ‘subconscious goal’ getting as much funding as possible and winning against competitors? Is it having a tunnel vision and working on one cause only? Or is it emancipating people from the vicious handcuffs of poverty? Poverty leaves physical and mental stain on generations, and emancipation thereof can only be achieved by providing positive help in its true sense.
