I’m going to start with #9, because a lot of you asked about it. And I don’t want people thinking I was suggesting we convert people to, well, anything. No pith helmets, bibles, Korans, or books of Mormon here. Development has nothing – nothing – to do with salvation.
But missionaries do have a model we can learn from, at least the ones that I have met. They come into a country with a long-term commitment. They don’t just want immediate results; they want souls. Missionaries bring their families and children with them, and those children go to local schools. They live in houses that are nice by local standards, but not in the expat palaces your average foreigner inhabits. They bring their stuff with them in suitcases, not container ships.
Missionaries don’t try to do any soul-saving at first, spending a minimum of six months learning local language and culture. Mormons are renowned for their language skills. And once they have learned it, they stick around, spending years or even decades in country. They devote themselves to work in one particular place.
Compare that to your average expatriate working in development, for a donor or implementing a project. The expat lives in a little bubble of fake-home, cushioned by consumable shipments, huge shipping allowances, and hardship pay. With air conditioning and heating to ensure they’re even in a different climate. And they stay in one place for approximately 35 seconds.
Good people don’t have time to get great, and average people don’t even have time to get good. Complicated programs suffer as a result, and funding is biased toward things that are easy to implement and understand. No one has time to learn local context.
Donor governments rarely have people in place for longer than five years. In some cases, it’s not even allowed. Implementers are the same way. Three to five years, on average. The incentives are to keep moving from place to place. If you get a job in, say, Hanoi, while you’re already living in Hanoi, do you get housing and shipping and expat allowances? No. You get brought on as a local hire, and whatever salary they think you’ll settle for. If you want the big package, you apply for a job somewhere else.
And the ambitious, hard-working people who are good at running programs are usually chasing that big package. Think of the one guy you know who’s been in country for ten years, taking jobs with different projects as he can find them. Is he full of useful his skills and local knowledge? No, mostly he’s just a loser. Usually he doesn’t even have language skills to show for his decade of residence. If you set things up so that the ambitious people need to hop, then they will hop. The only ones who stay in place will be the people without the ability to move on. That doesn’t support good program management.
It’s even more painful with the donor types. At least program staff are bound by the specific terms of their grant or contract. An incompetent or philosophically opposed country director can only do so much damage. Every two or three years, someone brand new comes in, with the authority to radically alter all current programs. There’s a six month learning curve while they sort out their job and get some clue about the country. Then a nice two years, at best, of reasonably competent donor oversight, and then they’re emotionally checked out and focused on the next posting.
I’ve seen USAID country directors come in and kill programs that they thought weren’t working. And they were, but they were also hard to understand. Too hard to figure out in a couple weeks of reading reports.
Host country donor staff make a major difference in institutional competence, but it’s a rare donor who lets national staff run their programs. The fear is corruption, mostly, but there is also a capacity problem. The people with the education and skills to really run a donor program aren’t working for USAID, World Bank, or CIDA salaries.
Two years of reasonably competent donor oversight is a depressing best case scenario. When you have a really good donor representative, they are like an extra brain for your efforts. They can help you dodge problems, adapt quickly to challenges, and negotiate different government relationships. It’s a synergy that can make all the difference.
And it pretty much never happens. More often than not, your funder’s representative doesn’t speak the local language and doesn’t even know the nation’s major cities before they land. No matter how smart or committed you are, you don’t have time in a few years to get up to speed enough to be really useful. One of the very few things we know about what works in development is that your interventions need to be precisely targeted to the local context. We can’t do that if nobody knows enough about the local context to make that happen. And how do you take a long view on development when no one stays for enough time to think that way?
So that’s what we can learn from missionaries. Stick around until you know what you’re doing. Project managers, and donor representatives, should have regional knowledge and language skills. They should be deeply steeped in local culture. We need incentives to get good people to stay in one place and become experts at it. Well, first we need it to be permitted. Then we need incentives.
If we’re uncomfortable keeping country directors around for the long haul because of corruption concerns, then we could keep other people in country instead. Technical people, for example. You could have some just-rotated-in manager making the final decisions, guided by a team who’s been working in this context long enough to know what works. You also need host country nationals in as many positions of authority as possible. Get past those corruption fears with good financial controls, ethics training, and employee mentoring. (Yes, it’s an incomplete solution, but so is rotating people constantly to keep them from getting attached.)
———-
Photo credit: bp6316
Chosen because they look exactly like the missionary kids I see in Tajikistan.
Very interesting perspective. Not what I expected from the tweet.
B
The Peace Corps has been using this approach since the 60s. While it’s only a 27 month commitment, Peace Corps volunteers are required to learn the local language and live at a standard equivalent to their local counterparts, often without amenities like hot (or running) water or electricity. Minus the evangelism.
Trude, I fear that Peace Corps’ rapid turnover and untrained volunteers tend to erode the advantage of living like a local, but I may be in the minority on that.
Alanna: interesting perspective, but how can you fault Peace Corps for being “untrained” in the same breath as you praise missionaries?
Visit the Backpackers in Kampala and you’ll surely come across plenty of very-short-term missionaries with no useful skills who make outrageous claims about what “the people” need and end up accomplishing nothing, even by Peace Corps standards. And on the other end of the spectrum, I’ve worked for an unreligious Swede (PhD) who has lived in Tanzania for ten years and an unreligious Canadian who has lived in Uganda for six.
I love the idea that we can learn from missionaries, and I agree with your desires, but let’s temper that with reality: you’re not talking about religion at all; you’re talking about commitment. Is this a “grass is greener” rant (about, ironically, a culture we don’t understand completely), or do you know of objective evidence which supports the theory that missionaries stay longer than, say, Peace Corps volunteers?
(I guess my real question is: are we really trying to learn from missionaries here, or are we trying to learn from a small subset of missionaries–and if it’s a subset, what does religion have to do with it?)
Alanna,
The Peace Corps is not a development organization — it’s a cross cultural learning opportunity. And because of that cross cultural learning perspective, many Peace Corps Volunteers who choose to work in int’l development at the close of service approach their work with the same eye: getting to know the country and its people before making any major changes in programs and/or funding.
Adam – the only thing I meant for us to learn from missionaries was the value of staying in country for a long time and building local knowledge. Religion has nothing to do with it, and I didn’t mean to imply that it did…
I suppose we’re trying to learn from the subset of missionaries who stay in country and make it their life’s work.
FirstTeacher – I agree with you, and I have no beef with Peace Corps as US public diplomacy.
A few international organisations are trying to put emphasis on the long-term residency thing. The man who heads the WB’s operations in Banda Aceh, Vic Bottini, has been there for a couple of decades. Several of the expats based in the Jakarta office are also long-term residents, speak Indonesian (and even Acehnese, in Vic’s case).
So those cases do exist – but for some reason they’re
a) not institutionalised, as they fully depend on the passion of a few individuals for a particular location rather than a system encouraging LT assisgments; and
b) they’re not being held up as ‘best practice’ but rather as an individual quirk.
I’m curious what dev. workers with families think about that, though. Isn’t it better to be in a country for, say, 10 years to give your children some stability, rather than shuttle between countries every 2 years?
Alanna, this is dead-on. You can’t learn local context on a two-year contract, so bad decision after bad decision after bad decision gets made. If you look at the work missionaries do, it tends to have a lasting impact. I study Congolese hospital systems that are still around after 70+ years (lasting through the collapse of colonialism, the euphoric post-independence years, nationalization, the collapse of commodities prices, the end of Cold War financial support, several wars, and a full-on state collapse), whereas the average NGO-supported water management/microfinance/whatever project tends to fall apart not long after the grant runs out.
A couple of other thoughts:
1. Part of this is possible because missionaries aren’t dependent on fickle trends in development and government funding; they rely on supporters back home who are going to give privately regardless of what’s seen as cool. Your average American donor to missionary activity doesn’t care what the missionaries do in the social sector, so long as they’re reporting souls won.
2. Missionaries often try to work themselves out of a job. The best ones look to turn over the management of programs and institutions to local leaders who’ve had the opportunity to get good training. And a lot of them leave when they know that locals can handle the institutional management on their own, with that consistent financial support from outside. The reason those hospitals I mentioned above are still around is that they’re run by locals who know what to do when horrible things happen.
Great entry. One of my friends & I were snarky towards the missionaries living down the street from us in Kitgum until we realized they’d been living there two years, since the start of the end of the violence, (and weren’t planning to leave any time soon) and spoke Acholi fluently.
I think “Texas in Africa” has an excellent follow-up to your post, Alanna. While missionaries are problematic in more regards than one, the seriousness with which they tackle their mission is laudable and this includes being accepted by the members of a community – learning language, empowering locals, and being perceived as more of an asset than a threat. How could missionaries possibly spread their religious doctrines if they are not Listening to people? Missionaries have a great model for “working within a community.”
The Peace Corps has a similar model, but also has its problems. However, I’d say the Peace Corps (in a few particular countries) is ahead of the curve of “development” organizations because of this model. It may be implemented with fresh college graduates, inadequate trainings, and high turnover – but there are few other programs at least attempting this model.
Thanks for the interesting post!
If anyone is interested in some development organizations that have the budget for long-term projets check out the Aga Khan Foundation, as well as BRAC. I’m a bit biased towards the former as I am currently in their fellowship program.
However, they operate a profit-making component (on top of being represented by a very wealthy His Highness the Aga Khan) which ensures steady funding for long-term development.
As for BRAC, Ian Smilie just finished a great book about their work. Freedom From Want. BRAC likes to air its dirty laundry (read development failures) to ensure future successes. They also run a profit-making side.
On that note, CIDA is a bust: not only is it being constantly remodeled at the whims of new governments, but its contracts are generally five-year (or less) and results focused. Somehow, I don’t see how “five years” and “results” go together.
So, all in all, I see development as best functioning when invested in the private and public sectors. Private sector generating jobs and revenue; revenue to be invested in long-term public sector work.
[…] bit of inspiration drawn from missionaries? Yes! No, not in the religious/mind-washing sense. But missionaries do have […]
great points. 2 more i would add..
1.One of the things I found most cool was that most Missionary programs were tied between one particular community in Haiti with a specific donor community in the developed world. This forms permanent, lasting bridges. Generations in both countries grow and graduate invested in each other, there’s a sense of ownership and duty on both sides that doesn’t exist in normal dev. work.
2. I think its a difference of scale, too. Missionary work accepts it limits and chooses to care for a specific community, invested in real, visible people who succeed on a much greater level, and then are able to help the rest of the community themselves. Dev. organizations are not willing to pick and choose. They spend $ always concentrating on the max number of people to help, and so their programs have relatively low benefit to most individuals.
I would add the strong bottom-up focus of most missionary groups. Conversion is an individual decision – it can’t (these days) be forced top-down. This gives missionaries a different focus from most donor orgs, at least the big ones.
Excellent, much-needed perspective! Far too often the experience of religious groups is simply ignored, when in fact many of our vaunted innovations are things they’ve been doing for years.
hmm.. Well, as a kind of missionary, all that makes interesting reading. I say a kind of missionary, because I have spent 5 out of my 6 years in Afghanistan with a mission agency, though I always considered myself a development worker, and never engaged in classic evangelism. And my response, Alanna, would be that there are a group of missos whose lives reflect a real concern for the people of the country they live in. They do learn the language and they do stick around. We have, my family and I, despite some terrible times in Afghanistan. But there are a new breed of misso coming to places like Afghanistan, intent on short-term, hit and run ‘aid’ work (ie, teaching English or other nonsense). Those people show little love for the place they are working, and little respect for the people, and their main focus seems to be having a neo-colonial adventure under the guise of religious good works. And as other readers have noted, there are some excellent people, who are not with mission agencies (though they may or may not have a faith – who knows>?) who show the same qualities you are endorsing. I think or Marvin, who was with us in the UN in Mazar – a fluent Pashto, Dari and Uzbek speaker, there for more than 5 years. Or Paul, with the Red Cross in the North of Afghanistan – another fluent Dari speaker, and there more than 10 years now. Amazing, good, sensitive, talented workers who know how to make projects succeed.
The quality I most see lacking is most current aid and devt workers is commitment. After a year or two, they are bored with X location, and want out. So off they go, taking what knowledge they had gained to some totally different place. Stay, please. Stay past the boredom threshold. Then you will start to do some good.
[…] ready to leave Pakistan. I feel as if there’s unfinished business. I’ve just finished reading Alanna’s spot-on (and, as usual, impeccably written) post about what we should learn from missionaries. And I feel a bit ashamed. Ashamed that I’m leaving […]
News Flash: Christ IS the reason I serve long-term. He is the reason I brought my wife and child of 1yr to a difficult, harsh, and unsafe place to live.
It can’t be an accident that the aid/NGO community is made of up many agnostic people. It’s no accident that the agnostics work they way they do and missionaries (followers of Christ) work the way they do. These differences are the fruit of what is in people’s hearts.
Not admitting that God has something to do with it is ignorant. If you simply want to talk about living in a place long-term as a stand alone issue, you can do that to your heart’s content, but denying ‘what God has to do with it’ is rejecting the facts/truth of the current situation.
If you can read this Times article with an open mind, I think you might get some great insight into what I’m talking about. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece
@Alex B. Hill
Please expand on ‘missionaries are problematic in more regards than one’.
That article strikes me as poorly reasoned. People are as likely to be made passive by believing in one God as they are to be made passive by believing in evil spirits, animism, or bad luck.
The key concept seems to be the need for anyone trying to help the situation to first understand the situation, which is surprisingly something that can take years to do. As a RPCV, it was burnt into our heads during training to not expect to get anything at all done for the entire first year we were there (of course no one listened, and of course, none of those year-one projects were sustainable, it’s a learning curve that must be lived through).
The missionaries where I served did some amazing work – totally unsustainable except through continued donations from their churchmembers, with no innovative programs or connections to the latest trends in Int’l Dev. But they took care of the sick, housed the homeless, and fed the poor. Development? Perhaps not, but valuable — certainly. They were also a wealth of local information due to the long in-country time-commitments of many of them (not counting the annual influx of spring-break-volunteers).
I think it’s difficult to take religion out of the equation since that provides the intrinsic motivation – which is partly provided by a pay package for aid workers. And I’ve seen fly-in missionaries intent on saving souls and doing good in their holidays with not much of an idea of where they were going. Similarly evangelical ‘missionaries’ with a distinct business approach to building their following here.
Also, I think it’d be interesting to throw business into this discussion: Obviously not all corporates are ethical, but foreign direct investors can create jobs, pay taxes, produce goods and services, will have to find staff that understand the new environment (i.e. maybe pick up a local language), …. and they typically need to pay their own way.
[…] Chris Blattman wrote his post “What aid workers can learn from missionaries” based on another blog called Blood and Milk. You can see the original post here. […]
So, I’m also a *kind of* missionary, but like Phil in Afghanistan, I don’t see myself as being in Nepal to convert people but to contribute to sustainable community development. (Though I am here as a pretty direct outworking of what I believe to be true about God and the world.) And, as you say learning language and spending time getting to know people, politics, culture is vitally important to actually being of any use.
But, I guess I take issue with your, and some commenters, concerns to rule religion out of development entirely. Chris Blattman, for example, does that quite explicitly on his linked post. For the vast majority of people we are working with (and my guess would be, the vast majority of people any aid workers are working with) what counts as a “good life”, something to which respectful community development should aspire, contains a religious dimension. It is a vision that encompasses more than just the provision of infrastructure, social support services, etc.
So isn’t being indifferent to that, or at worst openly dismissive of it, another form of paternalism or neo-colonialism? “Look, we’ll tolerate you *diverting* family and community funds to temple upkeep or church prayer rooms or whatever, but we know that what you really need is (insert aid intervention here)…”
This question, of course (slightly reframed), applies as strongly to religiously-committed aid workers as to the agnostic or atheist.
Ben – my take on this is that outsiders do not belong in a community’s spiritual life. Obviously, this is a moving target, since faith is, as you point out, an integral part of the life of many communities.
Yeah, I see what you’re getting at. And to some extent I agree with you – in matters relating to religion/faith and community development a whole lot more sensitivity and respect, and a whole lot less arrogance and cultural imperialism, is required.
But I’m just not sure how you hermetically seal those categories, *development* and *religion/faith*. Nor how you determine that outsiders are OK in one, but not in the other.
And further to my first comment… religion doesn’t just offer perspectives on the “good life” to which we should be open. It can, and does, close down opportunities and options for many.
For example, in Nepal caste-based discrimination against Dalits (and others) is pervasive, though it is, theoretically, illegal. This discrimination has deep social and religious roots and entrenches patterns of disempowerment and socio-economic disadvantage.
Of course, caste-based discrimination can be, and *is*, powerfully challenged from within Hindu religious traditions, and from other perspectives also. But suffice it to say that when any organisation works with Dalits they are, to some extent, engaging with, and need to be attentive to, fundamental beliefs and worldviews that go *beyond* the technical practice of “good development”, if I can phrase it that way. Religion is part of the development process unavoidably in this case.
And in this process the outsiders’ perspective on whether (and why) caste-based discrimination is unjust, and what to do about it – as much as the insiders’ perspective – will be based on a set of beliefs and values about what ultimately matters. Being up front about these beliefs and values (whether they are explicitly *religious* or not) it seems to me is generally a good thing.
Surely we must try to seperate the two types of missionaries, with those focused on development work on one side and those committed to conversion and spreading the word on the other.
Fo me this is an important distinction to be made, especially in the sub-saharan context. Living in SW Uganda I see lots of missionaries who are committed to enlisting people to their church. I cannot help but think these people are more than a little misguided, the % of active christains here makes the UK,US etc look like brothels. Surely the missionaries have more work to do at home? Maybe the weather, life style and power differential aren’t as well suited?
As for missionaries devoted to development style work; I think that in many remote areas they are the only form of service provision outside government. As pointed out there is much to be learnerd from their way of working. I don’t see any problem in them doing some bible work on Sundays.
Lastly, I don’t think we can count Peace Corps Vols in with the above. For me PCVs are not a devlopment tool but strictly political, and foreign policy related, this is seen when one compares the cost of a 2 year Vol with the measured output of that Vol – wouldn’t exactly be effective use of dev funds.
Ayisha,
I did not intend to praise the development work of missionaries in this post. I have no idea if they do good development work. I just wanted to say that their approach – to whatever they do – of staying put a long time – is something we can learn from.
And on these points I agree with you completely – got caught up a little in the other posts.
[…] doc was our last in-country attempt to get her better. (I now appreciate that there’s a lot we can learn from missionaries.) Just a few months later, when the mini-me broke her arm, we drove to a different pay-for-service […]
Hi Alanna, I agree with your specific point – that we could learn a lot from the willingness of some missionaries to settle into life in their host communities with very little “extra” luxury and to stay long term.
In Ghor, a province in remote mountainous central Afghanistan where I worked for a measly 18 months, I visited a group of Christian mission staff who were running the local health centre. As far as I knew they were not engaged in proselitisation and since, as the UN human rights officer, I was the person to whom complaints of proselitising were normally brought I think I would have got some whiff of it if they had been.
They lived in mud-brick houses like their neighbours, without generators. They had solar panels to power their radios and wifi but otherwise lived as others in the town did, relying on a cool store to keep their food fresh and heating the water in wetback stoves. They dressed as others in the village dressed, spoke fluent Hazarajat and sent their children to the local schools. Some of them had been there for more than twenty years. All expected to be there for at least five years.
As I made my way around the town talking to police, prosecutors, elders and officials I heard them all talk about the “missionaries” as though they were somehow part of the community, slightly outside of the traditional social structures, obviously, but longterm members of the community who knew the history of the place and its people nonetheless.
I remember feeling deeply impressed by this approach and very at home in their compound. Of course, I was a missionary kid before I lost religion and found human rights and development work, so I’m more comfortable with a pre-dinner prayer and a gospel singalong than most people, but more than that I felt that I was amongst people who really cared about the community in which they lived and who were not in Afghanistan for an adventure or to further their career.
I’m not able to argue for certain that they were doing better development work than the hundreds of people I met in Kabul who lived in fancy houses, ate at French restaurants and didn’t speak a work of Dari or Pashtun. But I certainly felt more comfortable with them, mostly because my Afghan colleagues were as welcome in their compound as I was.
[…] in recent years, from major investment by South African and Indian firms to more local projects. Missionary and university-based healthcare initiatives have decades worth of experience, and despite what the […]
We’re small so can experiment with approach and the mix of international and local staff. Understanding the nature of power gap and other international staffing issues, we’ve chosen to give our non-local staff (or those from donor countries) a back seat when it comes to direction on the ground. Non-local (ie: US, AUS, UK, CDN) staff are considered capacity builders and fill gaps, develop connections and provide expertise as directed by local leadership. One of our key guiding principles is that as an org, we will be “national-led”, our term for led from the ground by local staff. (a very different thing that using locals to fill roles for international agenda). Since we’re still a sort of NGO/CBO cross-breed and small in size (single location, 30 staff) it’s worked well. Any international staff who do decide to work locally as capacity builders are required to spend the first year of their time with us focussed on observing, learning and serious language acquisition. The expected attitude is that of learning and service rather than management. It has been quite a challenge honestly asking westerners in particular to take this approach rather than coming in as change agents straight off the boat. We’ll see how it goes long term, so far my observation is that while some western staff will struggle (and about 1/2 don’t make it) our national, local workers and leadership are more confident and free to pursue the development of their own ideas. When I arrived after getting solid advice from a friend who had spent many years in Nepal, both my wife and I spent the first two years of our time here learning the local language. (yes it took me that long to get this language into my thick skull). We’ve been posted here now for 12 years and speak with relative ease. I’ve seen many people both in the NGO and Missionary community come and go. Very few who skip language learning stay beyond a year or two and those who do make it are far less effective, have noticeably less effectiveness and are far less sympathetic towards local culture and ways of doing things. ….from Thailand/Burma border.