← This Week in Global Development
This Week in Global Development
What were trends that shaped global development in 2024?
00:35:15
This week we delve into the https://www.devex.com/news/the-trends-that-shaped-global-development-in-2024-108944. From the impact of declining aid budgets in high-income countries to Donald Trump’s reelection, we examine how these forces are...
Loading summary
Transcript45 lines
- [00:04]
A
Hi, everyone. I'm Rajkumar, president and editor in chief of devex. This week, we'll be breaking down the big headlines in global development and bringing in some top experts to help us do it. If you want to follow along with the stories we're talking about, check out devex.com and subscribe to our daily newsletter, the Newswire. There's a link in the description. Follow us along on Twitter, and you can see many of the stories we're talking about today. And we'd love to hear what you think. This is this week in Global Development, My colleague Dave Ainsworth with us. Hey, Dave.
- [00:40]
B
Hey, how you doing?
- [00:41]
A
And Dave is, of course, our business editor. And we're joined by a guest who's been with us before. Yolanda Wright is with us. Hi, Yolanda.
- [00:47]
C
Thanks for having me.
- [00:48]
A
Yeah. And you are the vice president of partnerships at GiveDirectly, an organization that is widely known among our audience here. And we're thrilled to have you again. So, lots to get into, but I thought maybe, Dave, we could just start because we're near the end of the year, people are starting to kind of look back on 2024. We could start with this session where we got together some leaders in our community and talked about what did 2024 actually mean. I'm curious what your takeaways were from that discussion, Dave, and then maybe we can get into it as a group.
- [01:20]
B
Yeah. So they talked about a few things. They talked about in particular was interesting to me, was about a move away from, from internationalization, that people were getting much focused a little bit more on their own country, their own needs, maybe.
- [01:36]
A
Sort of the sort of America first thing. Right. Has gone global. That was my takeaway.
- [01:41]
B
Absolutely. Yeah. And a lot of European governments saying, yeah, never mind everybody else, we're here in Europe, we're going to put the shutters up. And I mean, it's hard to know how true that is. I kind of felt like the United Kingdom is now after everybody, after doing this for years, basically a decade in which the United Kingdom has basically put the shutters up and told everybody else, bugger off, we don't like you. Don't come here. We don't want you. It's kind of begun to realize that this is not world's best tactic and to take a much more outward approach and has kind of gone back out into the world to talk to everybody and go, hello. And everyone else has said no. And actually we're doing the same thing now. We don't want to talk to you. Like so, so we're kind of almost coming through it at a time that everybody else is right in the middle of it. This kind of reaction. I don't know whether it's a reaction to the geopolitical thing or to the pandemic, whether it's an economic thing, but there does seem to be a real desire not to engage, I think kind of free and open way on the international.
- [02:43]
A
Yeah, I hear that. I do wonder if it's debatable whether the UK is coming through it or not. I had to chuckle, Yolanda, when I saw your bio where you describe your experience at DFID as the now defunct Department for International Development. Not exactly the messaging I think Global Britain would want. What is your, what's your takeaway on this sort of theme? I know you were just in Washington D.C. too. This kind of America first, Germany first, Japan first. Right. You can go down the line. What's your take on this moment?
- [03:13]
C
I absolutely think, I think one of your headlines was My Country First. I do think that is a bit of a trend at the moment and I think it's following the political trend. Right. This year has been a record year for elections. I think the most, the most people in the world ever had elections in their country this year and quite a number shifted into more populist politics. And I think probably Dave's right, a number of the, there's a, there's a lot of underlying reasons. I think the cost of living crisis has affected a lot of countries and a lot of people who previously were feeling that they were quite well off are now, you know, struggling. The middle, middle earners in a lot of countries are struggling much more and so that does translate into politics and out forward looking development assistance strategies as well. I think so, yeah. I mean I don't, I don't know whether I could say that the UK is coming out of it. I certainly think the new government in the UK has very strong ambitions, you know, to kind of engage internationally and to support economic growth globally, etc.
- [04:09]
A
But it is also one of the most unpopular governments in the history of the uk. Right.
- [04:14]
C
I mean that's the trick.
- [04:15]
A
Got off to a very great start in terms of popularity.
- [04:18]
C
Absolutely. So you know, whether they succeed in, in doing that and getting the popular support for that, it's, it's yet to be seen, I think.
- [04:24]
A
Yeah. I, it, it raises some questions which, in that, that video conversation we had, which had a number of leaders, Sean Callahan, who runs Catholic Relief Services on there. Indeed. Nwely, who is the presidency of the one campaign. HANS Peter Lenkes WITH ODI so it was quite a group. And, and I, I think a part of what they're saying is this move to a my country first approach does change the way aid activists and advocates have to talk about the language that's used. And you're seeing some of this already. I wonder if it affects you at GIB directly, Yolanda, because you guys are the most extreme form where you're literally saying let's just give cash to people who need it. And for many years people thought this is nuts. How are we going to get voters and politicians to agree to something as extreme as literally giving our taxpayer money directly? Now you've got a great argument that it's way more efficient than going through all the layers of bureaucracy, et cetera. But nonetheless, how are you seeing it from a Give Directly lens, this sort of moment in terms of how you message, how you talk to the public, how you talk to politicians?
- [05:27]
C
I think it's a really important thing and actually that was a massive theme of my time in Washington last week was what resonates now, what messaging resonates now and what doesn't. And I think I also joined a call last week with a number of activists, including one campaign and a number of other civil society organizations that work in advocacy. And I think it's really clear that like Give Directly should be part of a wider movement to kind of encourage an outward looking approach. And I, and I'm not a macroeconomist, but even just generally in terms of trade and economic well being, I don't think that my country first thing is going to be, you know, success, like economically, that the best thing to be doing, even let alone developmentally the right thing to do. But I do think at the, at this moment in time, the language is really important about how you kind of convince individual people and governments to kind of continue to be generous in what is quite a terrifying time in terms of the numbers of people living in poverty and hunger around the world, the number of people in crisis around the world. So I mean, from the Ghidarelli lens, I think we, we've been encouraged to focus heavily on, you know, this is an economically sensible thing to do. This is helping people to economically integrate and to become part of the economic growth story of their country. It's not a handout, it's a hand up. It's, you know, it's that kind of language of integrating with economies and g giving people an opportunity to, you know, improve their livelihoods, etc. Very much not, not so popular at the moment is the idea of a kind of welfare handout sort of thing, which is, you know, which is more seen maybe as a more lefty agenda. And then also I think maybe doesn't have that empowerment language either. And to be honest, that's not what we see in our actual research, is not that people take the money and just wait for the next handout. We actually really do see people understanding that this is a massive opportunity for them to, you know, improve their long term outcomes and their livelihoods of their children as well. So, yeah, I think the language is really important, but we definitely don't want to just be seen as like a standalone good option. Actually. I do want to kind of contribute. We do want to contribute to building the broad case for aid, but obviously very effective aid. It's more important than ever to think about what is a cost effective approach. Right. We've got less money, more need. That's a big problem.
- [07:52]
B
Yeah.
- [07:52]
A
I think you could argue that in many ways supporters of global development missed the window, you know, like that they should have been the ones leading on major reforms like cash, which did have a lot of success in the last decade or so, but that now that we're in this populist, more rightward leaning, budget cutting political environment now there's a chance you throw out the baby with the bathwater, you know, that you, you try to do some reforms and you hear some, you know, some of the people in Trump's orbit are talking about reforms that might sound pretty sensible in some ways, but if you're doing that at the same time as you're trying to massively cut these budgets, do you end up sinking the whole project? And I'm hearing people saying, boy, I wish we would have used the opportunity we had when there was more of a bipartisan consensus in the US and in many other countries to drive more real reform, to embrace things like cash, where and when it makes sense, etc. I don't know, David, you have any thought about this idea?
- [08:50]
B
I'm thinking that's quite a difficult thing to do, really. The, the aid sector, I think, has been pushing for reform quite hard and it's been governments that have resisted it. We've seen AID being driven by the, the political whims of the parties who are, who are in power at the time consistently. I mean, in the United States, we see that USAID is continually not protesting because it knows that it shouldn't about earmarks. But when, when we talk to people at usa, they're like bloody earmarks, Earmarks all the time. Everything's earmarked. We can't just deliver what we want. People are telling us that, that, that we have to spend this much money on this, we have to spend that much money on that in the, in elsewhere. It's the same. A different political leader comes in and they're like, oh, I fancy this particular fad. We're going to do this for a little bit. And so for the ax to implement kind of broad reaching reforms, I, I think the aid sector broadly would probably get behind cash to a much greater extent, for example than government owners have. But it just doesn't suit the political agenda. I think that the aid sector is also quite resistant to cash because it's doing itself out of a job. And nobody likes to do that, do they? It's hard to get somebody to understand something if their next paycheck depends upon not understanding it. I kind of agree with that. There more could have been done to build a consensus to make reforms, to change things up, to try and deliver better results. But I feel that aid has always been hamstrung by a lack of political will from the people leading from the top. And that's still very much where we are. And I do also think you talked a lot about aid cuts in the session that you did. I do think that when right wing governments come into power, cutting aid is just one of the things that they do and we can, we can make a case, we can talk about how we minimize that. But it's part of the playbook as far as I can see. And I, I think it's hard to, to completely avoid that happening. You have to brace yourself for a certain level of impact.
- [10:59]
A
Yeah. And in some ways it might be worse than that now because I'm not sure just about the political spectrum anymore. When you look at countries like Germany that are facing really severe economic issues like de industrialization, they talk about the German car factories closing, which is unheard of. And a lot of the countries you're talking about are global north countries with a demographic tilt toward older people. They're aging fast and their pension costs and their healthcare costs are going up. You could look at this as much more of a long term trajectory, not just a one off blip that some right wing politicians happen to win, they don't like aid, but maybe something much more fun to fundamental. That does require a deeper think here in terms of where do you go? What do you think about that, Yolanda?
- [11:46]
C
I think it, Yeah, I think you might be Right. I think there is definitely, I mean it's, it's phenomenal actually. The, the increasing costs of things like health care. I mean if you look at the cost like the, you know, the budgets that dedicated to healthcare in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, it's enormous. You know, we've got aging, aging populations everywhere. Some countries birth rates are really dropping alarmingly. And I will mention that things like child benefits, you know, might be part of the solution to helping. Like the massive cost of actually having a child is, is quite a, you know, quite a disincentive alongside other reasons that people choose not to. But yeah, I do think we do. You know, we need to look quite carefully. There's a lot of massive indebtedness even in rich countries. I can't remember what the US national debt is, but I saw it on a big poster in Washington and it's enormous.
- [12:33]
A
Right, so 30 plus trillion. Yeah.
- [12:35]
C
Oh, there you go Raj, you know it. But so it's not just, you know, low income countries and middle income countries that are struggling with a massive debt burden at the moment. Right? Pretty much most countries have got a huge national debt. And, and I think therefore the question of like why do development assistance and who for and whether it should be more politically linked to like national interests and things is going to be, is going to be a long term, I suspect it will be a long term trend. And, but I do think that there are some things that the development sector can answer back and say, well actually there is a good reason to invest. Right. One of the reasons might be that inequality is problematic for lots of reasons and massive inequality drives migration that people don't always want to see happening. It drives unrest and conflict and we may be really wanting those young people from Africa to be highly skilled, mobile, able to do jobs in the future. Right. So why wouldn't we want to be supporting people to have the best possible start in life wherever they're born, you know, in the postcode lottery of life wherever you, you're, you're kind of born into the, into this world. Shouldn't you be giving people the best possible opportunity to fulfill their human capacity and then to sort of kind of hopefully solve some of these big demographic, demographic trends in the north by actually bringing and allowing a more mobile labor force and a more kind of open system? But at the moment we're going through a very close, a closing system. But I mean the long run I think those are some of solutions that we might want to see. Right? More mobility, more skills development all around the world more ability to use skilled labor wherever it exists, you know, which hopefully in the long run will, will come out again as a kind of sensible way forward.
- [14:25]
A
How you, you were just in Washington D.C. you're based in London. Your job is very global. You spent a lot of years at Save the Children and obviously DFID before that, the defunct dfid. I mean, what are you hearing from your friends and colleagues in terms of this moment? Right. We had this, this video with the experts, these leaders. But I'm just curious what, what flavor you're taking away from people in the space. How are they responding to some of these trends we've talked about?
- [14:51]
C
A lot of my colleagues and friends are quite worried. I mean, I think that immediately a lot of NGOs are having to kind of cut jobs. I think that's been happening in quite a number. I mean, Save the Children has been going through that. Save the Children International has recently gone through that. And I think you reported on some of that, I think IRC and others. So I think immediately there are, people are feeling already the, the strain on their budgets and I think there's a huge amount of, of concern about the state of humanitarian need globally and the, the ongoing gap between what each of the humanitarian appeal said's needed and what is available to be, to be shared out. And I, you know, I don't want to particularly dive in on any particular scenarios, but I'm sure everyone on the call is aware you have some, you know, horrific situations in the world where people are unnecessarily, you know, children are unnecessarily dying. They're just not getting the aid that, the assistance that they need. So I think that's, that's the kind of, probably the overriding initial top thing is the feeling of like massive concern that there's not going to be enough resources to go around and that, you know, with climate change and ongoing conflicts, the needs are sort of likely to go up in an ever constrained world. I think that pretty much everyone know, I know there is also a massive optimist and does, you know, Christina Figueroa on the climate front is a real sort of ally on that kind of keep that optimism going. Right. You know, there's no point in being, there's kind of no point in being pessimistic. So I think the, the push that I'm hearing people saying is like we need to continue making the case for development assistance and why it's important, why it's in everybody's not just in the interests of the, you know, the people living in extreme poverty themselves. And I think, you know, I will push again. I do think there are things we know work, and it is an. We're in an unusual point in history right now where we have got a really wide range of evidence, not just for cash, obviously, I'll push the cash evidence, but there's also a load of evidence for things, other types of interventions from vaccinations, et cetera, that we know what works and we know how to do it well. And we can leapfrog some of the previous barriers with technology, mobile phone payments, use of satellite imagery to help us target, you know, people who've just been affected by cyclones, etc. I mean, we've just used that in the US to do really quick and precise support for people affected by the hurricanes in the U.S. you know, so I think that's the note I would think we're trying to strike is like, yes, there's a lot of big concerns, but actually the world has got. Has continued to improve, evidence has continued to improve. So if we can be. If we can sort of be really focused on things that we know, work and leapfrogging on, you know, using technologies for good, we can try and kind of make the difference that we need to make.
- [17:40]
A
Yeah, I think that's well said. I think the danger and too much optimism, which I'm an optimist too, is if it makes you paralyzed to make the changes you need to make. And, you know, I just came back from two experiences. I was in Geneva last week, and you look down the Lake Geneva, I think it's like 26 independent UN agencies are there. It's a major hub for the UN, including many of the humanitarian agencies, and they are doing incredible work. You look at what's happening in Syria, we've been reporting on that this week, too. You should check out our story by Colin lynch, if you haven't, on some of the intricacies around the sanctions and how to get humanitarian aid in. But these agencies, they're working on the front lines of all these things. And a lot of the people I spoke to there, I would say they're sort of whistling past what might be coming, which is potentially like a tidal wave off of Lake Geneva that floods these guys, that you're going to see huge cuts potentially to UN agencies. I think they're a real risk given what the Trump team may want to do. And obviously the US Is a major donor to these agencies. And then on the other hand, I flew from there to New York, where I got to interview Tom Fletcher, who is the new head of UN's OCHA, the humanitarian coordination Agency. And, you know, he's off. I think he's maybe right now in Syria, in Damascus, right. He was off to go and meet with the new leadership there and try to see what's possible in terms of humanitarian access. And OCHA had just released their annual the Global Humanitarian Overview, the gho, which talks about how much money is needed. And it's almost become like a ritual where they ask for this huge amount of money. They say, like, this is what's needed, and then the world provides some small fraction of that for the actual need. And then they essentially have to feed far fewer people than need food or clothe or house far fewer than need shelter. So, I don't know, we've gotten this strange spiral where we know these crises are coming, we know there's more of them, they're more severe, we make a big stink about it, and yet they get underfunded at the same time as we're looking at traditional aid getting cut. It does feel like it's quite a dramatic moment, you know, that we're in. Not a. It's. It's maybe not an iterative change. It's like a step change. And I, I don't know. I. I hear you on the way people are feeling about it, I think there is a lot of concern, but I'm not sure people have fully absorbed the. The moment we're in and how much change is going to be required to actually serve all the people who need. Need to be served, et cetera. I don't know. Dave, what's your thought? You talk to a lot of people in the space.
- [20:11]
B
I'm thinking about it like it did. Firstly, ultra statement this year actually contains some good news for the first time in goodness knows how long. Like, well, actually last year, it contains some good news as well. But the news from 2023 was so bad that we almost didn't notice, because 2023 was the worst year for humanitarian aid on record. 363 million people in need, $56 billion needed to take care of them, 41% funded, the United States cut aid, all that sort of stuff. It was horrific. And we, we actually missed the good news at the end, which was that 2024 need went down, and they're projecting that 2025 need will go down again. Whether that actually happens, obviously, we'll wait and see. But it does look as if maybe, basically we. There was a clear spike in 2020 need has doubled since pre pandemic times. It does seem like the pandemic really was the driving force for a lot of this stuff and that it's the aftershocks of the pandemic of what we've been seeing in humanitarian aid for the last five years. And now as we move a little bit further away from it, maybe we're in a position where we're over the worst of it. Of course, maybe not. It's two swallows now, but does that make a summer? I don't know, like. So that's kind of encouraging. I do think. One thing you said a while ago, Ilana, about the argument that you can make to these people, there's this famous argument, the general who, who went in and and was asked what, what do you think you'll have to do if we cut development spending? And he said we'll have to buy a lot more bullets. And that I think that argument is the convincing one to right wing regimes basically that if sooner or later, if you don't fix these people's problems over there, they will come and bring them and make them into your problems over here, whether you like it or not. And I think that argument is kind of compelling.
- [22:13]
D
Hi, I'm Kate Warren, Executive Editor at devex. If you are listening to this podcast, you are likely working to achieve the sustainable development goals. But are you subscribed to Devex Newswire? Global development can be a fast moving, complex sector. Our team of global reporters work every day to bring you the news you need to make sense of it all. In devex Newswire we keep you up to date on issues ranging from climate change financing to gender equality and global health to transforming the food system. All in a fun to read free newsletter delivered directly to you five days a week. Join the hundreds of thousands of global development professionals who receive Devex Newswire and visit devex.comnewsletters to sign up to this free newsletter today.
- [22:59]
A
Speaking of good news, but also like maybe how things are going to change and get framed differently, there was a bit of good news this week that we reported on. Our colleague Salvinger had a story about a U.S. aid agency, the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Probably pretty widely known to our listeners, but you know, MCC is kind of a unique international development agency. I don't think there's another one like it in the world. It gives grant dollars, large scale projects and it does it through a, through a data driven model. So countries have to meet certain criteria and when they do things like governance and anti corruption and civil rights and things when they meet those criteria, they submit a proposal for a road project and they get a check from the Millennium Challenge Corporation, from the US Government for hundreds of millions of dollars. It's been a really important agency. It's celebrating their 20th anniversary. And this reporting from our colleague is that they are getting close to getting legislative approval to tweak that model and to allow them to do these, these projects not just in the very poorest countries, but even in middle income countries. And that kind of gets to your point, Dave, because among the kinds of countries they can now fund are countries like Moldova, which is at the center of U.S. national security interests vis a vis Russia or Guatemala, which is at the center of US national security interest vis a vis our border and migration. Right. So it's, and countries that China might otherwise be trying to fund in Africa, for example. So it's really positioning MCC as an anti China tool, as a foreign policy tool more than ever has been before with, you know, development arguments behind it too, because they use this model. But nonetheless it might be a hint of a way forward that hopefully gets continued bipartisan support and approval, but requires a pretty substantial change, I think to this agency and to the way it works.
- [25:00]
B
Yeah, MCC is, it's almost as if it was designed by people who actually work in development, really, isn't it? It's extraordinary. Just kind of give people long term funding, give them a large check, work with people on good governance, like give say to people, just prove to us that you're doing something sensible and we'll give you a really large amount of money, but relatively few strings attached over a relatively long period of time to basically solve whatever problems you think need solving. Very atypical for a government agency to behave that way.
- [25:31]
A
It's hey, did you know when they first started this was a George W. Bush, a Republican idea. And when it first started there was talk of them having a $5 billion annual budget. I mean it was going to be massive. And I think partly for the political reasons you described earlier, David, about earmarks, they never could quite get there, you know, so they, I forget what the high water mark was. It might have been as much as 3 billion at some point or maybe that was just talk of 3 billion. They were certainly over a billion for several years and then they dropped down below a billion, 900 million, 800 million. I think they might be around 700 million now. I'm not sure the exact figure, but the point is it was almost too good to be true that you could put a lot of money through this but then you don't, as a political leader in the United States, you don't have control over it because it's a model, it's a data driven model. And that's hard for a member of Congress to swallow maybe when they want to direct it to the place they care about or the issue they care about, or for a president or a Secretary of state. And that maybe has been a reason why they haven't been able to get as big as potentially they could have been.
- [26:35]
B
Yeah, for sure. I think it's really good to see that they're expanding. Part of the problem, as I understand it, was that they'd kind of done all the countries that they'd been to, all the places that they wanted to work with, and they'd given them all grants. And they weren't really in a position to start giving second chances of grants to a lot of people. And so they're saying, okay, well, either you've got to let us go back and visit all the places we've visited before, or you've got to open up the model a little bit because otherwise we won't have anything to do. We're just going to be sitting here on our hands. And I don't really understand why we don't just keep going back and going to the countries where it worked previously and giving them more cash.
- [27:15]
A
To be honest, I think they've done some of that. I think they have the authority to do what they call second compacts. They have the ability to do that. And then they went to regional compacts and now it's middle income countries. And I think that the other argument that they make is that, look, in an era where most of the low and middle income countries are suffering from tremendous debt, including a lot of debt that's off official balance sheets from Chinese entities, that bringing more debt is not the answer. And the MCC has a really unique thing which is they come and say, well, here's a grant, and even it could even be for infrastructure, you know, and that's kind of unusual, kind of.
- [27:53]
B
Slightly problematic offering grants to people who owe a ton of money to China though, isn't it? Because you're effectively just paying back loans to China with your grant cash. You can see why Congressman might be a little bit suspicious of that.
- [28:09]
A
Yeah, I mean, it's definitely a question. I think their argument would be, you know, we know where the money is going, it's targeted to something specific. And this is also a foreign policy tool of the US Right. It is precisely to, you know, develop A relationship with this country. But I think it's just a window even though it's a relatively small agency in the scheme of things, it's not so widely known but it's a window maybe into where other agencies are going to have to go where DFID and FCDO now have gone. Really, really unifying a foreign policy and development lens and just going even further in that direction maybe is what is what this new era that we're in is going to be all about. I don't know Yolanda, maybe I'll give you the last word on your thoughts about all this.
- [28:58]
C
I think there definitely is a need and an advantage and I do hear from a lot of my friends that still work in the UK government that actually there's a huge advantage of bringing diplomacy and development together in some regards. Right. There's some really strong win wins to be had. But I'm just going to reflect back on what we're talking about like two things. One is the data driven element of the mcc. Right. Like actually I think it is great and a really big positive step if more agencies are using evidence and data right. That, that in this case, you know, good governance etc to release grants for infrastructure. But in other cases like being able to sort of use concrete evidence to decide we're going to do anticipatory action, for example, anticipate your cash in advance of a disaster, we know that's cost effective, etc. So I'm just a massive fan for using good evidence to, to do things better and I think that's a good thing.
- [29:45]
A
The thing that's a good example just to interrupt quickly anticipatory cash which not everybody may be familiar with. It's like maybe there's a natural disaster coming, a typhoon, right. And you know, maybe you can get money to people quickly, small amounts but get them before the prevent.
- [30:01]
C
Absolutely. And we've got so much data things.
- [30:04]
A
They need the material, the food, whatever. Right. And suddenly the humanitarian crisis just dropped dramatically. The need drops.
- [30:10]
C
We did, we did this, we did this with google.org supported us actually to do this as and as well as irc. So Give Direct and IRC both did some anticipatory cash in Nigeria and others have done it elsewhere and it's really well evidenced that people are very sensible. They get their livestock or their assets out of the way of harm. They, you know, it prevents what is a disaster, a natural disaster from turning into a humanitarian crisis. So yeah, I'm just going to big plug for using data and evidence. Well and the other plug I'm going to give is this sort of, we should be really asking whether it's helpful to have all these sectoral earmarked type of approaches in development. Dave was talking about some of the lack of sense that that creates in, in parts of his that he sees. But I also see it a lot with cash. Like, you know, cash for this ca that, you know. Well, actually people will use it for a range of reasons. And what we should really care about is the outcome are people food secure, are people improving their businesses, our kids in school, etc. And, and you know, sometimes this, you know, multiple UN agencies trying to decide which of the moans what, you know, it that can get in the way of achieving results. And I think that's, that's the other plug I would say is, you know, looking forward, we should be trying to reform where we can around not sensible things that are earmarked or siloed that are kind of preventing us from doing the most cost effective thing.
- [31:25]
A
Well, you sound very diplomatic, but this is where cash is a disruptive force, right? Because you know, you're, when you marry it to the current structure we have. You're right. NGOs who get a grant from the government to go and do a project. Well, that grant might be very specific. It might have a lot of specific areas they have to focus on. So they'll say we're going to do grant, we're going to do cash as part of this. But they have to narrowly define the purpose is to meet the obligations they have of their funder or. Exactly. UN agencies competing over turf, who controls what issue area. And they all might want to use cash, but they have to guard it and keep it in a certain area so that they control their turf and they don't step on someone else's toes. And it sort of gets away from the whole purpose of cash, which is actually we should cut right through all these layers and go right to the people and let them decide whatever they want to do with it. Which is the most profound form of dignity and kind of efficiency in a way. Like I remember I wrote about this in my book that give directly at least used to have, I don't know if you have anymore. You have a website where you showed what recipients of the cash directly say themselves, like they could post on their phone, hey, I got this money and here's what I did with it. And there was one young man when I was looking at it, who, he said, you know, I got the cash and I went out and Bought a new outfit. And at first you might. Your instant reaction, especially if you're a donor, donor government might be, why are we funding someone's clothing? But he explained, I needed a new outfit so I could go apply for a job and have a shot at getting this job. And it might have been the smartest way for him to spend money. No one else sitting in a conference room in London or New York would have figured that out, but he did. And maybe it was the most efficient use of his money. So cash is really potentially very disruptive to this whole sector. But maybe it hasn't been that disruptive yet because in some ways it's just been layered on as a tool for the existing ecosystem.
- [33:23]
C
We have absolutely agree with you. I think it's kind of that the systems are very good at absorbing, you know what I mean? Absorbing things and like channeling it in the existing way. And I, I do think there's a potential for it to be much more disruptive. Much more. Much bigger. Not, it's not everything but more disruptive. Much bigger. And I do think that ultimately it's such an empowering, the ultimate localization, right? You're giving people who are like, experiencing difficulty, disaster, poverty, etc. The ultimate choice and what they do about it. But, you know, yeah, so it is quite disruptive. But I think to date, you know, it hasn't achieved its full potential of that disruption, I think. So it's, you know, hopefully exciting times as we kind of. Hopefully, you know, sometimes crisis leads to change, right? I mean, you were saying, did we miss the window? Maybe we miss the window. But like, people aren't ever forced to change when there's plenty, right? When there's plenty of a dollars, maybe there isn't such an incentive to change. And maybe in the, you know, in a more constrained environment, some of the things that really need to happen will happen. Trying to be positive.
- [34:25]
A
I love that one. And I think disruptive is probably the word of this podcast and maybe the word of 2025. It is going to be a very disruptive time. And let's see what. Let's see what's in store. I want to thank, thank both of you for joining and all of you for listening in. This has been another episode of this Week in Global Development. Thanks everybody.
- [34:43]
B
Thanks, Raj.
- [34:48]
A
This has been this Week in Global Development. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe using the link in the description to get even more coverage and analysis on the most pressing development issues of the day. Become a devex pro member by going to devex.com membership and signing up. Thank you for listening and see you next week.