Comments

Ashlee, I comment in the context of this blog on development policy rather than the specofic situation in Cambodia, but the situation with economic orphans and parents unable to support them was much the same. As my deceased colleague related however, having argued the same case for protecting child rights and collaboration between government, NGOs and business was to discover these would be partners became a considerable obstacle. "Opening up the reality of that situation resulted in threats against me and anyone else interfering with that system. I came under direct assault by tax police, government's primary enforcement arm if anyone steps out of line. This is not a research activity where many, if any, other people dared to participate. UNICEF was willfully blind to the matter because it was just too dangerous to bother to intercede. Powerful interests remained entrenched with enforcers to make it dangerous. Jurists were correct, in my view. It was more a mafia operation than anything else, aimed at misappropriation and laundering of large money. That was perfectly congruent with how Ukraine operated before the revolution. USAID wanted nothing to do with it, nor would they fund any organizations or activists who might try. Some things could be done and some things could not be done. Helping these children was something that could not be done. So, I exposed it and made it the central focus and metric of Ukraine's microeconomic development blueprint. In that context, it was far more difficult to ignore, dismiss, or argue about." If both your government and mine are investing resources in international development, should we not be concerned when such human rights issues are pointedly brushed aside?

Hi Jeff, Thanks for sharing your views. I think it is important to always consider institutionalised care (whether family homes or other) as a last resort. Children should always be given the opportunity to stay within their extended family and community (as long as that is safe) wherever possible. In Cambodia, and in many other places, the potential to profit out of orphanage tourism means that many children in these institutions are not genuine orphans - they often have one parent alive at least, however parents send them to orphanages due to their poverty and the promises of the costs of education/food/etc for the child being covered. It is also important that any institutional care -- whether private sector funded family homes, charity run orphanages or state care -- meets standards that ensure children are being protected, cared for and educated. Operating outside of the state system doesn't mean that frameworks in place for child protection can be ignored, yet many individuals and organisations that set up orphanages illegally or outside of the government's frameworks are not meeting any kind of minimum standard, nor being monitored. Just because a country is developing and the enforcement of policies may still be weak doesn't mean that outsiders should come in and ignore those frameworks, no matter how good their intentions may be. There is a lot of scope to work together with business and the charity sectors to improve care and educational outcomes for children, but child rights must be at the centre and these initiatives must work in harmony with government frameworks at all levels. Ashlee

If it's obvious that children are being used for profit then there's an obvious question to ask. Why do charities help sustain the orphanage culture when there are so many indicators to suggest that a loving family home is a better outcome. Instead of helping the unscrupulous who exploit children, why not <a href="http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/every-child-deserves-loving-family" rel="nofollow">use business</a> to fund the placement of all children in family homes. That at least was what was suggested 6 years ago, but we were treading where nobody wanted to go.

It's also important to ask who gets the money from these tours? I was on a similar tour and paid around 20 dollars per person. Our guide told us a rich businessman owned the tour boats and the community didn't really benefit from these tour fees.

Excellent piece highlighting a number of concerns regarding the charity tourism industry. Voluntourism is an increasing problem, and most people are unaware of the negative impacts. I've seen some youth-focused sites discussing the issue - I particularly like <a href="http://matadornetwork.com/change/why-you-shouldnt-participate-in-voluntourism/" rel="nofollow">this series</a>. Perhaps a good message is that charity is for life, not just a holiday. Like all commitments, it needs to be done consciously and over the long term if it is to have an impact - not just a stop-off on an organised tour.

Thanks for posting this. <a href="http://orphanages.no/" rel="nofollow">Orphanages.no</a> has a lot of material about this issue, should anyone want to learn more about the problem of orphanage tourism in Cambodia (and many other parts of the world as well, unfortunately!).

The devpolicy blog should have more articles like this. I think it is good to have a blog arguing about 'big picture development', but there are 100s of other blogs doing that. In contrast, there are very few which look into the METHODS of development. More posts on survey techniques, consultation methods, public communications strategies would be really useful contribution to the development blogosphere. And easy way to start would be to create a new tag called 'methods'.

Robin and Margaret - this is an excellent summary of a complex debate. I look forward to the reading the outcome of some of this research. I would like to add something small to the debate. I think (and it is just a guess) that for the least developed of states, especially those which have either come out of conflict or have very small undeveloped private sectors then the PPP approach can work. This is because it is sometimes hard to get more established firms to invest in these countries (I do not include the resource industries here). As a result getting a bit of leverage via a donor like IFC or whoever has two important effects. The first is in terms of getting free access to the donors investment analysis arm. Often countries do not have the human resources to properly undertake a full analysis of highly complex programs, especially in the area of infrastructure. This can be a useful tool for Government officials to deal with some of the less desirable elements of the private sector who attempt to score the "big deal'. Secondly, it can reduce the risk of investing in these countries and attract better quality investors that way. Having said that, in reality, the problem is that these donors often have tighter fiduciary rules than most commercial banks (which some would argue is a good thing given the current global fiasco). However, it means that the donors internal processes can be so cumbersome ironically they act to deter genuine investors and we again end up with sycophantic companies winning who have close ties to the donor Governments. The application of PPP's has been so mixed that it is often a difficult policy tool to sell these days - but that may be due to poor application rather than poor theory.

Hi Tess, thanks for reading both blogs and providing your thoughtful and well-informed feedback. You are correct... an ISDA is an activity that seeks, through a subtle and long-term approach, to alter the political dynamic, as all successful anti-poverty interventions do. It does this firstly through the direct and equitable provision of public goods like health and education, thus empowering people to seek and find a wider horizon (and undermining the power of existing elites). But also, if configured accordingly, a scaled-up ISDA alters the political economy marketplace that underlies the state, and the state monopoly over public goods and resources that exists in some countries, underwritten by donors. The latter would only occur if an ISDA scaled-up enough over many years to make a difference. Otherwise it would just be another service delivery modality, which is fine by itself. I think the assumption underlying the idea of an ISDA is that state capacity and human development are primarily socio-political processes and not, at the first instance, technical processes. If the political processes are open access and pro-poor, then public resources are being centralised and equitably distributed, and there is no need for an ISDA. Where HDI gains are solid and on a long-term intergenerational upward trajectory, then an ISDA serves little purpose. Direct budget support (support for the political status quo) would be appropriate in such circumstances. Of course, a country with such circumstances would find itself after some years no longer in need of the bulk of foreign aid anyway. Critics contend that donor agencies as they are currently set-up are ill-equipped to make pro-poor open access political judgements in developing countries, and there’s a lot of evidence to support this. Some good papers that discuss this issue are “The Anti-Politics of Development: donor agencies and the political economy of governance”, found <a href="http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/63444/1/558978355.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> [pdf] and “Can new aid modalities handle politics?” found <a href="http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/34761/metis_176305.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> [pdf]. I don’t feel too comfortable about explaining Collier’s ideas around an ISDA, because he does a far better job himself. I have sought to apply his idea to a Solomons context. But I quote from the Haan & Everest-Phillips paper above, “To begin to answer these questions, apart from understanding the politics of development in recipient countries, it is essential to see donors as political agents.” In summary, I think it's best to consider an ISDA firstly as a service-delivery modality, otherwise we may confuse people and scare the horses. But all aid is inherently political. I’m really glad you found the blogs useful. I value your comments on devpolicy.

Dear Bob, For this particular research we did not approach Barrick Gold about development programs associated with the Porgera Joint Venture. However, we <a href="https://devpolicy.org/benefits-from-mining-in-papua-new-guinea-where-do-they-go/" rel="nofollow">posted a blog</a> on Porgera in September last year and Barrick's data for Porgera is included in my Papua New Guinea case study of mining and development about which we <a href="https://devpolicy.org/what-do-big-miners-contribute-to-papua-new-guineas-development-20130320-2/" rel="nofollow">posted a blog</a> in March this year. Margaret

G'day Tony, the essence of the problem is that corruption is like a viral disease. Either you stop it in its tracks or it spreads and destroys the whole system. Until and unless everyone stops beating around the bush and swallows the unpalatable medicine, nothing will change. Responsibility and accountability is either in place and working correctly or it doesn't exist. Those who are being paid to operate public accounting programs must be investigated and sacked if they cannot or will not do what they are being paid to do. There is not easy way out. If the PNG government cannot accept that the so called 'Melanesian Way' is not working and change their way of operating, everyone must accept they are no better than the last lot of spivs and charlatans. Isn't anyone except those like Tony here, listening? Hullo.......

Thanks Marcus for these posts, both of which I have enjoyed and this one particularly is thought provoking. I think the ISDA idea you put forward here is very interesting and bears more thinking and discussion. A reality for a modality of this type needs to be acknowledged from the outset I feel - you have referenced it subtly and I am going to be more blunt: this is a political activity. No amount of saying it's not is going to change that so anyone who wants to be involved (including - and possibly particularly - donors) needs to be aware of that and prepared to enter into the endeavour with that knowledge very much front and centre. There is more to implementing an initiative of this type than this but trying to avoid that reality means that it is destined to wither rather than flourish.