Comments

Hi Jonathan I came here through Linked In and I'd like to share my own perspective. I am also a young professional, early in my career and I live in a developing country. The greatest challenge for me has been attaining my Master's Degree as none is not offered locally and it is quite expensive to acquire overseas. It is widespread knowledge here though that a master's will set you apart, mostly because we still have expats being hired for most of our jobs (as is expected because of the lack of experience and qualifications of locals). I find the advice provided by you and those commented to be really useful and relevant to my situation, however, even though I am in a developing country and I look forward to reading more. Chris

Both Jo and Patrick’s blogs are useful contributions to the long and ongoing debates about NGOs: ones that we probably need to have more of. For me, one of Jo’s observations is particularly important: that what has “gained” in NGOs’ struggles to balance the demands of multiple stakeholders and audiences is the “drive for organisational sustainability and growth”. I’d like to see much more discussion of this issue, in particular in relation to the very large INGOs that often dominate civil society engagement in development. In 2010 the five largest INGOs had revenue of $6.7 billion, and around 90,000 staff worldwide. Collectively, the big INGOs –despite all the heartache about declining funding sources – are actually financial powerhouses. Their very major presence in developing countries often crowds out smaller, Southern organisations, both in terms of “on the ground” program delivery, as well as in policy discussions. Yet INGOs are constantly looking for new opportunities to increase their revenue, strengthen their “brand”, and ensure an even stronger local and global presence. Of course,many INGOs do great work - but they need to think more about the implications of their size and scope. In many cases, INGOs might do better by doing less – so that Southern organisations can have a greater presence, and take a greater role in development, both in terms of programs and advocacy.

"Michael Edwards and others argued that NGOs were Too Close for Comfort (to government that is), and they have lived off that assertion ever since." What on earth does that mean Patrick? Please elaborate. "Their argument is based on a romantic view of NGOs as being about broad social change through social movements when most NGO aims are more prosaic and focus on community development and local level empowerment." No, it was based on the self-declared objectives of NGOs such as empowerment and structural change, areas in which their performance continues to disappoint, partly because they are tied so deeply into the foreign aid system. So the argument still stands, I think. What's disappointing is that most NGOs have done so little to face up to it in the intervening years.

Thank you for your interesting article. As to questions of impact and effectivness of NGO work and value for money optic, I recommend the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/voluntary-sector-network/2012/oct/04/charity-measuring-impact?INTCMP=SRCH" rel="nofollow">following article</a>. There are suggestions on not trying to change the set system of measuring results and impact, however trying to best comply with this system. The two interesting things were coming up: how to "design our organisations to have the most impact"? and to the way of reporting- that the crucial thing is to be able to know how to communicate stories of people whose lives were transformed. The former draws upon a model of British NGO Christian Aid (scale, depth and inclusion factors), which was mentioned in your article. The latter is in particular interesting because it suggests that it is about both the art of communicating the message as well as having people narrate how they their lives have been changed, which seems to ignore the quantity factor to prefer the quality one. However, the problem with participatory development is not dealt with here, which speaks about only those approaches of how to accommodate in the best way to the given system.

Thanks for a thorough paper and stimulating Blog Jonathan I agree with the direction Bob is encouraging you to think. Having worked in development all my career - thanks to a lucky start in 1980 - I continue to believe there is a career in cross-cultural change. Plenty to do in Australia as well as other countries. But Bob's questions have to be answered honestly to set the right path. For instance, a technical career path in development is increasingly unlikely for an Australian professional unless it is as a researcher or as a mature, highly experienced professional bringing additional skills such as cross-sectoral management. However, there continues to be demand for administrators of official development assistance (contract administration skills, program management skills) and for management of multi-disciplinary teams.- both in the private sector, the civil society sector and the public sector. More recent experience suggest a successful technical career in Australia, leading to management positions builds a set of skills and experiences that enables a mid-career shift to development work - because by that time a person has something of value to offer that is additional to what is available from professionals in developing countries. That is usualy the multi-disciplinary management and cross-sectoral analysis that supports more holistic decision-making and so better development. Keep up the good work - you might like to explore career paths of some current development practitioners: from Australia, and developing countries to understand the different supply-side options available to the development market.

Thank you Debbie!

Terence, I'm strictly an aid amateur, having done a few very short-term assignments though Australian Business Volunteers, and getting more and more uncertain about what it is we business consultants supposedly deliver. I find this DevPolicy blog really interesting and your contributions in particular accessible and often very much to the point of much of what I wonder about as an interested amateur. Thanks for that.

Hi Bob, Thanks for your feedback. You weren't wrong, these are very tough questions! I'll attack them one at a time: 1. It's true that more countries are graduating from aid and (rightly so) more nationals are getting hired to work on development projects in recipient countries. That isn't to say that the market is shrinking for expats working in the industry (and I think I am using the term 'development industry' much more loosely than your interpretation), as the (broader) industry for expats is largely based in developed countries (donors, NGOs, academic bodies, etc). The industry itself, for that matter, doesn't seem to be shrinking either and will likely only grow in importance as our generation faces escalating global challenges (inequality, climate change, international governance architecture issues, provision of global public goods etc) that add to the already considerable challenges we face today in the field of development. So on this point I think it's safe to say that the development industry, whilst evolving, is growing at a rate that both expats and nationals can enjoy employment. That isn't to say everyone who wants to work in development will get a job, and that's not the point my paper is trying to make. This is a competitive industry with finite demand, but demand that is still wide open for expats and members of developing countries. 2. This is an important question, and a challenging one. If you are asking me what proficiencies you think I could take to a job in a developing country? I would have to say not much. That's not to say I would have a negative impact, I certainly think I could do some good working on a development project or in an NGO working in an administrative role in a developing country. But I am certain I can have more of an impact in my current position here in Canberra, which plays to my already acquired critical/analytical and research strengths. As I pick up more skills, through my studying economics and through working at Devpolicy, maybe I can have a greater impact in a developing country (through the ODI Fellows scheme or some other program). But to be clear, I have no intention of working in a developing country any time soon based on the comparative skills advantage I have working here in Canberra. If I were a doctor, an engineer, or a country expert then of course my answer would be different. I do, however, think it's important for young people (as long as they are having a non-negative impact on development) to spend some time working in a developing country to understand some of the complexities of development and spark/drive their passion to work in the industry. As we get older and our comparative advantage (of skills acquired, be it more vocational as you discuss or more administrative/academic as I seem to be heading) for working in a developed vs. developing country grows then I think the question of where you work becomes a lot more important. I hope that I have somewhat answered the questions you have posted. I think the most important point I would make is that it is important to remember that a huge part of the development industry operates in developed countries, and it is likely to stay that way for (at least) my generation. Thanks again for your comments. Jonathan

Hi Ashlee, Thanks for your great feedback. UNV seems like the second step in a career to me (since, as you say, you need to be over 25 and experience is pretty vital), but I will still add it in. I think your point on learning a strategic language is very important. I had thought of including a section on languages in the paper but ended up neglecting it, much as I have neglected becoming proficient in a second language myself (and I am the first to admit it is likely the biggest gap in my education to date - and one that I hope to rectify). I will incorporate a section on strategic languages into the paper. I mentioned quite extensively in the paper the importance of just moving to a developing country for an extended period of time and seeing what pops up. It's great to have that verified! Finally, what you say about web presence is also interesting, and another thing I have completely neglected in my own career to date. But I do agree that establishing yourself in the social media and online professional spaces can certainly help your chances. Social media, however, particularly in the case of twitter, only has real potential if you are a prolific tweeter and heavily engaged in that space. I'm not sure if I see the value in it if you don't fully commit. Thanks again for your great comments. It's interesting how they are points that I seem to have neglected in my own career, which only further justifies the need for this to be an ongoing conversation from multiple inputs. Jonathan

This is an interesting and important debate, so thanks for sharing it here. One thing that appears to be left out of this debate is the very question of the existence of NGO and their legitimacy. Its assumed that NGO are essential and that all we need to do is make them better, get them back to their "core" function. I am wondering if the issue at hand is not how NGO have been pushed and pulled from this "core", but rather how NGO are actually part of the very power structures that create violence, injustice and inequity, no matter how well they performing their "core" function. Gramsci's work on hegemony and civil society is most important in this regard.

Jo some NGOs (and governments) will chase money because it is there and so dependency has little to do with it, but rather the question should be whether there should be earmarking of funds by donors. The issue of whether NGOs takes money for certain things (which do not make sense) because the money is there is a little bit about earmarking (earmarking though is in the eye of the beholder gender justice programs ‘good’ security programs ‘bad’ sort of argument), but it is arguably more about poor appraisal processes on the part of both the donor and the NGO. If the NGO could not undertake the project well and it was outside its capacity, values, or principles, then that should have been identified in both places. Whether these things are the priority of the local people is one NGOs struggle with. The local people is not an amorphous mass so some (women) may like anti-domestic violence programs while the men might say is it a donor intrusion. Government donors have these issues as well. I tend to think some earmarking of funds is good to ensure human rights, social justice, and environmental issues are addressed. Social justice issues are important, particularly with the marginalised in communities, which the majority in a community may not agree with.

Dear Wesley, Thank you for your very useful comments. I do not disagree with you that some members of the so-called ‘anti-growth coalition’ may be based in Canberra! However, I do think that there is increasing awareness of about the need to break those coalitions. At least in the Pacific, I do get a sense that some governments are prepared to break that anti-growth coalition. The recent MSG agreement on labour mobility is a significant step for deeper and meaningful integration and regionalism amongst the Pacific islands. I agree and have always maintained that Australia has not been responding well to the call for better and extensive seasonal worker scheme for the Pacific Islands. On the use of ICT, I think there is already significant capacity in some of the countries led by Fiji and others will be able to build that capacity in a short period of time. However, further reform in the regulatory environment could help build better ICT infrastructure in the region. There is more room for competition in Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. This could see significant cost reduction for internet and use of ICT generally. I agree that unemployment is a significant issue in many countries and looking for sources of growth that would generate more employment would make sense. I think that promoting ICT based services export will complement and indeed help other sectors of the economy as well. I also agree with you that in some of the countries the agricultural sector and to some extent manufacturing based on value addition to agriculture will create more jobs and this should be pursued. I know there have been supply side constraints as well as difficulties to find better markets. The situation with regards to quarantine issues in relation to exports to Australia and New Zealand has always been a barrier but I see some progress is being made to resolve those. Finally I also agree that the Australian and New Zealand governments should urgently review the rules of origin requirements for Pacific exporters. This would go a long way in supporting efforts by Pacific countries to integrate further with ANZ. Pacific governments will also need to cooperate better and take more concrete steps to work with each other to promote deeper and meaningful integration. The fact that Pacific governments and officials are meeting all the time does not mean that they are actually cooperating. Biman Prasad