Comments

Thanks Scott for your comment. We agree that our hypothesis is not the only possibility; we were thinking of the average country and control for the possibility a fairer society is driving the result. There could be an ideal limit (i.e. is there a critical mass of females in parliament where collectively they can influence legislation that increases growth?) and as you point out diminishing marginal returns. And there are likely to be several channels via which this macro effect could work; corruption and public goods provision are two potential channels. Chattopadhyay and Duflo (2004, Econometrica) find that women invest in different types of public goods (e.g. more drinking water provision, but less of some other things). Other interesting areas to look at are whether there is a difference between developed and developed countries. Clearly, more research is needed to see how such factors might affect aggregate economic growth.

Thank you Seini - excellent comment (and sorry for the delay moderating it, it came through after I'd gone to bed last night.) The point you make is important. It stands to reason that if locally engaged staff feel inequitably treated their performance may suffer (never mind the inherent unfairness of the situation). One solution would seem to be to pay local staff higher rates. Here's the complicating fact: they already, usually, live comfortable lives by local standards, their pay typically putting them amongst the middle classes of their home countries. And there is a risk that if they are paid a lot more, aid might end up distorting local job markets, meaning that the most talented local staff strive to be aid agency employees rather than working for their own governments or private sectors, which do desperately need their skills. At least, that is the counter argument to what you are suggesting. Although I confess it rings somewhat hollow in my own ears when I make it. And I'm sure there may well be, in many cases, room for improvement in local pay. Thanks again. Terence Oh - and while I remember. The salaries of the staff of multilaterals is currently causing a scandal of sorts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/29/christine-lagarde-pays-no-tax

Thanks Terrence for starting this flow of reflections. The aid worker-aid recipient living standard divide is an issue I've thought about a lot, and for which I've concluded that there are no easy solutions. People seem to draw the "too much" line at different levels: for some, a jeep may be too much in the way of luxury, while for others such a vehicle may be justifiable, but a luxury hotel with a pool is definitely too much. But perhaps there are some objective indicators of where 'too much' might lie. For instance, some psychology researchers have looked into what makes work environments in developing country contexts most effective, and have concluded that pay differentials, when they become sufficiently large, certainly don't help. Across a six-country, 202 organisation sample, they found that expatriate workers’ salaries were, on average, four times the level of salaries for local workers in the same organisation. In the two Pacific countries they looked at, the expat : local salary ratio was 9 : 1 (!). Being psychologists, they weren’t just interested in these numbers, though – they also asked people how they felt about them. Here’s what they found: “Local participants reported that the pay disparities they experienced lead to significant feelings of injustice at work. They told us that the disparities left them feeling significantly de-motivated in their everyday work. At the same time however, and equally worryingly, international participants were largely unaware of the feelings of injustice caused by their significantly higher pay (and benefits), and did not recognise that these disparities were leading to reduced motivation in their local colleagues.” (see: http://www.humworkpsy.org/resources/journals/Aid_salary_disparities_Just_%20Change_June2010.pdf ) For me this finding raises a lot of questions about how we could do things better. And perhaps it adds an additional clause to your article title…”Should(n’t) aid workers lead comfortable lives – even if they’re not expats?”

Thank you Rhianon. You wrote: "So the question is, for me, not so much “should” skilled international aid workers live comfortable lives, but will we be able to get them to come if they don’t?? It would take a massive cultural shift." It would also take an economic shift of sorts, I think. Right now I think it's reasonable enough for aid workers to worry about their mortgages and kids' schooling and the like, which means they aren't going to work low paid jobs forever. At least not while our economies back home leaves us worrying about these sorts of things.

I think that arguments about what "should" be fade a bit in the face of what "can" be. I have done stints as a volunteer (AVI) and am now in Fiji as a paid worker on a good local wage in an aid funded NGO. It was annoying that it was more lucrative for me to be a volunteer... but what is more annoying is that we currently have vacant positions for roles that would have a fantastic impact on local quality of community services, but we can't fill them because we pay a middle-upper class local wage - and we simply can't get people from developed countries to consider it. Great useful jobs, enough money for a very comfortable life here - but when converted to Australian or New Zealand dollars, people don't want to take the money. So the question is, for me, not so much "should" skilled international aid workers live comfortable lives, but will we be able to get them to come if they don't?? It would take a massive cultural shift.

The bar graph above is revealing for PNG. No wonder those small island states with much fewer resources compared to PNG have much better development indicators. PNG 2012 National Election should be a turning point for all Papua New Guineans. VOTE FEMALE CANDIDATES.

Thanks for the interesting post and paper. You note that it is not clear why more female representation leads to better economic outcomes, and hypothesize that because women must go through greater obstacles to become representatives, they maybe more talented than their male peers and thus govern better. I am not sure this is the most likely explanation. For one thing, as female representation gets higher, the barriers to female participation should be lower. One would then expect diminishing returns to the excellence of female parliamentarians compared to their male counterparts. Two alternative explanations may be better candidates. First, as you note, women tend to be less corrupt than men. This is almost certainly a result of the social processes that shape the experiences and expectations around women, rather than some essentialist claim. In any case, less corrupt governance may lead to higher growth. A second possible explanation is that female leadership is more likely to focus on the provision of basic social services, such as sanitation, health care, and education, than their male counterparts (again, likely a result of their socially prescribed roles as carers). Perhaps governments that provides better social services and social protection lose much more GDP to ill health, and gain more GDP by having an educated workforce. This is all speculative, but the question of why you find this correlation is important. Hopefully readers can look forward to a follow up paper.

Thanks Mark and thank you Weh. Weh - I think yours is a very helpful distinction. Separating the ethical discomfort stemming from global inequality (which, as you point out, should effect all of us in the developed world) from questions of efficiency (what level of comfort is most likely to lead to effective aid) would appear to be a very important aspect of thinking through this dilemma carefully. Thinking that way certainly helps me untangle the ethical knot a bit further. Thank you for making the point.

Thanks Robert. I agree - as with almost everything in aid context is key. Even here in Honiara I wouldn't be that keen on negotiating a busy day on Mendana avenue on a bike. Although once you got your weaving wired you would end up travelling much faster than the grid-locked cars. Albeit at some risk to yourself.

This is an interesting talking point, but ultimately I think comparisons between aid workers and local people is a never-ending spiral. I can't really think of any situation that a foreign aid worker will be in where his life will approximate that of the average local person. This is not to say we shouldn't feel uncomfortable, aware, or ashamed of it - we absolutely should. But that's a global problem that everybody should be aware of, not just aid workers. What is perhaps more pertinent is focussing on thinking about the conditions that aid workers should be in to make them more effective (something that you've considered throughout this piece). By boxing aid workers into high class hotels, or compounds with high walls, or by putting a gap in pay between foreign aid workers and their local counterparts, how effective are these aid workers in being in touch enough with the local situation to make a difference. As you wrote Terence, "isolated in enclaves it can be hard for aid workers to stay in touch with the real needs of the people they work with".\ On the other hand, ignoring the needs of aid workers can make them more stressed, more burnt out and ultimately less effective in achieving what they are trying to achieve. Ultimately, it should be about finding a nice balance point between the two. Therefore, in answering the central question of this article, the main factor should be answering a question about effectiveness, not about whether it is "fair" or not. On a global scale, "fair" is not even remotely relevant.

This is a nice conversation. There should be no issue with aid workers being well-paid. It is often a donor intent that a large portion of the grant money boomerang back into bank accounts on their own soil. Workers can't affect that, so let it be. Living well should also not be an issue. It is a natural human aspiration to live as well as one can. Aid environments are inherently stressful, so there is no point in creating even more inner conflict through self-deprivation. There is also the issue of self-importance. Do you think your work is important and that you are a valuable asset to the community that you serve? If you do, then you should act every day to protect yourself as an asset and create a sustainable presence. For a lot of people, that means acquisition of safe travel, housing, food, and drinking water. Any thing less is irresponsible and negligent. If you do not think that your impact is equal to all of that, then maybe you are wasting your time at your site. Finally the issue of self-identity. Foreign aid workers can never fully identify with the local population. Local people know you are different, and no matter how much you make yourself suffer, they know you have different horizons than they do. You have a way out. Where ever you are, very soon you will be leaving, so there is little point in faking some kind of superficial solidarity. I think it is better to be genuine about who you are and what your needs are. You can make a stronger connection with people by being honest with yourself. If your objective is a deep cultural experience and the sickness and poverty that goes with that, think about joining the United States Peace Corps. But if you are being paid, everything about your presence should be top notch professional. So go ahead and take a dip in the Oxfam pool. It it's available, and if you like it, use it. Be safe, and be well.

All this leads, for me, to two key conclusions. First, we need to be sensitive to the issue Terence has raised and manage it for the best outcomes for all. Second, (and this partly contradicts the first) it is almost impossible to generalise as contexts are so very different. For example, riding a bike to work in Jakarta would be one of the most dangerous and impractical solutions imaginable to getting around!!