when i first read the comments of durgadas dukhopadhyay, i was confused 
regarding how to respond both internally (through my own reflection) 
and externally (through "reply" and perhaps consequent action)…and 
pretty much came to the same conclusion as ben and roger in terms of 
the motivation behind the writing and the same concern as ilan in terms 
of fear of the wish to dismantle the only international mechanisms that 
enable assistance that can augment local capacity and otherwise fill 
voids that can’t locally be met.

But now, after more thoroughly reading the questions and comments from 
ilan, i realize that I’ve recently been reflecting on at least one 
strand of this subject more than I had at first realized.   i somehow 
missed getting ian davis's comments (and don't know whether to blame it 
on a cyberspace black hole or on my errant "d" finger hitting the wrong 
message...so i'll assume the latter and apologize if i miss anything 
that he covered).  Due to my inability to regularly access the internet 
where I am currently working (which, combined with an overabundance of 
email viagra ads, may have contributed to the problem above), I am also 
regretfully unable to participate in the on-line conference.  I very 
much hope that transcripts will be available for subsequent insights 
and that john and others don’t mind my rather bulky comments in this 
message to the list (with apologies if the decision regarding the 
appropriate venue [as requested by ilan] was the conference).

although ben's reply focused on academic researchers, i understood the 
comments of durgadas and ilan as focused more on the international 
community as a whole...and the international agencies in particular.  i 
have worked both in international academic research/training and with 
international agencies, and, though a blind person could see the same, 
a few similarities are prominent.  One such similarity is an original 
conceptual intention to do something truly helpful (and the receipt of 
funding by donors who believe in that vision).  But a second key 
similarity for many (most?) is that their international workers write 
reports in terms of being responsible to the recipient stakeholders in 
summary/cursory comments (sometimes cut-and-pasted from previous 
reports) but have prized (Potemkin?) project examples & photos and 
handshakes with "important" dignitaries at these sites being a large 
focus of their "work" (because everything depends upon the next round 
of funding and the ability to "wow" the donors into granting such 
funds).  And, a third is the insane and yet economically “justifiable” 
discrepancy between expat and local salaries (which is “justified” by 
saying that “we can’t raise the local salaries and distort wages…but 
somehow the distortion of prices and perceptions through exorbitant 
expat wages and extravagant spending and mannerisms is swept under the 
rug).  I’ll focus on the 3rd with peripheral vision of the 2nd and 1st.

i'm certainly not a role model…and, of course, everyone sees “right” 
and “wrong” through their own looking glass, so I’m certainly not 
wanting to call myself “right” - but i use the following to exemplify 
one thing that I try to answer - “who am I helping?”[inspired here by 
the closing line of Ilan’s message]…and can thus only use myself to do 
so.  

i'm currently working as a rural livelihood risk management consultant 
for a research-based development project in a particular country - and 
i ride around on my motorbike, stay in a modest apartment, and try to 
eat as much on par with indigenous residents [and in ways that help 
support sustainable eating places and domestic production] as is 
possible (when not required to attend lunch/dinner meetings at posh 
places).  In doing so, I save a lot of money…so i have a list of 
orphanges and other local institutions deemed to be responsible in 
caring for the welfare and/or development of people here - and make 
sure that a sufficient % of the money that has been given to me as part 
of the budget that is supposed to be used to help the people of this 
country goes through my hands and back into the hands of these people.  
[note: one might argue that those spending at posh restaurants do the 
same through the multiplier effect - but not when the posh restaurants 
are owned by foreigners who then repatriate the money.  and, of course, 
most expats take their big salaries that were "intended" (or were 
they?) to benefit the people of that country & just repatriate it back 
to their country (or to big tourist destinations or other extravagant 
spending that does nothing to help the people of the "recipient" 
country).]

Who am I helping?  Well, though I often fail in some regards, by aiming 
to do the job that I’ve been asked to do in a way that seems best to 
help provide options for those who most need them and by living in a 
way that leaves sustainable and respectful impacts of my presence, it 
seems to me that I can be responsible to all 3 sets of stakeholders in 
my actions: (1) the “recipients”, (2) the donors & those who hired me, 
and (3) myself and all who otherwise depend on me.

But some UN workers (for example) roar down the streets in their big UN 
trucks - forcing old women and small children to dive out of the way.  
who are we helping?

some expats sit in the city (not just in this country - in most other 
places where i've worked as well) and talk about what happens in the 
rural areas & the pittance few thousand dollars being spent in little 
projects to help them - but then go off to the places that serve 
imported foods & drinks (doing nothing to help local people…but rather 
causing an urban drift of squatters towards “where the money is”).  
They sigh and talk about how sad it will be when more expats leave and 
these high-priced restaurants will be forced to close.  I look at them 
hoping that they are joking – who are we helping?

some expats stay in their fenced-in compounds, and otherwise act in 
ways that shout to local people, "i am not one of you - i am to be 
treated differently - respect me!" – who are we helping?

people in this region tend to smile and even laugh when they are 
upset.  before i came to this country, i was told by some of the people 
that i knew who were originally from this country that its people are 
being VERY PATIENT with the presence and activities of all of the 
foreigners.  but after being here awhile, i can see through the smile 
and sense the "fatigue”...the "fatigue" on the smile of the woman 
having to scurry away from the roaring truck...on the smile of the 
unemployed "youth" who live in squalor just outside the high-priced 
import-vending restaurants or the fortresses of the 
foreign "assistance" chiefs...and in the need of those lucky enough to 
have temporary INGO employment to smile and accept payment for a month 
that is far less than what their "counterpart" gets paid in one day.  

i understand that workers in this "industry" supposedly need 
compensation commensurate to get qualified people.  but qualified for 
what?  i have no numbers to back it up (does anyone know of any? - the 
closest report that i can think of was Twigg's accountability 
paper...which i recall as great but as all conceptual [no numerical 
analysis]), but i'm guessing that some 80% or more of international 
agency funds go to salaries or other perks of foreigners.  Who are we 
helping?

I would hope that we all want to help be involved in participatory 
development of options – and not just for those who are already wealthy 
and for those who will repatriate or otherwise extravagantly waste 
potential investment or need-based consumption.  Yes, we all 
have “needs” of our own – but aren’t most of those needs met through 
the types of work that we do?  and, for those that aren't, 
well...aren't there supposed to be trade-offs that we make in choosing 
to be “in this industry”?    

I agree with ilan and ben – there are MANY success stories, and the 
overall structure (at least in many areas) CAN/COULD BE very effective 
in realizing “recipient vitality”.  So the idea would certainly not be 
to dismantle the whole international community structure [i (we?) just 
want to lose the nasty bathwater].  But how about some new 
accountability for all international workers and their “responsible” 
agencies?

Would it be appropriate to ask, for instance, (for direct 
accountability for all international workers) that (for starters – any 
clarification / other ideas out there?):
1)      at least some minimum (I was going to say 75%, but I could 
already hear the snickering in my mind…how about 50% for starters?) of 
the funds that we are paid as salaries must be spent in the country in 
which they are working (yes, easy loophole: I give it to you, you give 
it to me…I’ll get to loopholes later).  
2)      Cooperative buying structures are set up such that a minimum % 
(e.g., 50% - somewhat negotiable depending upon capacities) of our 
purchases must be done in shops that purchase locally produced goods 
(that must meet some minimum quality standards so as to provide the 
proper incentives to producers)
3)      With the exception of possibly (?) the ambassadors to a 
country, all other international workers are required to live in places 
that are “reasonably” suitable to giving a realistic impression to 
local people that their perceptions and true well-being are a concern 
(and not just garnering of personal wealth and flamboyant “in-your-
face” living).  
4)      To hold accountability to these and other standards, any agency 
caught (by an ombudsman?) deviating from these rules faces the real 
risk of not being granted its next round of funding by the donors.
5)      Driving (as an example) and all other mannerisms must adhere AT 
LEAST as strict for us as with locals – instead of having to pay some 
petty fine (or bribe) at the same level as locals, any of us caught 
driving “obscenely” or otherwise performing in ways that are 
unacceptable according to local culture are subject to reports from 
authorities to the ombudsman and donor/s with repercussions on their 
respective agency/institution because of such behavior.
6)      And, per ben’s comments, some mechanism for ensuring 
appropriate referencing of and reverence to indigenous knowledge.  Any 
thoughts on what that might be?

Yes, international agencies already have too many reports to write…I am 
also asking myself the more concerned “why force additional 
reporting/standards on them?” & the more skeptical “people will always 
find loopholes, so additional regulations just produces less efficiency 
with the same results – so why bother?”.  To the first question,  I 
say, “because the other standards mean little if there is no way to 
ensure that foreign staff are responsible with their spending and 
living style as well”.  With the amount of funding given to and spent 
by foreigners, much more sustainable results might be achieved through 
incentives for better spending of (the 80% of?) such funds than through 
tight restrictions on the rest (the other 20%?).  to the second 
question, well…I’d be a fool to think/say I have an answer (and am 
perhaps a fool with all of this)…but  currently I see an adverse 
selection result…and the only way to avoid adverse selection is to get 
better information and better incentives in place.  the economist in me 
says that more restrictions on funding will just drive up required 
international salaries even further...but it also say that maybe with 
less incentives for those who wish to find loopholes to take these jobs 
in the first place, perhaps we’ll have more accountability towards 
recipient vitality - and less fatigue with an institutional structure 
that DOES do a lot of good but has the potential to do much more.  

hopefully,
bob alexander

note: if i ask for "someone" to resend ian's message, i fear getting 
either no response or a gazillion copies of it...but i would very much 
like to read it.  could i be so direct as to ask either john or ian to 
resend it to me?