Let me be clear, I like the work my organization does here and think it is powerful stuff. My colleagues turn around businesses and make them successful. They convert producers from low margin bulk cacao to high margin fine cacao. They improve the quality of coffee by matching financiers with opportunities to invest in additional processing. Good work. However, I’ve also noticed some interesting aspects to how we go about our work.
For one, we pursue many goals in alleviating poverty: increasing human and financial capital, increasing productivity, finding new markets, and financing cooperatives to capture greater margins at the producer level. It is this last piece that gives me pause. How did we decide that farmers deserve these margins and not the businesses? I get that producers are poor but don’t think that justifies $20+ M USAID projects helping them and excluding the functioning intermediaries. They also need to provide for employees and their families. And to be callous, they are frequently harder and more adept workers than the producers we help.
This type of zero sum game occurs elsewhere also. For instance, a good friend of mine was working on a project to improve bean production in Nicaragua. Working for the same organization as me actually. At one point she mentioned to me that the Nica producers had a cost advantage over Honduran producers (not a shock) and could potentially export to Honduras. This would help Nica producers but would take even more market share from my fellow Catrachos (Hondurans). And now, I am proposing recommendations so that Honduran apiarists can replace Guatemalan honey imports. If I were in Guatemala (where we also have an office) I’d probably be looking at how to increase production there. I’m all for the best producer taking a market but does it make sense for me to take a country focused approach?
Also, I think working in the non-profit world dulls knowledge of the profit motive. I’ve frequently heard, “If we could only get the banks to loan” or “We need intermediaries that don’t just think of themselves!” These entities aren’t bleeding heart aid agencies; they are businesses. If a bank makes bad loans, it goes out of business. If an intermediary turns altruistic and foregoes profit, he’ll be out of a job soon enough. Instead of wishing for things that won’t and shouldn’t happen, we should be looking for solutions that work with the market forces that everyone responds to. I tried to do that in my plan for the potato industry despite some of the push back I got to focus on financing and respecting contracts. By no means do I think I know best but I do know that businesses generally need to make money.
Okay, last thought, I swear. We as an NGO take an interesting view of our fellows down here. For one, we view them as competitors. I even heard a co-worker describe another NGO as having a monopoly on the honey industry. A monopoly on helping poor honey producers for free? Yes, we get aid dollars based on projects that we design and execute and yes, we currently don’t get any for working in the honey industry, but how silly. You would think that all aid organizations would be interested in cooperating and sharing their unique strengths in the interests of HELPING THE POOR. Which is my second thought. We don’t really share our lessons learned here. We have a “competitor” down here that does very similar work to our own and recently completed a great project. And we know nothing about how it went down. Again, shouldn’t they share that info with us? I wonder what would happen if aid agencies ever saw that they were actually close to eliminating poverty. Maybe Sachs has thought about this already.
Again, on the whole, we do great work, but, it is interesting to see some of the more peculiar aspects of development. For one, we think we are qualified to make decisions about who deserves what money, both at a local and national level. And, while we don’t believe that for-profit institutions should be self interested, we are ourselves. Peculiar peculiar.





