Customer Reviews

Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige, and Corruption of the International Aid Business

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Disclosure time- I work in the aid industry.

While I agree with much of what Hancock has to say (see below), this book is somewhat one-sided. Aid can reasonably claim a share in some positive world developments, such as rising life expectancy rates, decreased infant mortality, increase in primary education and literacy, growth in per capita GDP, and others. Undoubtedly, success has been patchy, and some areas, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, are worse off than they were fifty years ago, before the advent of the international aid industry. But in detailing its extensive failures, one should not completely ignore its successes (even if they maybe much less than what the aid industry claims).

With all that being said, I think a book of this sort is a must read for all aid workers, to bring us face to face with dark side of our work.

Here is a list of criticisms Hancock has about the international aid industry, and my own impressions.

1. International aid is a big bureaucracy more intent on keeping itself going than helping the poor.

My response- true- International aid is a huge bureaucracy. I spend my time writing and reading memos, and trying to get them 'cleared' as fast as possible. I literally spend no time with the poor.

2. International aid agencies spend money on big, wasteful projects that harm the poor and decimate indigenous societies.

My response: True depending on the development agency/country mission. Agencies (and agency sub-divisions, such as country missions) with lots of funds go this route. The ones that don't have such large accounts hire 'technical experts' instead.

3. Aid agencies hire expensive foreign 'technical experts' who lack local expertise; they bypass the concerns and wisdom of the local population.

True to a large extent. Most experts do not even speak the language of those they are trying to help. Some of our experts do supposedly meet with the local population, and address them through means such as surveys, interviews and 'focus group discussions.' I have no idea how hard they really try, as I sit in the office writing and reading memos. In either case, nothing really innovative comes from these efforts. This is because these experts already have blanket solutions (which are the same throughout the world) and try to impose them on the local populace through 'behavior change and communication' and other similar methods. Thus, the surveys and interviews, to the extent they take place at all, are not really a means to partner with the local people; rather, they are means to learn about the 'barriers' to implementation of blanket solutions.

4. International aid is actually a means for subsidizing western businesses.

Undoubtedly true. As Hancock points out, this is one reason why development agencies go for big projects, and why they hire 'foreign experts.' If I am not spending my time writing and reading memos I am spending my time reading project proposals for my development agency's money. Most of these, of course, come from Western businesses and NGOs. I also spend my time enforcing or waiving regulations stating that organizations that receive our money can only buy goods (including but certainly not limited to automobiles and pharmaceuticals) produced in my nation.

5. International aid has allowed wicked despots to make themselves richer, and allowed ruling thugs to escape responsibility.

True- but I think there has been somewhat more of an emphasis today on funding being tied to concepts such as 'good governance,' controlling corruption, and so on, at least in theory. Of course, reality is sometimes different, in that nations of 'strategic importance' get large amounts of funds despite poor governance, incredible corruption and other failures.

5. Development workers are lazy and mediocre. They are often under-educated, make lots of money, live in big houses, have conferences in the best hotels and eat gourmet cuisine.

Partly true. Most of the aid workers in my particular aid agency are highly educated- the minimum entry requirement is a master's degree, and many of us have PhDs or the equivalent. Our base salary is not very impressive compared to others of a similar educational background- certainly many of us could make much more outside of the official aid industry. That being said, the fringe benefits are quite lavish- one may even say over the top: I admit that I am a single woman living in a large 3-bedroom manor, I attend conferences at ritzy hotels and dine on great food- in an impoverished third world country, all at government, or should I say tax payer, expense.

So, the aid industry has gone seriously wrong- what can we do about it? Unfortunately, while Hancock goes into great depths about the problems of aid, he gives us very few solutions. He believes we should dismantle the aid industry- but then what? How can we as citizens of our planet help our world become a better place? Some possible solutions suggested themselves to me when reading the book- one wonders why Hancock decided not to write an extra chapter with ideas such as these:

1. Clarify and purify intentions. As Hancock points out, the mixed intentions of the aid industry (help the poor AND aid western businesses AND further political interests AND AND AND...) is responsible for many of the problems it has caused.

2. Partner with local communities. I mean truly partner with them, listen to their concerns and ideas, and let them take the lead in coming up with solutions. Note, unlike Hancock, I do think there is a place, with careful thought, for some `Western' knowledge and technology. The best solutions maybe ones arrived at through our collective wisdom. However, don't just try to impose blanket solutions through means such as 'behavior change.'

3. Keep things small as much as possible. Some big projects such as large-scale famine relief, refugee assistance, etc, maybe necessary, but these large-scale efforts are much more prone to corruption, and much more often bypass local communities.

4. Speak the local language- this is the only way to effectively partner with local communities.

Finally, as others have pointed out, the book was written in 1989, so its quite dated. While much of what it says still holds true, an updated version offering modern examples of aid failure would be much more powerful.

Hancock exposes the seedy underbelly of development/aid as few have dared in the past. Those who live off this industry or have vested interests in spouting an image of Western superiority will rightly feel threatened by a book that unmasks supposed philanthropy and disinterestedness as a shameless money-making and exploitative sham. Hancock is relentless in revealing not only the inefficacy of many major projects, but also the attached strings of big business as well as the morally bankrupt nature of many of its protagonits. In addition, Hancock tellingly explores the mentality and logic behind NGO's as little more than another way of making a buck at the expense of the poor. Where would an industry that depends on poverty for its survival be left if poverty it tackled were to be eradicated? Some who find this study too close to home will claim it is condescending and lacking in solutions (as one reveiwer here does). It is neither. Hancock vents moral indignity in a fitting context and offers alternative approaches which in some cases obviate the necessity for development/aid agencies as we know them altogether ("God forbid!" some will cry). This book deserves to be read by all who sincerely wish to see a change in the way development/aid is carried out and in the appalling poverty it is supposed to alleviate. The career-minded need not apply.

It's too bad that updated editions of "Lords of Poverty" were never published; indeed, even this edition was out of print for several years before this reprint edition. Hancock's writing style here may be a sustained rant, but it nevertheless provides a great deal of useful information and tears down many of the misconceptions most Americans or Europeans may have about the international aid industry. Particularly interesting is his criticism of the various UN agencies and, especially, the World Bank and the IMF - whose projects all too often do more harm than good (if they do any good at all). Perhaps the most disturbing aspect exposed in this book is still quite valid today: that taxpayers in the big donor countries like the U.S., Germany, Japan, the U.K. etc. are footing the bill for many disastrous projects worldwide that make the lives of impoverished populations even worse and often destroy in the environment in the process. "Lords of Poverty" may be dated, but it's still well worth the read.

This book is getting a little dated now, but remains a classic critique of the international aid business. Using colourful anecdotes and solid stats, Graham Hancock convincingly demonstrates how the IMF, World Bank and other international aid/development agencies effectively worsen Third World poverty. What they do is transfer wealth from the poor to the rich in donor and recipient countries alike. In the 1st world, taxes of mainly not-particularly-rich people finance these international organizations, whose administrators often lead lives of incredible luxury. In the 3rd world, money from the organizations helps to sustain corrupt regimes and swell the bank accounts of their leaders, while in many cases the money eventually has to be repaid with interest by taxes which again tend to come mainly from the poor, thereby creating an extra burden for the people it was supposed in theory to help. Meanwhile the projects financed by the money are often wholly irrelevant to the needs of the recipient country, e.g. expressways in countries where only a rich minority own cars, and often the infrastructure is built by companies from the donor country (tied aid) and proceeds to fall to pieces long before the debt incurred has been paid off. This book caused a fair bit of controversy when first published, but was soon forgotten. It's been business as usual for the IMF etc ever since. Meanwhile Graham Hancock got so depressed with uncovering corruption in big aid agencies that he abandoned the field entirely and switched to writing all those speculative books about lost cities of the gods etc. -- yep, it's the very same Graham Hancock in case you're wondering.

This is a thought provoking treatise on the AID industry to countries of the third world.It is a well researched book by an insider.The book was written in 1989 and deals mainly with the multiple errors of ommision and commision comitted by various governmental and non governmental organizations.However now with the recent changes in these organisations such as the United Nations it will be interesting to know if the testimony is still damning or the changes have indeed been effective.Looking through the book you may erroneously conclude that this organisations have only been in charge of a litany of woes in the 60's and 70's.I do not think this is the whole story but is indeed a thoughtfull and well reseached critique of bad planning,arrogance that occured.

Lords of Poverty presents a very coherent argument, backed up by lots of specific experiences *and* data. It is by no means sensationalistic.

People (such as myself) who have grown up overseas, and have moved in expatriate circles have encountered many examples of abuses and stupidity in the name of `development`. It is widely known and acknowledged that this is a serious problem. But Mr. Hancock has gone beyond giving a handful of anecdotes as examples of what is typical: he has investigated the entire infrastructure supporting this corruption and stupidity. He gets to the heart of the problem and exposes it, rather than just showing a few symptoms. I highly recommend this book. It is intelligently written, for the intelligent reader. Yes it may have a tone of anger at times, but it would be heartless not to be angry at the way in which the peoples of less developed nations are abused and used to make `aid` workers rich.

Furthermore, solutions *are* given, at least if you *look* for them. The author points out that smaller independent aid organizations--generally grassroots community or church-based groups--*are* effective. They are not without faults, of course, but nothing of the magnitude that typifies the large government run agencies.

While I have not worked with large government run agencies, I do know of a professor here at U of M who has worked for them, who admitted to a close friend of mine that the claims of this book are true.

Read the book and see for yourself if the argument stand up. And if you still doubt it, do some investigation. What you'll find will amaze you.

This book has the flavour of someone who has stewed over the question of foriegn aid for some time and then suddenly this book has been an outpouring of every bit of frustration ever felt by the author. From looking at his other books it appears that he is a person with a thorough background in the industry.

The book is one of the most daming that I have read. Although short the book marshals its facts and explains every argument with a clarity that is breathtaking.

The arguments are that the organisations which are involved in providing aid are incompetent. There are a number of reasons for the incompetance but all orginsations which deal with aid are incompetant and corrupt.

At the head of the list is the world bank. The world bank is willing to make grants of aid conditional on changes to monetary policy and dismanteling of anti competative market systems but it never wants to make aid conditional on introducing human rights or democracy. As a result changes to make the market more competative almost always damage the poor by for example the removal of food subsidies. The benifits of World Bank loans almost always flow to the middle class or urban dwellers. The Indian Economist Sen has shown that democracies do not have famines. If the world bank was to make democracy the condition of aid packages it would be more likely to reduce famines in these countries. In fact govermental corruption or incompetance is the real reason for the sorts of problems which require aid in the first place.

The world bank is addicted to large capital intensive projects. Most of these turn out to be white elephants and have unsustainable maintence costs. Again the benifits of electification or transport benifits mainly the urban centres.

Those who are responsible for aid projects are overpaid, come from foriegn countries and lack language skills to properly evlaute projects. The result is that huge amounts of aid are used to pay for incompetant staff at aid bodies.

The author says that the proof of the pudding is that those countries which have had huge amounts of aid have simply gotten poorer. Aid projects have generally failed. The world would be a better place without any aid at all.

Whilst this is an extreme position the book is a valuable addition to debate in the area.

Hancock makes important points in this book: many aid projects do more harm than good, many aid officials are overpaid, too much aid money gets funneled to US companies (for more on this, see Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins), and publicly funded aid organizations are insufficiently accountable to the public. But his extreme rhetoric warns us that if there is a good side to aid, it certainly won't be represented here. Here's a sample of his accusations: "These lords of poverty are the druids of the modern era wielding enormous power that is accountable to no one."

On the one hand, Hancock's anecdotal evidence is unconvincing. He tells us that his often-chilling anecdotes are representative, but we have no way of really knowing. That said, he provides so many anecdotes that - by the end - we start to feel like they are, if not representative of all aid, at least insightful into an uncomfortable proportion.

But the litany of anecdotes is also tiring. The writing is not particularly great, and I felt that some of the analysis was flawed. (For example, in two places he argues that Western nations don't give nearly enough in aid, but most of the book argues that everything we give is wasted anyway. It's not clear how giving more would help, given his theses.)

Eventually I tired of simply hearing one aid horror story after another. He also misses the fact that there have been some major successes in aid, particularly in the realm of public health, in which organizations like the World Bank and UNICEF have played a part. (To read about some of these successes, look at Millions Saved by Ruth Levine et al.)

I'm glad I read the book, but I wish Hancock had made it a little less exhausting and a little more balanced. I also wish we'd gotten more solutions in the end. His only solution is to dissolve the aid industry (as it is "inherently bad, bad to the bone, and utterly beyond reform"), after which we have the vague promise that "it will become possible for people to rediscover ways to `help' one another directly."

...and clever remarks criticising this book will not blur the truth that the world aid industry, especially that living off tax payer money, is beyond repair. It has been now 14 years when I read that book. I did it in Nairobi so I did not need any extra evidence to see that UN is a bunch of wealthy people who basically do not care. I remember that UN compound in Nairobi separated from ordinary folk by large fence and guards. It had an inside duty free shop so that people who shuffle papers there and pretend to work can save money while shopping for favourite alcohol. They all drive 4 wheel drives - white color obligatory, live in secured most expensive compunds, use free time for flying-safaris to see Kenya and...write reports on projects that as a result create new projects that need to be discussed at yet another meeting. In Switzerland or New York while seeking new career opportunities away from Africa. At that very time the streets of Nairobi were filled with thousand of street kids - a ticking bomb for Kenyan society. And UN did absolutely nothing to address that problem. And that I saw for one year. Why is it beyond repair? Bacause for the last 14 years nothing has changed for better only for the worse. Somebody wrote here in his/her review "nothing is perfect". Oh no this is so wrong. It is more, it is an excuse to do always mediocre job. And there are things that function perfectly well. No space here to enumarate them. Furthermore aid industry in the form of UN and World Bank lives off tax payers money so they should be accountable and to them this silly rule of nothing is perfect should not apply. What is more I had this strange feeling while talking to some people from the UN that they see themselves somehow better than the rest by mere fact that they think they belong to those fortunate few who actually change the world. How sick is that? Probably emotional review as is for me the whole case of aid inudstry. Read that book. It is a must before you buy another Xmas postcard printed by UNESCO. Maybe it will be better to buy some food or toys for nearby orfanage.

Hancock's aim is to encourage the reader to question the real motivations behind aid to "developing" countries. When we give, who are we really benefitting the most. Through careful and well referenced accounts of some truly amazing failures of the aid industry (and after reading this book you will gain an appreciation of the awesome size of this global conglomerate) Hancock takes us to a point where we are forced to question the very nature of charity and aid and consider its disempowering effect upon its recipients. His main offensive is against the UN and its subsidiary aid organizations who'se facility for spending money on self perpetuation seems less than matched by their ability to do any real good. The World Bank does not escape his attentions and Hancock spares us little in his account of their annual get together which bears more than a passing resemblance to Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. If you want to know how, during the famine of the late 80's, Somalia was given huge supplies of slimming products and frostbite medicine, then read Lords of Poverty.