Insights into refugee resettlement in Germany

Last week, I was in Munich, attending a conference organized by the Institut fur Politisch Bildung, a German think-tank and Virginia Tech (my alma mater). The three day visit was overwhelmingly positive, except for a visit to the Dachau Concentration camp, which left me drained, emotionally.  Regardless, here is a quick synopsis of some of the key points made by Kelly T Clemens, Depy. Director, UNHCR, who was one of the speakers.

  • “Statistics are stories with tears dried off.” Stats do tell a story. Just 8 yrs ago, there were 42 mn forcibly displaced people. Afghan and Iraqi were about half (doesn’t include Palestinians). 75% resided in the neighboring countries of origin. Two years later, in 2012, this went up to 45 mn- by 2014, 60 mn and some of the same populations. We just published mid-year trends in 2017. 67 million now. The trends we have seen are clear and unambiguous. Old conflicts have festered and Somalia and Afghanistan have been major senders. New conflicts have erupted, including Syria, which led to new displacements. 2017 saw Myanmar’s Rohingya leaving. The situation in 2018 is not different.
  • Millions leave and are struggling in the margins. Minara, who I met in Bangladesh; walked for three weeks (1 yr old baby). Had lost her husband. The story of her flight is terrible. She and her husband were chilli farmers. It’ll be challenging for her to restart her life. This is a lesson we have learnt. Apart from physical safety, it impacts their ability to begin to reestablish socio-economically. Refugee crisis in 2015, it is impossible not to refer to Syria.
  • UNHCR, working with over 1000 partners, registerd 1 mn March 2015 and 4 mn by 2015. Today, its over 5.5 mn refugees. By hosting countries, neighbours provided global good (Syria’s neighbors). They granted people to enter local and national job opps. In most cases, they are not partners of 1959 Geneva conventions . We helped with setting up camps only where necessary and provided support shelter, aid and sanitation.
  • We also gave cash registration instead of in kind. Innovative solutions, in addition to traditional. We work with World Bank and other partners, to identify the most in need and embraced digital platforms, web based systems and other platforms.
  • Faith- based groups run by refugee groups are modern day echo of megaphones to refugees. Alongside, there is recognition of challenges to countries.
  • We work with UNDP, regional local UN resilience plan. With World Bank, Poverty and Welfare study.
  • Turkey has spent $8bn. UNHCR advocated funding to host countries. Can we provide concessional financing to Jordan, other countries? Concessional financing facilities. Inspite of generous response, at least to allow partial funding.
  • The appeal we have launched, only 41% support. Cuts in food aid for thousands. Thousands left out of cash funds. Lost access to healthcare. Many adults were forced to beg, etc.
  • In Jordan, new identity docs required too much money to pay. Limited education opps, were also factor. 90K students unable to access education in school. Lack of security for people in their own country was the major cause to leave.
  • ElSalvador and Honduras unspeakable violence. Gang violence and extortions. Flee to Mexico. Cash based support from UNHCR. What was clear from dozens of stories, we heard that they needed protection and aid. Their stories were not separated from socio-eco lives.
  • People resort to different and more dangerous routes. How do we advise asylees to seek help? It was one of the most frustration operations have experienced.
  • The 2015-16 left a profound impact on European systems. We can speak of pre-and post 2016. Populatinos have shown commitment to host refugees. New partners have been formed, down to municipalities, NGOs and govt. A broad commitment has provided a holistic system. A contribution to help refugees, designed to make their lives better.
  • NY Declaration– 129 countries adopted a declaration to protect people from all countries. It helps support people. Through this declaration, states have adopted robust measures to help fleeing people and a call for global solidarity. Intl responsibility sharing. Incorporates strong calling for solutions and need to address root causes and help resolve conflicts through peaceful means. Annex 1 mandated us to have a comprehensive refugee response network.
  • Four aims in 13 countries, to ease pressure on hosts and expand access to third country. Voluntary return in safety and dignity and covers entire cycle.
  • We have central lab in Central America who are driving the cause and strong network of countries in Horn of Africa, who want to take this on and interest from Asia as well. Applied from diverse range of actors and NGO actors. Our work in these countries has led to inclusion of eco. For refugees. Taking a step back, what’s diff now? First, it’s a political statement that we should engage more comprehensively and secondly, this response clarifies that humanitarianKelly.JPG action alone is not enough We need political and development efforts. Addresses root causes and requires us to consider refugees not in isolation but as part of communities.
  • Calls upon us to rely on private sector. Particularly, since 2015, engagement of World Bank and $2bn for refugees has been monumental.
  • Djibouti – new refugee law  – to settlement approach. Ethiopia too, to implement programs A roadmap driven by PM around large-scale employment. Removing encampment policies to have free movement of people.
  • Somali region – 200,000 people in Ethiopia – local community was struggling. Ethiopian govt has kept borders open and this has happened over decades and inspite of difficulties, hosts and refugee countries are working together to grow crops and help themselves. Private sector, through IKEA foundation, to irrigate farm lands etc. they have built schools that include both hosts and refugee kids. Also, renewal energy to save planet. Excellent example.
  • Uganda – coordinating mechanism place. Key role, to help sustainable response. Help other stakeholders in place. In addition to philanthropy, private sector are being tapped.
  • 3 countries accounting for major refugees hosting, other countries in the global North and South need to do more.

Two Americans in Ecuador

While the American political apparatus is busy withdrawing itself from the world, I met two incredible Americans who have not only spent their energies, but also their time trying to make Ecuador a better place.

Just last week I was in Quito, the country’s capital to visit Sun Mountain, an organization founded by Scott Solberg, an alumni of Cal Lutheran University, where I teach. He has been in Ecuador for over 17 years now; managing projects in Ecuador and around the world. The focus of Sun Mountain is sustainable living, broadly defined. They also bring expertise in agriculture, community development and related areas. Jake Hutton, also an alum is one of the other employees at SMTN.

While I spent time in Quito and went around the country, visiting places like Pacto, a little dream of a village; tucked away in the mountains, I also witnessed the kinds of collaborations that can occur between groups that are training locals in environment sustainability and eco-tourism. These groups are largely local ones started by concerned farmers and activists who want a sustainable and equitable model of development for their communities. I attended two such meetings and was impressed by their dedication and focus. And of course, I spoke in Spanish!

A group called Pacto Magico is bringing together local businesses in Pacto to help them grow and promote eco-tourism and best practices. The focus seems to be on improving the living conditions of the locals, help them stay true to their mission, as organizations; while remaining afloat.

It was reassuring to witness two Americans and an American led organization still be involved in Quito, to the extent that Scott and Jake are. While there are hundreds and thousands of such people, with a clear mission of serving the world and doing it with clarity of thought, such examples need to be highlighted. Highlighted not only to bring positive attention to them, but also to inspire others to go out there, explore the world and be a force for good. That is what the US can be and in these times, when Americans seem to be forgetting this side of their legacy; Sun Mountain serves as a reminder of what is possible.

269037d0-c575-45c6-a17a-10e255e7a998
Me with Scott (with the blue cap) and Jake.

f7fb9ab0-588a-46ab-b324-0e05f01d785b

 

Does giving free money work?

One of my students in my Nonprofit Management class pointed out  ‘Give a man a Fish’ by James Ferguson on the (controversial) idea of a universal basic income (UBI). This has been an ongoing debate in the world of development studies. The premise is simple : Give the poor enough money so they don’t have to worry about the basic necessities. This stems from the understanding that the poor need help and with enough food, money for living etc. they will focus on the higher needs of life – following Maslow’s hierarchy.

When I suggested this idea, the class was more or less bought in, except for one (or perhaps two) who thought that this would make people ‘lazy,’ and dependent. While in principle, this may seem possible; studies conducted in Kenya show promise in terms of how giving directly seems to be working. The speakers in the podcast point out that most people know how to spend money to become self-reliant. The field research project being conducted shows that money, given on a regular basis, to a while community ultimately helps them.

They also point out that US Founding fathers thought of this idea, so was the idea around during the French Revolution. With growing industrialization, fewer jobs; there seems to be a realization that such an income is the only way to take care people who don’t have jobs.

Of course, this has opposition from those who don’t believe in distribution of income, for no efforts from people.

From my own experience, of witnessing my (late) mother – a school teacher – help many of her students and nephews and nieces, who were poor; I think this idea works. My mother gave ‘directly’ to many families, for over 25-30 years, often sums of money that helped the families educate their kids, feed them and in many cases, helped them send them to school. The long-term effect of this strategy? I know at least three families that are doing significantly doing better, with the children having been educated at universities, many of them working in stable jobs and the entire family being lifted out of poverty.

Do I believe in UBI? I have reasons to, as I have seen the effects of such a measure. Will this become a policy in the West? That, I am not sure of. However, countries such as India, Kenya could be persuaded in this direction.

America’s philanthropy problem?

170616141515-amazon-whole-foods-jeff-bezos-grocery-brick-and-mortar-00001001-1024x576A debate that is becoming salient, over the past few years is if philanthropic foundations are becoming powerful by the day? A recent article in The Huffington Post points this out. The writer points out, correctly, that Jeff Bezos solicited ideas for his philanthropy, just a few days before the purchase of Whole Foods. PR stunt? Astute move to buy some social capital? Or perhaps a combination of both?

For some, this is a problem – arguing, as does the Huff Post writer, Matt Stoller. But for others, this is nothing but a transactional idea. A means of buying some legitimacy in a world where raising questions such as this is moot. The battle of ideas over the legitimate use of power is over, in this other world-view. The capitalists have won and rightfully decide what needs to happen in our world. Whether it is by monopoly or other means is irrelevant.

A friend recently pointed out Hypernomalization, a documentary that also makes this point. The thesis in this documentary, that giving away of democratic power to those with wealth is dangerous and has brought us to the current state of affairs – with a climate change denying President and a world where the state is increasingly being made irrelevant and the real power resides in the handful of oligarchs around us.

This is not just a political problem but also a social problem. And in that sense, a philanthropic problem as well. For those of us who study (and practice) philanthropy, this should be disconcerting – simply because of the ramifications of how the act of philanthropy is perceived.  Whether it is a genuine act – aimed at bringing about social change or a PR stunt depends as much on one’s motivations and style of managing it. The current tilt towards hi-networth philanthropy makes it less egalitarian and ‘normal,’ it seems.

Can celebrity philanthropy be harmful?

Remember the ads in which Angelina Jolie comes out and shames the world for ignoring the plight of refugees?  Or the Bono concert for helping AIDS victims? While each of them have done incredible good in the world, there is an argument out there; and it is a fairly strong one that goes like this : Since these celebrities are part of a governing regime of capitalism that causes this poverty in the first place; they are not doing anything substantive to address/ ameliorate poverty. They are just putting a bandage over a wound that is bleeding a patient to death.

Here is a scholarly paper by one of my PhD committee members, who helped me think about this aspect when I was a Phd candidate. I was aware of some of the negative influences of celebrity culture. This whole notion of attention seeking has never appealed to me. While attention seeking for a purpose is OK, most celebrities seek attention for  the sake of attention, that has never appealed to me.

Patricia Nickel says in her paper  “modern-day parables of philanthropic celebrities powerfully govern the oppositional impulse as they impart as sense of ‘benevolence’ in the form of an individualized disposition towards well-being and entitlement.” She further argues that this ‘governing regime’ which the celebrities sanitize with their appeals to charity is itself rotten.

In another paper, she, along with another scholar Angela Eikenberry argue that “However, this discourse (of celebrity philanthropy) falsely conveys a community of individuals with access to a venue for shaping social change. Rather than providing an open, discursive space for imagination, philanthropy as it has come to be defined, disguises its own discourse in its portrayal of the mediums of consumption, profit, and media celebration as the basis for benevolent human relations.” So, the issue that is problematic is one of relying on the market to manage relationships of benevolence. The buying of a laptop to eradicate AIDS (Red’s campaign) is problematic, according to Nickel and Eikenberry. This is also problematic given the ‘end of discourse’ that they suggest is going on.

This is also to suggest that while celebrities bring up certain problems, they don’t really talk about the structural problems that caused the crisis we are in, in the first place. This is the real issue with celebrity philanthropy.

While I agree with her assessment that there is an over-reliance of market mechanism for philanthropic activities, we seem to be enveloped in the market, the world over. There seems to be little space, if any for transactions or discourses to occur outside of the market mechanism. How does one impact lives outside of the market mechanism?

There are mechanisms and tools available to reach people and meet their needs. One is to explore traditional systems of charity, for instance religious giving to one’s place of worship or charitable organizations that are faith-affiliated. My dissertation work looked at some of these possibilities.

Indeed there needs to be greater space for personal benevolence and charity to occur, but the manner and speed with which celebrity philanthropy is occurring is not without its flaws.

If not for profit, for what?

nonprofit

I sat next to an older gentleman on my flight from D.C. to Atlanta, GA. While he was quite in the beginning and was absorbed in his newspapers, a quick smile and conversation started him talking. And despite his strong southern accent – he was from Alabama – we managed to discuss a lot of ideas on this short trip.

One of the first things he said when I pointed out that I was working in the nonprofit sector was that it’s all a sham. “It is all about tax write-offs, ultimately, someone has to pay for all that service.” He argued.

While I do meet the occasional Libertarian, who brushes off all feel-good work of nonprofits as just instances of market catallaxy, or the ‘entrepreneur’, who quite genuinely scoffs at the idea of the nonprofit being a sector, the truth is that about 10 percent of Americans are employed in this sector and it is one of the most enduring parts of American work-force and cultural landscape. Nonprofits today are growing and thriving, if anything. There is no denying that this sector is important and worthy of our attention, even if we don’t believe in how it operates or its assumptions.

This conversation brought to mind the famous book by Dennis Young, ‘If not for profit, for what’?  In this book, he has argued for a behavioral theory of studying the nonprofit sector.  In terms of framing the study or discourse of nonprofits, young suggests that the demand side of nonprofits has been studied quite extensively, i.e, how nonprofits provide public goods as studied by Burton Weisbrod and as providers of ‘trust goods’ as offered by Henry Hansmann – where nonprofits ‘asymmetric information led consumers to prefer nonprofits over less trustworthy for-profit providers.’ What this means is that there is a market-gap in most areas, where consumers/ citizens don’t have access to the best information and in the absence of that, for-profits would – given their motivation to make as much money as possible- make use of this gap. On the other hand, a non-profit, which has a service motive is not likely to indulge in this sort of behavior.

Young offers an explanation that the ‘supply’ side of nonprofit behavior has not been extensively analyzed and this can help understand the motivations for why people work in this sector and why it even exists. He uses entrepreneurship as a motivating factor to understand the sector. His framing of the nonprofit sector leadership and motivations as ‘entrepreneurship’ is key to our discussion. Most nonprofit leaders and organizations are trying to solve some social problems for which there is no market solution. Or if there is, it is too expensive or exclusionary.

As Peter Frumkin, writing in this book suggests “The value of his (Young’s) early contribution was and continues to be his focus on the way the values, personal traits, and skill sets of individual entrepreneurs are a useful starting point in understanding where nonprofit ideas and organizations originate.”  By this means that the focus of most scholarship and discourse has been on why market failure has been responsible for the rise of nonprofits, while there hasn’t been much focus on the supply side – meaning why individuals do what they do, in the context of social organizations and institutions. The study of values, motivations and drives is key as well. This also explains the rise of the civil society sector in the U.S., which Alexis De Tocqueville wrote about, in Democracy in America.

Back to the question: if not for profit, then for what? The answer to this lies in both normative and philosophical dimensions. Sometimes profit is not the key motive. It could be service or the desire to make a difference. The motive to serve public and do ‘good’ is inherent in the social sector, of which nonprofits are a part. This also means that we need to take into account other motives, other than pure profit motive, that drives individuals to serve and work in these forms of organizations. The market and government cannot provide all answers to questions before us, hence the need for nonprofits.

Does Bill Gates’s philanthropy make a difference?

I have been reading about the philanthropy of the super-rich or the Hi-Networth individuals ( HNW) as they are called. The media celebrates wealthy people, and their acts. As the saying goes, a wealthy’s man’s joke is always funny and few question the ‘good works’ of the super-wealthy. With the ‘Giving Pledge’ and similar initiatives, the super-wealthy have come together to give their wealth away, to the poor. Noble indeed, but is it all there is to this story?

Not quite, point out some scholars and activists/ thinkers. bill-gates-wide-wallpaper-3790One of the interesting arguments that is out there is that their philanthropy or giving can do good, but also cause harm. How so, you might ask? 

For starters, there are two arguments against HNW doing more ‘good’ for the world.

  1. By picking their own visions of what needs to be done, and setting their own agenda, the HNW individuals may ‘distort’ the priorities of the given location/ country, where they are working
  2. HNW can become a facade for showcasing ‘benevolence’ while ignoring the ground reality in many of these situations and the structural inequality that produced that massive amount of wealth disparities.

Lets look at each criticism, in turn.

Firstly, as this post points out, the fact that the HNW individual/ foundation can set its own priorities, which may, in some cases; go against the policies of the country/ region they are working in, can distort the situation. What if, for instance; the national government wants to implement a certain program, which the administrators there think is far more important than what the ‘experts’ of the foundation think? How do the actions of this foundation reflect? Who is this HNW or foundation accountable to?

Secondly, the involvement of private sector players, that are often driven by bottom-lines and profits in policy making is problematic, as the same article points out. The network can soon become a ‘group-think’ exercise, which may leave out the best solution, and decrease changes that the best solutions will be adopted; in favor of those solutions or ideas that the foundation favors. Redtapism and favoritism can begin to take root, in these contexts.

Finally, the question of priorities comes up. As Bowman points out” Research by Devi Sridhar at Oxford University warns that philanthropic interventions are ‘radically skewing public health programmes towards issues of the greatest concern to wealthy donors’. ‘Issues,’ she writes, ‘which are not necessarily top priority for people in the recipient country.’”   This disparity in power, in putting the priorities on the table is a worrying trend, indeed.

At the same time, there is no denying that several thousands, if not millions of lives have been saved by the Malaria and other vaccines that these foundations have given out.

So, how does one evaluate the work of HNW philanthropists/ Foundations?

There are no easy answers, as in life. The question itself is a political one and the answer one offers depends on one’s  worldview.

The alternative, as many; including the President of Ford Foundation has pointed out – and even Bill Gates acknowledges, is to make sure that the structural issues, that cause poverty are tackled. There is a need to ensure that everyone is able to access healthcare, good quality education and other amenities that make for a complete and ‘free’ life. But this is easier said than done, especially in a system that is skewed towards the rich and well-connected, even in a ‘developed world.’

As long as there is sensitivity to local needs and inputs from the governments/ agencies that are in the regions, then the foundations can actually do a lot of good, ensuring that the local infrastructure is built up and people don’t perpetually depend on the largesse of the rich and famous.

If this is not kept in mind, then such philanthropy can become an exercise in publicity and in an effort to further establish the ‘greater glory of rich.’