Top Down vs Bottom Up
posted on July 7, 2010
Easterly goes into detail about how many millions have been invested by African nations, coupled with more millions in foreign aid, and the result is often zero at the ground level where the aid is needed. Why is that?
“Planners” often have a Utopian plan that they are going to force on to the country that has the need, often overlooking cultural and political barriers to that plan. “Planners” have lack of accountability that is equal to lack of positive outcome. The typical reaction when plans do not work? Throw more money at the problem rather than stop the project when it does not work.
“Searchers” work from the grassroots, working with existing organizations that are involved with the community, looking for specific problems that can be solved easily, with little investment, to break the cycle of poverty. For instance, if a road or a bridge is needed so goods can be brought to market, build that road or bridge. When the solutions are sustainable, the aid organization is held accountable for the outcome of the project, it takes less aid money to change the life of many.
When an aid organization conceives a “plan” to effect a change on a community without consulting the people the aid is intended, instituting solutions that are not sustainable, are not held accountable when the plan fails, the results are often dismal. Even the UN admits to these failures in the reports on the Millennium Development Goals.
“"It is clear that improvements in the lives of the poor have been unacceptably slow, and some hard-won gains are being eroded by the climate, food and economic crises," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says in the foreword to the Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, issued on 23 June.”
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20r15%20-low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf
The organizations that One Percent Global features are the “bottom up” charities that are accountable for the donated funds, that use sustainable solutions utilizing local labor and existing community organizations, that aim to turn the project over to the local community when they can maintain the solution for themselves.
This focus was inspired in part by “The White Man’s Burden” because it is obvious to many that the “Top Down” approach which throws massive amounts of money at the problem of global poverty, without accountability, without transparency, and without consulting the people the aid is intended, has obviously failed, time and time again.
Combating global poverty is not immune to the current recession. Therefore, it is even more imperative that donated funds are spent effectively. The organizations must be accountable and transparent as to where the funds are allocated. Wasteful projects that do not serve the function that they were intended cannot continue. It is only logical and practical that the “bottom up” approach of the “Searchers” is the more effective method of breaking the cycle of poverty. To learn more please read “The White Man’s Burden”.
Easterly, William. The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Penguin Press HC, The, 2006; ISBN 1594200378
For more information please watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_H0g30YwQ8
NYU professor William Easterly visits Google's Mountain View, CA, headquarters to discuss his book, "The White Man's Burden." This event took on April 6, 2006, as part of the Authors@Google series. (56:43)
“The White Man’s Burden” written by William Easterly, has influenced the focus of One Percent Global. Easterly separates anti-poverty aid organizations into “Planners” and “Searchers”. He contends “plans” that come down from the “top” often do not do as much good compared to “searches” for solutions that start from the “bottom”. “Planners” often waste millions of dollars with unrealistic, albeit lofty, goals, and reap little benefit. “Searchers” look for organizations that have solutions to specific problems as identified by the locals, that are accountable and sustainable, and are more cost effective.
Easterly goes into detail about how many millions have been invested by African nations, coupled with more millions in foreign aid, and the result is often zero at the ground level where the aid is needed. Why is that?
“Planners” often have a Utopian plan that they are going to force on to the country that has the need, often overlooking cultural and political barriers to that plan. “Planners” have lack of accountability that is equal to lack of positive outcome. The typical reaction when plans do not work? Throw more money at the problem rather than stop the project when it does not work.
“Searchers” work from the grassroots, working with existing organizations that are involved with the community, looking for specific problems that can be solved easily, with little investment, to break the cycle of poverty. For instance, if a road or a bridge is needed so goods can be brought to market, build that road or bridge. When the solutions are sustainable, the aid organization is held accountable for the outcome of the project, it takes less aid money to change the life of many.
When an aid organization conceives a “plan” to effect a change on a community without consulting the people the aid is intended, instituting solutions that are not sustainable, are not held accountable when the plan fails, the results are often dismal. Even the UN admits to these failures in the reports on the Millennium Development Goals.
“"It is clear that improvements in the lives of the poor have been unacceptably slow, and some hard-won gains are being eroded by the climate, food and economic crises," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says in the foreword to the Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, issued on 23 June.”
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20r15%20-low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf
The organizations that One Percent Global features are the “bottom up” charities that are accountable for the donated funds, that use sustainable solutions utilizing local labor and existing community organizations, that aim to turn the project over to the local community when they can maintain the solution for themselves.
This focus was inspired in part by “The White Man’s Burden” because it is obvious to many that the “Top Down” approach which throws massive amounts of money at the problem of global poverty, without accountability, without transparency, and without consulting the people the aid is intended, has obviously failed, time and time again.
Combating global poverty is not immune to the current recession. Therefore, it is even more imperative that donated funds are spent effectively. The organizations must be accountable and transparent as to where the funds are allocated. Wasteful projects that do not serve the function that they were intended cannot continue. It is only logical and practical that the “bottom up” approach of the “Searchers” is the more effective method of breaking the cycle of poverty. To learn more please read “The White Man’s Burden”.
Easterly, William. The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Penguin Press HC, The, 2006; ISBN 1594200378
For more information please watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_H0g30YwQ8
NYU professor William Easterly visits Google's Mountain View, CA, headquarters to discuss his book, "The White Man's Burden." This event took on April 6, 2006, as part of the Authors@Google series. (56:43)
Ready to become a member?
Yes, I'm ready to learn more about what 1% of the world's wealth can do to end poverty!