“We need to always ask the question: ‘Why not cash?’”
(European Union, 2015)
It is a solution to provide cheaper development cooperation.
It is a solution for measuring real impact of development cooperation.
It is a solution for more equal relations between donors and receivers.
To start with the first:
1) It is a solution to provide cheaper development cooperation.
An example from Maite Vermeulen in the article: ‘This simple idea can turn 99% of development aid upside down’:
In Rwanda one cow for one family costs €3,000, when it’s through the ngo Heifer International. €300 is for the cow, and €2,700 is for ngo-workers who select families, provide the transport of the cow, provide trainings to the family and do a control visit.
If it was a cash program, the family could have bought 10 cows! Or even better, they would have had a free choice where to spend the money on.
It shows that most women and men in cash-programmes spend their money wisely, investing in small-scale agriculture, a business or in education for the children. Which results in healthier and more food, more income and more children in school.
(NB: First researches show that on long-term these great effects diminish or even disappear).
2) It is a solution for measuring impact of development cooperation.
So, from now on, ngos should measure their impact by comparing it with the impact if they just had given cash.
For example, compare a family that has been given a cow and a training with a family that received €3,000. “The difference we find, is the impact of development aid.”
“In many cases, giving cash has more impact than an entire development program,” says Maite Vermeulen. However, “these type of experiments are rare. It demands for ngos that assess their programmes very critically. And most ngos don’t.”
Moreover, if giving cash turns out to be more effective, ngo-workers must be willing to find a job elsewhere.
3) It is a solution for more equal relations between donors and receivers.
What about human rights’ programmes, projects on gender equality or lobbying for a better business environment? Or any project that goes beyond the individual level: such as clean water, responsible politicians, equal power relations? Can we solve those issues with just giving cash?
The wonderful thing about giving cash instead of development programmes is that it provides people with a free choice to buy what they need, and not give them what the ngo thinks they need.
And could it be true too, that people who have more income will have more room to collectively claim their rights at their own institutions? Would they need ngo-workers from elsewhere to do so?
And in the event that people still want these trainings on gender equality, good governance or post-harvest losses — they can (collectively) use their money to pay for these trainings.
Although, I am not sure yet it may work, it certainly would mean more equal relations between ‘donors’ and ‘receivers’. It will be the ‘receivers’ in the driver’s seat, finally.
Read all (in Dutch): Dit simple idee kan 99 procent van de ontwikkelingshulp opz’n kop zetten
