I recently came across an interesting article at Reuters Alert Net; it describes some challenges facing foreign aid agencies and/or aid workers, i.e. those “delivering” aid in a country other than their own. The article outlines a particular journal article, which was focused on a handful of countries it considers a group, but most of it could logically apply in a variety of contexts.

You can read the article for the details, but the gist of it is that international aid agencies often have “image” issues in that locals sometimes aren’t fully convinced that their motives are in fact independent and only connected to delivering aid.

I don’t think that the point of this article is to criticize international agencies, but rather to identify where this doubt on the part of locals originates. While I’m sure that the vast majority of independent humanitarian aid agencies are exactly that and not spies or missionaries or undercover soldiers – I don’t think it’s fair to say locals are totally off base to question their motives, and even if they are (off base), the uncertainty is there, and it affects the work.

Certainly locals or intended recipients suffer if they end up avoiding available aid out of fear, but the projects suffer as well if the agencies can’t carry them out – money, time and energy could have been put to better, more effective use.

But it’s still better than nothing, isn’t it?

Perhaps not – or perhaps “nothing” isn’t the only alternative. Local organizations may be able to carry out the projects – or similar ones – more effectively, especially if the funds used for expat aid staff were made available to them instead. The author ends with a suggestion along the same lines: aid agencies would do well to utilize local experts and partners.