Global Development: Views from the Center

Talking about faith and evidence, I wouldn't have too much faith in the evidence provided for the statement that one third of the World's AIDS patients are treated under the auspices of the Catholic Church. It is big and important in this area, I am sure, but according to this source (the Vatican Information Service quoting Cardinal Hummes): "12 percent of care providers for HIV/AIDS patients are agencies of the Catholic Church and 13 percent of the global relief for those affected by the epidemic comes from Catholic non-governmental organisations. The Holy See, thanks to its institutions worldwide, provides 25 percent of the total care given to HIV/AIDS victims..."

Even this rather gratuitous case of double-counting doesn't reach 33 percent...

I agree with our author that a discussion concerning the role of religion in development policy would be valuable. That religiously oriented groups are delivering greater proportions of U.S.-funded assistance is, in and of itself, reason for study. Just as important, experience on the ground suggests that religion is increasingly unavoidable – even for the fiercest of secular humanists.

But we must be sure to ask the right questions. Has U.S. funding for FBOs increased because they are sometimes more effective than their secular brethren? Or have spending requirements, such as those embedded in PEPFAR putting focus on issues like abstinence and prostitution (http://www.avert.org/pepfar.htm), somehow forced the change in allocation? The former suggests a healthy “pull factor,” while the latter smacks of a “pushed” agenda at the expense of efficient outcomes. My own experience on the ground in East Africa suggests the answer is “Yes” to both questions, but there is too little hard evidence (at least that I am aware of) on which to build a middle ground in the broader development community.

Maybe such a balance is impossible. I won’t pretend to know. But ultimately, smart policy requires 1) solid evidence on the relative value of competing alternatives and 2) an understanding of how to effectively leverage committed partners with shared interests. In the context of religion, I fear we have collected too little information on both counts. Maybe we should start.

Excellent idea to delve into this important topic! Perhaps one of the reasons Western development policymakers often get queasy talking about religion is because our definitions are too narrow and we haven't examined our own assumptions. For example, if we understand "religion" as what we consider meaningful and dear then we all have values that underlie what we do and no one is truly "secular." So it's not a matter of faith "impacting US policy" but of US policy being formed out of what we value. Even more important and from my Southern African experience, other cultures bring their values and religions to the development situation with much last angst than we do. So what happens when we overlook that aspect of the relationship?

Further, if religion is too anti-intellectual for serious consideration, maybe it's time to rethink our assumptions about "hard realities." Isn't economics, at heart, based on theory? In the present American political scene at least, whose reality are we talking about? The Religious Right's? The "Secular" Left? Progressives and Moderates? And what about the realities and experiences of those that development and foreign aid are supposed to serve?

Absolutely the development community should not turn away from talking about the role of FBOs. AND, the development community should include in that conversation seious internal scrutiny of our own assumptions, agendas, and values.

The issues of efficiency of delivery mechanisms and lasting impact of actions will always be relevant and critical to any discussion around the US government’s assistance to poor communities around the world. However, for this particular debate around “US government aid through FBOs,” the issues of value and faith itself should be central. The extent to which FBOs proselytize or preach their faith before, during, and/or after aid is delivered to the poor is essential here, especially for aid coming from a country that stand by a separation of church and state…” at least in theory.

This is indeed an interesting an important question. In my view it merits to be faned out (just to make things easier ...):
- up-stream from the FBOs: what role does religion/faith play in the motivational structure of those people donating money or resources or money to FBOs or supporting political candidates that do defend certain development policy options? What do they expect from this donation? It is, just to mention one exemple, a difference if you donate in order to "just" alleviate immediate suffering or if you donate expecting efficient allocation calculated in lifes saved, GDP/Person increased, ...
- Downstream from "northern" FBOs: Under what circumstances can religious partner organization on the ground be more effective than secular counterparts? When shall also secular development actors engage with "southern" FBOs?
- Last, but by no means least: What role do certain formes of religiosity, certain beliefs and traditions play in the development of a society, its culture, politics and economics? While working in Ethiopia, I came to the conclusion that a cautious, endogenous reform of its highly regarded traditional religion would be the most important single element necessary for a healthy, socially, politically and culturally sustainable development. Rather traditional and respected outside FBOs - in particular the Catholic Church - seemed to me to be the most usefull, trusted and respectfull partner to assist - if needed - such a reform.

Interesting issues raised about faith, development and evidence. I think the issue has been that the FBOs has built a strong credibility standard based on core values of Integrity,honesty,accountability,excelelnce among others. Many of the activities of FBOs have sincere evidence and the people funding such agencies are fully convinced of the outcomes. Let me just give you an example of the Global Fund for Hiv/Aids, malaria and tuberclosis. Because it was given to state institution control, you can find one vehicle consuming petrol and diesel on a round trip,or some one mentioning before the probe a car number for a caterpillar[using a caterpillar to monitor Global fund activities 300kms away? this is ridiculous]. The FBOs have set standards and procedures whose consequencies result in automatic termination of contract if not observed. This is the reason why the FBOs have strong evidence on ground despite briefcase FBOs that are now mushrooming acroos developing countries, of which the development partners must be very careful of.

This is an important issue and one worthy of continued discussion. We address this in our blog posting http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/politicshiv/2005/12/02/why-has-the-bush-administration-mobilized-on-hivaids/

Faith groups may or may not be more efficient and effective in delivery of health services. They are surely operating in places where few groups are inclined to go. I realize they have their own agenda. Some may believe they are merely looking for secondary government streams of income. I would think this is a secondary source of motivation for most of these groups who genuinely care about both the physical and transcendent salvation of the groups they seek to serve.

However, even if I didn't like what some of these groups are doing, particularly if I thought the abstinence-based agenda was problematic, I would have pragmatic reasons to support them. Because these groups have powerful benefactors in Congress and broader PEPFAR funding was contingent upon conservative Congressional suppport (until the recent elections), I think even a secular liberal could support FBO's getting some of the money from PEPFAR and even the Global Fund.

The new Democratic Congress may be less worried about supporting this agenda now, but their grip on power may not last beyond the two years. The real question is will U.S. funding for chronic care continue over the long term so that FBO's and other will be able to keep the now hundreds of thousands on ARV therapy alive?