“Oh man! Look at those cavemen go!”
I’m reasonably certain the Ramble isn’t the only person whose productivity has nosedived during the World Cup. Frank Lampard, for one, has clearly been absent from work in the last couple of weeks.
Of course, passion hasn’t been in short supply. The brawl between the Netherlands and Portugal demonstrated as much. The Ramble hasn’t seen so much brutality and cravenness since the last Management Meeting.
* * *
A combination of incipient football (Ukraine v. Switzerland – that semi-final might still happen!) and a post-budget lull in Government conspire to deliver a shorter Ramble than usual. Not much has been happening at work; a few odds and ends being tied up on the budget, waiting for comments on the strategy I’ve been working on, and the odd meeting.
Governments around the world work like this. We tend to structure the year around big events, and fill the lulls by writing strategies, policies or ‘think pieces’. I love think pieces. At least half of them denote nothing more significant than the author having a couple of days with too little to do.
* * *
One interesting conversation I had this week, though, was with a friend who works on the other side of the aid relationship. He was explaining to me quite how much politics invades the work they do. Now, having been a civil servant in two countries, I know how much of the supposedly technical work that we technocrats do boils down to pleasing a Minister’s desire for votes. But this time, I was hearing how a Minister in some far away land finds it easier to sell spending on distributing drugs to the poor than to sell economic growth and income enhancement. This isn’t news to me, as I’ve been shouting long and loud about this fundamental flaw in the development system for some time now, but it did get me thinking.
There’s a problem, that’s reasonably clear; but how do we fix it? The basic problem is that the politician’s need for votes compromises their role as the head of a development agency: rather than doing what’s best for the poor in the developing world, they need to do what’s best for themselves, pandering to their electorate. In normal circumstances, the electorate are voting on policies that have a direct effect on themselves, so they broadly reap what they sow, and can act to rectify mistakes. In this situation, however, that doesn’t happen. What they vote for affects people in another country, not themselves.
Two kinds of solution immediately suggest themselves to me. Firstly, removing the political element of the development agency; some countries have done this by contracting out the provision of development aid. This could potentially create its own conflicts of interest, but these haven’t been very obvious to me when working with these agencies. Another approach to this is to make development agencies multi-lateral, like the World Bank. This dilutes the influence of individual politicians, making each relatively freer to pursue what’s right, rather than what’s popular.
The other kind of solution is the one I would favour. Educate the electorate. Politics is not a one-way relationship, and the politician has the power to influence the way their electorate thinks. People are tired of being patronised by their representatives, and I think a parliamentarian who was honest enough to say that he put greater stock in increasing incomes than short-term poverty alleviation would be well received. I might be naïve, but I think there is a genuine desire to learn more about what’s happening around the world, and Live 8 isn’t going to satisfy that, with it’s platitudes, slogans and easy answers. It was amazing how so many people had their eyes opened to the problems in the developing world by that event, but a chance was missed, with the lack of real engagement by politicians and the media with an interested and primed public.
* * *
That seems like a good place to stop. Which is another way of saying that kick-off is in twenty minutes.
Of course, passion hasn’t been in short supply. The brawl between the Netherlands and Portugal demonstrated as much. The Ramble hasn’t seen so much brutality and cravenness since the last Management Meeting.
* * *
A combination of incipient football (Ukraine v. Switzerland – that semi-final might still happen!) and a post-budget lull in Government conspire to deliver a shorter Ramble than usual. Not much has been happening at work; a few odds and ends being tied up on the budget, waiting for comments on the strategy I’ve been working on, and the odd meeting.
Governments around the world work like this. We tend to structure the year around big events, and fill the lulls by writing strategies, policies or ‘think pieces’. I love think pieces. At least half of them denote nothing more significant than the author having a couple of days with too little to do.
* * *
One interesting conversation I had this week, though, was with a friend who works on the other side of the aid relationship. He was explaining to me quite how much politics invades the work they do. Now, having been a civil servant in two countries, I know how much of the supposedly technical work that we technocrats do boils down to pleasing a Minister’s desire for votes. But this time, I was hearing how a Minister in some far away land finds it easier to sell spending on distributing drugs to the poor than to sell economic growth and income enhancement. This isn’t news to me, as I’ve been shouting long and loud about this fundamental flaw in the development system for some time now, but it did get me thinking.
There’s a problem, that’s reasonably clear; but how do we fix it? The basic problem is that the politician’s need for votes compromises their role as the head of a development agency: rather than doing what’s best for the poor in the developing world, they need to do what’s best for themselves, pandering to their electorate. In normal circumstances, the electorate are voting on policies that have a direct effect on themselves, so they broadly reap what they sow, and can act to rectify mistakes. In this situation, however, that doesn’t happen. What they vote for affects people in another country, not themselves.
Two kinds of solution immediately suggest themselves to me. Firstly, removing the political element of the development agency; some countries have done this by contracting out the provision of development aid. This could potentially create its own conflicts of interest, but these haven’t been very obvious to me when working with these agencies. Another approach to this is to make development agencies multi-lateral, like the World Bank. This dilutes the influence of individual politicians, making each relatively freer to pursue what’s right, rather than what’s popular.
The other kind of solution is the one I would favour. Educate the electorate. Politics is not a one-way relationship, and the politician has the power to influence the way their electorate thinks. People are tired of being patronised by their representatives, and I think a parliamentarian who was honest enough to say that he put greater stock in increasing incomes than short-term poverty alleviation would be well received. I might be naïve, but I think there is a genuine desire to learn more about what’s happening around the world, and Live 8 isn’t going to satisfy that, with it’s platitudes, slogans and easy answers. It was amazing how so many people had their eyes opened to the problems in the developing world by that event, but a chance was missed, with the lack of real engagement by politicians and the media with an interested and primed public.
* * *
That seems like a good place to stop. Which is another way of saying that kick-off is in twenty minutes.
posted by the Maradona of Malawi at 8:45 PM
