Friday Notes, December 1, 2023
Dear Friends —
If you work in or around the field of global development, you are thinking about “localization.”
You might be thinking about localization because of the money. Commitments are being made by large funders to “localize,” with corresponding targets for the share of the global development pie dedicated in grants and contracts to partner organizations in low- and middle-income countries. If you think you’re going to be on the receiving end, this may feel like welcome news and a chance to get out from under the pressures of being a “local partner” to international non-governmental organizations; if you’ve benefited from decades of funding as one of those INGOs, this may feel like a threat.
You might be thinking about localization because of values. It’s past time for a break with the paradigm of folks from Washington, London, or Oslo designing and executing programs to solve problems in the South, or doing research for publication in English-only journals to obtain tenure in elite universities. Decolonization requires that power be closer to the people affected by decisions, and one step toward that is supporting the ownership of policy agendas and programs by citizens and their governments.
You might be thinking about localization because you are an impact-first person, and you’ve seen that programs designed and implemented by outsiders are more likely to fail or fade away after a few years than are programs developed with deep contextual knowledge and commitment.
When I think about localization, I think about all of the above — and about the deeper and more nuanced conversation that we need to have to arrive at values-based and impact-driven allocation of resources.
Here are topics we should be talking about:
What’s the right balance of generalizable knowledge vs specific, contextual knowledge, how does that vary by type of problem, and who holds generalizable knowledge?What elements of systems change are achievable at what levels — local, national, regional, global — and how can the right people get a seat at the right tables?How can accountability between outsiders and insiders be structured in a way that supports dignity and sustained progress, rather than conflicts with it?
Some of the localization discourse goes like this: “People ‘on the ground’ are the only ones who know how to solve the problems they face.” Yes, people for whom the system is failing have the most valuable perspective on the nature many problems — they certainly are in the best position to articulate their experiences and priorities. But solutions are not entirely context-specific. The faster progress we all want depends in part on knowledge about fundamental aspects of behavior and biology combined with information about what interventions have succeeded or failed.
For too long, the development enterprise depended on the notion that we can figure out “what works” in some generic way, and apply it from place to place. Along with that, we have over-weighted the value of advice from experts who move around from country to country with little knowledge of history or culture. But we’ve also seen the value of approaches like Teaching at the Right Level — developed in one country, adapted for others — and of public health strategies like the strengthening of routine immunization that was developed by the Pan American Health Organization.
As we increasingly recognize the importance of contextual knowledge, we also have to create opportunities to inspire and inform with ideas from outside. And the best ideas from outside may come from researchers and others in organizations that are categorized as “local” but should have global prominence and reach.
Which brings me to the question of what solutions and what people sit at the local, regional, and global levels. If you think about any social, economic, or environmental problem, there are symptoms and solutions that connect the most proximate to the most distant level. Climate change is the obvious one here, but absolutely every other consequential problem you can think of has the same basic structure: both harmful and beneficial actions taken far away, by men in suits in capital cities, influence the lives and livelihoods of ordinary people. The scope for problem-solving within one community, or even one nation, is necessarily limited. That means work has to be done beyond the community and national level. We need the people working within and advocating to influence the “global community,” including UN agencies, decision makers in bilateral and multilateral funding agencies, and multinational corporations.
Who should those people be? Probably a lot of different people, but certainly those who have deep connections and demonstrated leadership in low- and middle-income countries. If we look at localization through a “talent lens,” as Bidjan Nashat advises in an excellent article in Devex (sorry for the paywall), we should make sure that talented individuals in “local” organizations have all the opportunities possible for career progression within and outside of their home countries. Rather than creating a distinction between local and global, we should fulfill aspirations for talent to be nurtured for all levels and types of contributions. That definitely includes creating the spaces for people who excel within their own countries to move and serve elsewhere if that is their aim. This means that there have to be organizations that both work in multiple countries, and engage at the global level — also known as INGOs.
And then there is the challenge of getting the accountability relationships right — or at least not screwing them up. While well-intentioned, the commitments by large funders to increase the slice of the pie to “local” organizations does carry risks to those organizations. Do the recipients understand the kind of financial management and monitoring burden they are taking on? Do they realize that, with a direct relationship to, say, USAID, they are also now in a relationship with the U.S. Congress? How will they protect themselves from having these relationships distort the values they hold to be responsive and accountable to communities they represent and serve?
It is possible to have a funding arrangement that mitigates these threats, but getting there takes a big re-think about risk and a willingness on the part of funders to loosen controls. In this, the stakes are high. If localization is accompanied by heavy-handed accountability to outsiders, then it’s just about money — and not about values or impact. If instead localization creates the conditions for flexibility and responsiveness to national and community-level agendas — reflecting good values and creating a pathway to greater, sustained impact — funders have to reorient their own constituencies about what success is. If they don’t, it’s going to be tough to maintain the pie itself.
In case you think I’m trying to make the case to slow the localization train, I am not. I am, however, worried that it may not be on the right track because we’re not fully thinking through the capabilities we need for faster progress. And instead of focusing on precisely how we divide the pie, we should think about how the pieces fit together.
If you have stuck with me this long, thank you. You are hereby released from imprisonment in the swirl of angst that fills my brain when I hear the word “localization.”
A few resources worth the time to look at them:
Ahead of the Curve: Insights for the International NGO of the Future
TIME: Transforming INGO Models for Equity
Southern Voice - an example of a collective effort by multiple “local” think tanks to share knowledge across countries and influence global debates
Sangeeta Ben walks her daily route working as a waste picker in an Ahmedabad slum. She provides an essential door-to-door collection service for 240 households and a hospital in the neighbourhood, helping to keep the area clean. Mahila Housing Trust (MHT), an NGO that improves the housing conditions of poor, informally employed women, helped organize the collection service so that Sangeeta now earns a regular income of 5,000-7,000 rupees per month.
One of the coolest things I’ve ever been part of is the Images of Empowerment photography project.
The project started many years ago, inspired by a 2014 initiative of Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In organization. Sandberg had observed, “When we see images of women and girls and men, they often fall into the stereotypes that we’re trying to overcome, and you can’t be what you can’t see.” Seeking to get away from the photos of “a working women” in a pencil skirt and heels, dividing her attention between a baby and a laptop, Lean In worked with the Getty Images, a leading source of photography for print media. Through that partnership, Getty created real-world images of women in the U.S., and particularly working women in professional settings.
When my colleagues at the Hewlett Foundation saw this, they also saw the potential to create an alternative to pity-inducing images that often fill the websites and reports of global development organizations. They wanted to show women and young people in decision-making roles, serving as leaders, entrepreneurs, and role models. Soon enough, a partnership with Getty was born, and in 2015 a set of beautiful, joyful images were made available at no cost to nonprofit uses, fully released and with complete captions. The Packard Foundation has taken the work much further, building a rich and diverse resource across many countries. The latest collection launched today here; you can find gorgeous photos of women working, living, and laughing in India, made by Getty photographer Mansi Midha. The full set includes images from Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Peru, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and the United States. Enjoy them and use them!
I’m a loyal fan of the Great British Bake-Off and am counting the hours until the final, on Netflix tonight. I’m such a fan, in fact, that I regularly take on-line baking classes with the contestants who have created a fun side hustle at Bake with a Legend. (Highly recommended.)
In case you’re also a fan, you’ll enjoy “The Average Contestant on British Baking Shows vs. the Average Contestant on American Cooking Shows” and the mouthwatering “British Food: 20 Best Dishes.” Yum!
Have a good weekend,
-Ruth