The Destructive Lie of Compassion

Last week, my host and partner on the Bwera project travelled to Kigali to look for additional sources of revenue for the school. He hoped we could find financial support through a partnership with Compassion International. For those of you who are unfamiliar, Compassion International, according to their website, is “a Christian child advocacy ministry that releases children from spiritual, economic, social, and physical poverty.” You’ve probably seen their infamous “sponsor a child” campaign. On paper, this sounds like a fairly decent organization. Religious caveats in development and charity are always less than ideal – Muslim kids can be poor too – but if I were overly concerned with those, I wouldn’t be in the position that I am. In practice, the reality is that, at least in Rwanda, Compassion International is a false promise of development and education. And in many cases that I have observed, it offers a dangerous distraction from more effective means of self-driven development.

When my host met with Compassion International at their national office, he was shocked to find out that, while they’d love to partner with us, they wouldn’t be able to assist us financially. In fact, to partner with them, we’d have to assist them financially. Before compassion would sponsor with us, we had to finish the construction of our school, provide them with access to the building, and also provide full time office space for their workers. Only then would Compassion partner with us and provide their services to the children in Bwera.

What makes Compassion International so special that they should feel comfortable asking so much of us? Well, according to another volunteer I met, who also works in Rwanda’s Eastern Province: nothing. The Compassion office in his town provides bible study and religious education on Saturdays as well as a “nutritious” meal, which turns out to be no more than a cup of corn porridge. In a country where $1 USD can buy a kilogram of meat, the money being used to sponsor children provides, a cup of corn porridge, which can be made for less than a dime. The promise of a Christian education is equally as useless, as Rwandans are generally incredibly religious, and, in my opinion, Compassion merely reinforces the regressive brand of fundamental Christianity that has taken root here.

Without any context, Compassion seems more useless than destructive. However, the way it is perceived by many Rwandans is where the danger can be found. Compassion International is a brand. Those unfamiliar with them – and many who are familiar – see Compassion as beneficial to development and education. My host has given training on grassroots development to other pastors in the area, and in each of these presentations, he told them to prioritize the construction of a church, because if their church was nice enough, Compassion would come and build them a school. This idea and understanding of Compassion’s works isn’t isolated to one man. It is a widespread belief based on a lie and clever marketing.

Furthermore, in America, organizations like Compassion attract funding that could go to much better organizations. I know that my family sponsored a child through Compassion several years ago. The problem is that religious groups in the Western world can be a huge source of funding for charitable and development organizations. If money that could be going to a micro-grant organization instead of Compassion, perhaps it could go to good use. So if you are considering donating to Compassion, I’d urge you not to. Do a little more research and find an organization with a bit more of an impact. Because Compassion will not only waste your money, but they will also contribute to a pervasive lie that – despite their mission statement – is detrimental to child education and development. 

Religious Themes within the Bwera Model

One of the main tenants of PICO Rwanda, the community organization that is in charge of facilitating grassroots Rwandan development projects (including the school at Bwera), is the engagement of local religious authorities. While this may seem like it limits the functionability of the organization, in reality, the majority of Rwandans, particularly those in less developed regions, are very religious. Two Sundays ago during a church service at Bwera, I was given the pleasure of seeing how religious images and themes fit into and ultimately enhance the mission and methodology of the Bwera Model. 

During an arduous, five hour-long church service followed by a three hour-long meeting, I sat in one of the half-finished rooms of the school, underneath a series of tarps that composed our chapel. I swatted away hordes of houseflies as I struggled to follow along with the Kinyarwanda liturgy. Luckily, Sylius, a prominent member of the Bwera congregation, was able to help translate most of the service for me. At the time, I was unaware of how important this church service was to the methodology of the Bwera Model.  However, I have since come to realize the role that religious themes and imagery play in the efficacy of this model of development.

While the singing and dancing of the choir was undoubtedly the most entertaining part of the service, the sermon was the most informative and revealing. The Gospel came from Mark 12:41-44, which is the Parable of the Widow’s Penny. In this short reading, Jesus tells his disciples how a women who gave just 2 pennies gave more than anyone else, because those were all she had to sustain herself. Using this verse as a starting point, Pastor George, who is facilitating the Bwera School Project, preached about how imperative it is that Christians give money to the church and, in this case, the school project. He cited even more scripture, including the story of Ananias and Sapphira,[1] a married couple who withheld some money that they were supposed to have pledged to the church. When confronted in the temple, they died immediately. Through the use of these passages, and a few more that elude my memory, Pastor George sent a clear message to his congregation: although the sum is great, you must give money to this project.

The ethical issues presented by this approach are worth considering, however, it is worth noting that Pastor George is no televangelist whose service more closely resembles a special offer on QVC. The money he’s requesting is going entirely to the project, not into his pockets (I hope to be able to speak on the accountability methods further, but not in this post). And ultimately, this school will benefit the community, as students currently have to travel large distances to attend school. Considering that these are primary school students and therefore incredibly young, adding a school will vastly improve their access to education, which according to Duflo and Bannerjee, is one of the two most important factors to improving social status and human security.[2] Interestingly enough, the other factor is childhood health, which could be improved when the people of Bwera begin to construct a health center, their next project after the completion of the school.

And while religious themes were clearly evident in the sermon, it is also worth noting that this school is an interfaith project, and that Pastor George is the regional president for interfaith groups. Religion is an important aspect of life in Rwanda, and religious authorities wield a good deal of power. Using these power structures and local authorities to promote development and societal progress is not only morally acceptable, it’s effective and functionally brilliant.

---

[1] Acts 5:1-11

[2] Duflo and Bannerjee. Poor Economics. Public Affairs, New York: 2011.

The Bwera Model and the Problem of Funding

Earlier this week, there was a worker strike at Bwera. The funds that had been raised by the community were running dry. Unfortunately the pledges, which are around $150 USD, are rather costly for the community members at Bwera (Rwanda's GDP per capita is around $632 USD). As a result, it takes time for contributors to honor the full amount of their pledges, and do so in parts. However, this can make it difficult to continue to pay workers in a timely manner.

However, enough money was scrounged up due to a short-term loan, to cover a few days’ worth of wages. This should be enough to pay the workers until the completion of the roof of the church at Bwera. While the strike has been overcome, the funding issue is indicative of a larger problem for the Bwera Model. The funding problem stems from several previous events, where wind and rain caused a portion of the wall to collapse. As a result, construction was delayed several times. This meant that more funds had to be devoted to paying wages. Considering that the success and sustainability of projects like Bwera are propped up by tenuous pillars, it is crucial that issues with funding do not derail these efforts.

When considering the replicability of the Bwera Model, there may be several ways to mitigate the issue of funding. The issue could be ameliorated through a form of either unconditional or conditional cash transfers and to the members of the community to subsidize their contributions to the projects to allow them to contribute to the project in a timelier manner. Additionally, instead of cash transfers, members of the community could receive long-term, interest-free loans so that they can pay off their pledges over a longer period of time without having to worry about project timelines. Instead of focusing on an individual basis, the entire project could also be subsidized. Through either a matching campaign or a set-price subsidy or through a micro-grant process, subsidizing the entire campaign could take a bit of the pressure off the members of the communities while helping ensure that the project reaches completion.

I am personally inclined to favor a matching subsidy, as it still encourages community members to invest in the project. This also has its problems, as it increases the incentive for individuals to defect. This incentive could be counteracted by using the matching subsidy to unilaterally and equally decrease pledge amounts, In order to truly know which methodology would be most effective, tests and experiments would have to be run with a large and diverse sample size that consists of projects across multiple contexts. 

The Rwandan Context and the Problem of Replicability

In my previous post, I discussed the community with which I will be engaging and my role within my accompaniment of that community, mostly pertaining to the community-driven primary school development project in Bwera. As I previously mentioned, Bwera is managing to overcome the pernicious effects of the collective action problem. In community development projects where the end result is a public good, the most logical action for an individual is to opt out of committing time or money to a project, according to game theory. I mentioned, that despite the logic of collective action problems, Bwera has had strong initial success with the development of the school and has plans to enact future community driven projects. They have managed to do this through the application of the community organizing practices of PICO, primarily one-to-one interactions with members of the community. If this model of development proves to be sustainable and replicable, it could provide an alternative to the inefficient and ineffective development practices currently being implemented by most of the international community. However, as I also mentioned, there are several reasons why this method’s effectiveness may be specific to the Rwandan context and not replicable in other countries. In this post, I will expound upon this point and delve into the possible factors that may prevent this method from being widely implemented.

Social Institutions

There are two societal institutions in Rwanda that may be improving the effectiveness of this method. The first of these is the country’s traditional practice of pooling together resources that could be given to community members in their time of need. While this practice is not specific to the Rwandan people, this institution provides a historical precedent of cooperation for the promotion of community welfare within the country. Additionally, despite the ethnic violence known as the Rwandan Genocide, the culmination of ethnic conflict that arose during Rwanda’s independence in 1960, precolonial Rwanda was a relatively homogeneous society ruled by a strong central authority. According to Nicola Gennaioli and Ilia Rainer’s Precolonial Centralization and Institutional Quality in Africa[1] have shown that strong precolonial political institutions have led to greater rule of law in post-colonial African States. This research superficially backs up the assertion that the strong centralization and political institutions of precolonial Rwanda may facilitate modern cooperation within the Rwandan state and within Bwera specifically. Additionally, approximately 80% of Rwandans today participate in a practice known as Umuganda. Umuganda is a countrywide institution that involves community members working together on community improvement projects (cleaning communal areas, improving church or mosque infrastructure, etc…) and it occurs on the last Saturday of each month. Umuganda effectively creates several iterations to the collective action problem. The addition of multiple trials to the game facilitates cooperation by reducing uncertainty. As a result, collective action becomes less of a problem and is more likely to be seen as a realistically achievable goal.

Legacy of Genocide

In addition to Rwandan institutions, the legacy of genocide in the country may be aiding the success of community-driven development projects in Bwera. In the aftermath of the genocide, the RPF transitioned into the dominant political coalition within Rwanda. A highly structured organization, the RPF’s transition from a military organization to a political group led to the development of a strong bureaucracy within the country. Additionally, in the wake of the bloodletting, the new Rwandan government prioritized reconciliation, and later, economic development. The highly structured bureaucratic system put in place after the genocide in 1994 is one of the highest functioning governments on the continent. Strong political institutions have the ability to permeate through society and beget and reinforce other beneficial institutions. Perhaps the strong capacity of Rwanda’s central government has led to stronger local capacities. Additionally, the consequences and scars of the genocide are a stark reminder of the cost of noncooperation within the country. Furthermore, these community projects are associated with the Lutheran Church, which did not exist during in Rwanda until after the genocide. As a result, the Church does not bear the stigma of genocidal collaboration that mars several other faith groups (Muslims excluded) in the country. This too may facilitate the community-building and development projects of the Lutheran Church by painting the faith in a better light than some of its contemporaries.

Development Externalities

The last major factor that could explain why this project has been so successful is related to the massive economic development that Rwanda has experienced over the last decade. Over the past few years, Rwanda has continually had one of the highest rates of economic expansion in the world. It is possible that the community-driven projects are merely a positive externality of this larger trend of the state-led and aid-based economic development initiatives within the country. Just as institutions beget institutions, so too does development beget development. For example, an increase in the country’s economic production can lead to greater prosperity and more expendable income, thus mitigating time inconsistency problems and lowering the opportunity costs of participating in community development projects. Additionally, the government and aid-led economic progress in their country allows Rwandans to see the tangible effects of development projects. The sight of success alongside the promise of success can help illuminate the benefits of engaging in community-led development projects, like the primary school in Bwera.

While all of these factors may facilitate the implementation of the development projects in Bwera, it is not possible to discount the replicability of this method of development without further information. Throughout the year, I hope to gain a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of Bwera, the Rwandan context, and the methodology of the community-led development approach. In the end, however, I feel that it is impossible to truly discount the replicability of this approach without empirical evidence and evaluation. While that may be infeasible during this year, I sincerely intend and hope to acquire empirical analysis of the Bwera model.

---

[1] Rainer and Gennaioli, “Precolonial Centralization and Institutional Quality in Africa,” October 2005. 

Bwera and the Collective Action Problem

My job is highly problematic. I am a development worker in sub-Saharan Africa. I am a middle-class, white American with a bachelor’s degree in international relations and few vocational skills. While I have relevant coursework, research experience, and a passion for development, I struggle to speak Kinyarwanda properly, and I have no experience working in the field. Simply put, I am in over my head and the fact that I feel I can contribute to Rwandan development is a highly problematic notion. What’s even more problematic is that it’s not unusual for people with my background to enter the development field. I don’t have the data to support this, but from my experience, it’s probably the norm.

 The international development community operates on the assumption that white men from the Western world know more about international development than the communities that are facing development problems. This is where I hope to subvert this problematic norm. I am working with Young Adults in Global Mission, a development branch of the Lutheran Church. This organization touts a model of accompaniment which emphasizes the importance of solidarity, mutuality, and interdependence. Rather than entering my communities with jingoistic notions and unrealistic schemes of how I can improve their lives, I am walking with these communities. I will be listening to their voices and opinions on how they can best improve their communities, and then supporting not only those initiatives but also those individuals to the best of my abilities. I hope that I can offer the few useful skills that I have to the communities within which I am living. More importantly, I plan to engage, study, and learn from these communities, which are driving their own development.

Over the next year, I will be working as a partner with the Lutheran Church in Rwanda on a community organized educational development project in Bwera, a town within Matimba, a small sector of the Nyagatare district of the Eastern Province of Rwanda. Bwera is an incredible case study in overcoming collective action problems. In the field of development, community funded projects, like the primary school that the people of Bwera are building and equipping, are known as collective action problems. In these scenarios, participating in the funding and construction of a school has a cost or an opportunity cost on each individuals who participate, yet the benefits of the school or another public good are shared by everyone, regardless of whether or not they participated and incurred a cost. Basic game theory predicts that the rational choice for each individual is to not sacrifice their time or money to the construction of the school. Essentially, everyone wants a school to be built, but no one wants to do it. The result is that, in much of the developing world, community organized projects traditionally fail.

However, the Bwera community is defying the logic of the collective action problem. Despite incentives to defect, the Bwera community is already in the process of constructing the school. The entire Bwera community – Lutherans, Catholics, Muslims, and others - has committed to the project and the government of Rwanda has taken notice by granting land to the community to build a school. What is truly remarkable about this initiative is that it is entirely driven by the local community. Through the use of the PICO model of community organizing, which consists of one to one engagement and collective ownership, Bwera appears to be overcoming the collective action problem. Over the next year, I will be contributing to the project using my English writing skills to draft proposals for funding and possibly for future development initiatives. However, I will also be studying and learning from the community.

 If the steps that Bwera is taking towards community driven sustainable development are replicable across other contexts, this small, dusty town could provide new insight into how the international community can best foster growth in developing countries. However, there are numerous factors specific to Rwanda, and the Bwera community that make it a unique situation. The historical institutions, the genocidal legacy, the recent economic growth, and the geo-social aspects of the country distinguish Rwanda from its neighbors. Additionally, this could merely be a case of strong community leadership overcoming challenges. Over the next year, I hope to study and evaluate Bwera’s development initiatives to determine whether its community development initiatives are both sustainable and replicable. If this is the case, the small town of Bwera will not only shape my approach to my career in international development, but perhaps it will inspire other communities to enact similar initiatives and change the way we as a community look at international aid and development initiatives.