Where it becomes “porn” is where the exchange becomes something that we wouldn’t tolerate in our own country: money and thank you is a fair exchange, money and inflated gratitude or inflated tales of misery is not a fair exchange. This begins to have the overtones of begging.

But I think what you have really highlighted is that still for most people in the donor countries, the image of aid is an image of a colonial era charity. Florence Nightengale and Albert Schweitzer. The poor starving masses; the compassionate civilizers. Until we figure out how to change that trope, we’re not going to be able to affect the transactions, though I think that organisations like kiva.org do a good job of shifting public consciousness.

Owen replies: It would be nice to raise funds without poverty porn if possible.

Whilst I do not think that anyone should be MADE to write a thank you letter I do feel that a sponsor should be acknowledged by the reciever. Most of these children, so long as you provide the paper and postage, are happy to write. I usually ask for a show of hands from any who WOULD LIKE to write a letter to their sponsor – I do not mention thanks. The letters are very very rarely begging and tell the sponsor about their likes and dislikes and how they are doing at school.

I have also started pen pal clubs between Zambian and UK schools. The children choose to join these themselves.

Many people who have not worked at this level also do not realise that honesty can be a problem. In areas where there are one than one sponsorship source children have been found to cheat the system, in other words get sponsorhip from two or more sources.
Often items donated via the teachers to schools by visitors “disappear for safe keeping” into the teachers’ houses.

It has been recognised that it is no good giving money directly to the children either. It will often be taken by the extended family and not used for its intended purpose. Now we buy enough their educational needs like pens and books, shoes, school bags etc and hand them out. the School fees are paid directly to the school and a chit issued to spend on uniform. In a rural area such as this most of the things they need are not available and the child could not travel the 120k to the nearest town.

Whilst I agree that in an ideal world donors would just help because it needs to be done I’m afraid to say that this may never be the case.

Owen replies: I’ve set up my system so that comments have to be approved by me, to prevent spam. I approve almost everything – I don’t discriminate according to whether they are supportive or not, though I do reserve the right to block anything that is offensive or to terminate conversations that get tedious.

And rather than casting apersions about my comments policy, do you have something interesting to say about the issue?

Karen: you may not agree with my analogy, but it is not “thoughtless”. I have given it some thought. There may indeed be child prostitutes who would rather write letters to donors (though I would guess very few in Ethiopia) but that does not make it OK that rich people demand it of them. It is the practice that is offensive, not my description of it.

I don’t know who actually writes these letters; and in some ways that is beside the point.

When donors “brand” their aid, it draws attention to the foreign donor, who will be seen as the responsible for the services or products. Meanwhile, to get out of a situation of dependence, it is important that the population looks to its own government or its own civil society as responsible to deliver these goods or services (duty bearer), and hold them accountable for it. Indeed, even if the money came from a foreign donor, the organisation and mechanisms for delivery are local and accountable to the local population. Branding destroys the local accountability feedback loop.

Owen replies: I completely agree. This is an important point.

However, with individual donations, I believe that the nexus may be more distorted. Take individuals with little insight into the aid industry for example. If they have concerns about the transparency and efficacy of the money they are donating (which is more likely following ‘Moyo-gate’ and the publicity it is receiving), it may seem sensible for them to choose the NGO or charity which ‘unequivocally’ demonstrates the positive impact their money is providing. Unfortunately, hard-statistics alone may not suffice.
Of course, as you rightly stated, compelling people to write regulated letters can conceal other more pernicious aspects such as exploitation. This may be the darker side of ‘competition’ within the Development sector (that is not to deny that there are benefits which can be accrued too – as you highlighted in your recent paper).

Additionally, there is also the difficulty of finding a balance between conveying the progress that has been made whilst also forewarning about the challenges which lie ahead.

All in all it’s a tight line to walk, and I think this practice won’t go away anytime soon.