The impact of Bureaucracy

As our findings show, many of the application forms were in English and not Arabic. The application process is often online and they don’t have an alternative paper version if you don’t have internet access. An informant told us that the agencies don’t take into

consideration what happens if you have a bad internet connection and it breaks before you get to fill out the application, or if you’re a slow typer. The applications also rarely come with guide notes. If you get one question wrong you risk waiting for the duration of the

application process, and then get the message that you didn’t fill in the form correctly. We were told that people for a long time have asked for a standardized reporting and applying systems.

We asked an informant how you could change the system do make it more accessible for people, she said: “Almost nobody goes and ask the local people and local organizations, how it can be changed. What is practical in their capacity, what would they like to see be done.

They are the fractional voice in the whole discussion”. As Hanafi and Tabar (p. 183-184) remarks in their study; “… upon close inspection we found that community participation is often used as a slogan: it is discussed as a method, but when probed as to how it’s applied, there is little substance behind the celebratory proclamation…“ Standardization is a way to

81

cooperate with the beneficiaries and local businesses on their terms. It would create more efficient systems, and make it easier for those using them.

In many cases, the small businesses with one to five employees don’t have the sufficient capacity needed to do the applying process. The larger businesses sometimes have their own departments who specialize in this, and will therefore be the ones who receive the funding.

This could of course be a good thing for the larger businesses, as they will be able to develop further, but the system as a whole has some faults that need to be rectified.

This is an example of people adapting to the condition they are in. Anderson (2008) explains this; when you have a large flow of capital in a sector or an area it will affect the dynamics of the sector. It will change the power balance, and it will make sectors that in non-conflict setting would be un-natural (Anderson, 2008). She also warns the actors working in these areas to be aware of this and take precautions, to do as little harm as possible to the local structures. We claim that the applying and reporting system made by donors and NGOs has made an impact on the structure of business development. The lager businesses have a better chance at receiving funds because of their capacity in the application process. They have perhaps better language skills and knowledge of the aid system that they have adapted to because they are capable and have the resources. The smaller businesses don’t have this and get bypassed. One can argue that it’s better for the business environment that the larger companies get the grants, because they then have the possibility to expand. This will create more workplaces, and the unemployment rate could decline. In a business

development aspect, however, the consequence is that the small businesses get bypassed and don’t get the support that could make a difference, not only for the business but their whole family, and in turn generate growth in the private sector.

How international aid changes incentives for business development Medium/large businesses

The medium and large businesses have, according to our findings often own departments that’s only focus is on applying for aid and handle the aid bureaucracy. This means that the international aid distribution has created a system that has incentivized this activity. The businesses use manpower and resources on the bureaucracy of aid instead of developing their own businesses further.

82 Small businesses

As our findings show, there are NGOs that offer private businesses to prepare all the work for them to open. They do all the paperwork, business plans, and financial plans and so on.

According to one informant most of these businesses closed within 6 months. One can argue that with the NGO doing all the work for the beneficiaries they don’t get a feeling of business ownership or accountability. The motivation you have when creating something for yourself is higher, than when you don’t have anything to lose. The NGOs are trying to help, but might do the exact opposite by changing incentives for private sector to development.

Learning

The point of evaluations and assessments is to learn from them (Kaiser, 2004). Kaiser argues that “… humanitarian actors are beginning to recognize that assessing the actual impact of their work is more valid than simply measuring output in material terms” (Kaiser, 2004, p.8).

This means that evaluators need to look to participants, and conduct beneficiary based evaluations. As mentioned in our findings, informants told us that the reporting was a burden, with no element of learning, or discussions of the challenges and failures in the process.

In many cases you have to report to both the PA and GoI. You will also have to report to the INGOs you work with. The INGOs will have to report to the PA and GoI, as well as to the donors and home government. When the top level writes 10 pages in an evaluation, the level below writes 20, and the next, 40 pages. This results in an obscene amount of paper, but for what use? Little is done with the information collected; informants said that they don’t even think all these papers are being read. When the system of reporting does makes it so that nobody reads the reports, one can ask what the point of it is.

We were told by an informant that the use of local resources was a priority when

establishing projects where NGOs and INGOs were working with partners. When it came to changing the administrative factors it was different. Organizations like the UN and EU spend 5 -6 years setting up a system, to discover that it doesn’t really work; it makes it hard for them to go back. The informant said: “The UN doesn’t say to the Palestinian organizations;

make your own forms that are locally acceptable, no, this is what we have for you here. You have to use this one, which we made in New York.”

83

When you have as many different actors as you have in the oPt, there should be a better system for learning from own failures. The transparency in previously conducted studies and evaluations are lacking, and in some ways making different actors to the same work that already has been done, because results are not shared. When reports are requested, there should be more consideration and thought going into what and how they are used, making a system that would be beneficiary for both parts.