Let me explain.
On a recent visit to eastern Guatemala with an interdisciplinary research team exploring water and sanitation issues in developing communities, we met with several national and regional organizations (both governmental and non-governmental) to learn as much as we could and to explore the potential for future collaborations. We were particularly interested in one development organization that had been working in the region for over a decade, had a positive reputation, and was very responsive to our previous long-distance communications. Feeling optimistic about the potential opportunity, we scheduled several meetings with this organization across two days, which would conclude with a visit to one or two communities they had collaborated successfully with in the past to implement water distribution systems, including chlorination (which some authors suggest is particularly challenging).
At the scheduled meeting time, we were very excited to arrive at the lobby of our hotel and find the director of the organization already waiting for us. We introduced ourselves and spent several minutes engaging in small talk before we suggested we get started since it was a long day. Imagine our surprise when the director did not know what we were talking about. Imagine HIS surprise when just minutes later the former director of the organization shows up to meet us.
It turns out that the guy we had been communicating with via email and phone calls recently left the organization, and decided, without our knowledge, to try and take us along with him. It was just by coincidence that the hotel we were staying in was hosting a two-day development workshop, and the new director was there for the training. Full disclosure: The former director did, the day before our meeting, send out an updated schedule that included a revised logo (with a name very similar to his former organization). So, I suppose, had we been paying closer attention, we would have noticed the difference. But he certainly didn’t go out of his way to make that clear in any of the email communications.
Is this corruption?
According to most definitions, including those put forth by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in their Policy on Fraud and other Corrupt Practices, corruption is the “offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting, directly or indirectly, anything of value to influence improperly the actions of another party.” More broadly, however, the UNDP also defines fraud as “any act or omission that intentionally misleads, or attempts to mislead, a party to obtain a financial or other benefit or to avoid an obligation.” Clearly, by these standards, our bait-and-switch experience is not corruption. But I don’t think anyone could say that it wasn’t misleading with the intent of future financial benefit.
What is really frustrating is that the former director did not need to mislead us. Had he explained the situation when he left the organization we would have scheduled two separate meetings to evaluate the potential of each organization. I am guessing, based on his knowledge, his level of experience, and his quickness to respond to email communications, we would have ranked his new organization very high. Clearly he is knowledgeable in his field.
We talk all the time in development and research about earning and gaining the trust of the communities with which we are working. But what about the trust between collaborative organizations? Should you start any new relationship (business, academic, or otherwise) that’s based on anything but trust? And in this instance, for a variety of reasons, trust is absolutely vital. First, most of our communication and coordination will take place across several countries and at least two time zones. Second, the work we hope to accomplish is challenging, with failure rates estimated upwards of 50% in many cases. And finally, let’s not forget that what is ultimately at stake is the health of entire communities.
With so many things to go wrong that you have no control over (politics, violence, lack of institutional support, community preferences, technical issues, environmental issues, etc), why increase the chances of failure by collaborating with a dishonest partner? Shouldn’t we strive for a culture that does not tolerate fraud and other forms of corruption, no matter how subtle and insidious? If he is willing to bend the truth about this, what else is he willing to bend the truth about? Is this kind of behavior an obvious red flag that hints at future faked receipts, substandard materials, or services never delivered?
Or is there another side to this?
Bill Gates recently suggested in his 2014 Annual Letter, that corruption is not quite the plague on development that the World Bank would lead one to believe. In fact, Gates considers small-scale corruption inevitable and suggests that it is nothing more than a small tax for doing business.
During our time in eastern Guatemala we learned that the region is flooded with aid agencies whose mission is to collaborate on development projects with the local indigenous Ch’orti’ population. Anecdotally, we heard that over 80 aid agencies were working in a four-county region that is slightly larger than Chicago, and is generally considered to be the poorest in all of Guatemala. These same 80 aid agencies are competing for the same projects, the same partners, and ultimately, the same money. While some are successful at securing large grants that span several years, the competition for scarce resources causes many to crumble. And when these aid agencies go under, someone loses a job.
What would you do to keep your family fed?