Slightly reordered the paragraphs to reply.
Originally Posted by
Best Ferret
Yes, my concern is the obvious waste. I have no problem with good people being paid well but I do doubt that very much of that trickles down to the local economies. In the case of the restaurant I mentioned, it is foreign-owned and almost all of its supplies are flown in, even the vegetables. OK, granted there are a couple of cooks and waiters employed but that's about it.
The onward spend of employees is (understandably justly) very hard for an employer to control.
But, beyond some employment, taxes and assisting with general 'volume' in the country it DOES sound like some of that restaurant bill will be falling a wee bit away from target. (I don't know about onward spend of the restaurant owning foreigners though!).
But onward spend is very important if you want to transition away from handouts.
You seem to know something about the aid industry so can you tell me if Unicef is better at spending its money than the UN in general?
Actually my limited first-hand knowledge is further limited to spending policies (in particular vehicles / capital purchases).
I can't tell you how UNICEF compares to other UN bodies. All I can say is that most aid agencies are VERY similar in their spending, and when it comes to vehicles, it is also very thought though. [With clear governing factors.]
The number one issue when it comes to factors on vehicle purchase is speed - how soon do you need them. However for non rushed spending, most organisations do try to get their vehicles ordered for local delivery (helping local agents) as built exactly to order.
Assuming speed can be discounted, the next issue is standardisation benefits and lifespan benefits.
Beyond the benefits of repair knowledge, standard features are fitted to all vehicles in the fleet to enable rapid cannibalisation for repairt.
Also, they are intended to have a lifespan long beyond their primary role. Many organisations will transition the vechiles to the increasingly rougher roles during their lifespans.
As for the vehicles, are leather seats needed for a trip into the bush?! And the snorkel arrangement is expensive bling which serves no useful function. Anybody properly trained for serious offroading will say the same. How many of these vehicles are status symbols for the UN grade and how many are used for what they are designed for?
Leather seats can often be a wise spend for hygiene, robustness and life-span repair reasons.
The snorkel I understand can also have benefits in dirt/dust environments, not just water.
I think however I can summarise your concern about the nature of the vehicle with the term: VIP Transport
Some of these vehicles do initially look like they are geared up for high comfort transportation.
However it is worth remembering that part of the role of some vehicles is to take visiting scientists, experts around places to study and assist with projects. Often people who are not acclimatised.
Further, many of the new vechiles do go first into this transport role, but that is often because what they are replacing has now been moved down the dirty end.
Additionally, some are build with armour to protect against landmines, etc, etc. Or bullet proof glass for trouble spots. In turn, door thickness etc, can be another factor that sells the VIP effect.
However hardly any of these vehicles will be the same inside as a developed-nation consumer version.
But yes, some of these vehicles ARE, quite legitimately earmarked (in the first phase of their life) for transporting people in bearable conditions to uncomfortable places.
I can assure you that all of the agencies that I have had any (limited) sight or knowledge of have been very concerned about lifetimes of what is fitted to the vehicle and none of them overspend on luxuries.
But often add their own essentials - more radios, less electronics, etc, etc.
I don't understand the point about their not being able to buy economically - that conflicts with their obvious purchasing power if they wish to use it.
What I was saying is that a totally local operation can achieve (through imitate contact knowledge - right from the money to the ground) a level of 'practical' day-to-day efficiency that a big international can't.
The big international can't because it needs to spend to monitor and control things to prevent abuse, also it's spend control isn't as flexible without intimate knowledge of the on the ground management - which gets in the way of the *ultimate* level of practicality and day-to-day efficiency on the ground.
Also, it can be a question of competing concerns. If you go local, you might not have much volume. If you don't go local, aren't you then just a limited help restaurant owning foreigner.
While Toyota does a lot of legitimate sales to aid agencies, I don't think the agencies are being held to ransom over the price. And that is despite the fact that nobody in the field will take a mixed fleet - you can't switch make as you order vehicle to vehicle.
[Very tired now, hope that reads ok.]