The perils of becoming a ‘development placebo’
Reading about the Angat Buhay NGO reminded me of an article I wrote on the irony of a long-term career in the development sector. I believe that key staff in program development and management of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) are most effective for only about seven years. After this period, they become what I call “development placebos.” Though they still adhere to the gold standard of alleviating the immediate suffering of the poor, they no longer contribute meaningfully to long-term goals and objectives. In my opinion, they should step down after seven years to make room for new faces.
I, too, was a development placebo for a long time despite my unwavering passion for development work, much like my former colleagues. This piece focuses on key personnel in program development and management, including directors, managers, technical advisors, and consultants. It highlights the irony that prolonged tenure in the development sector leads to ineffectiveness. There is a limit to how much one can reinvent oneself to stay effective in development work. No amount of reskilling can prevent one from becoming a “development placebo,” merely creating an illusion of progress while addressing the needs and rights of the poor. This placebo effect may temporarily make target populations “feel better,” while the core goal of development—helping the poor improve their lives sustainably by empowering them—takes a backseat.
Shortly after joining the development sector, one’s perspective on development changes. Initially, there is contemplation about the long-term impacts of ongoing programs, projects, and policies. However, over time, speculation replaces rigorous impact evaluation. Accountability, arguably the Achilles heel of NGOs, is frequently overlooked. Consequently, many professionals end up upholding the status quo like their peers. The initial motivation to make a difference in the lives of the poor shifts to more practical concerns, such as maintaining a standard of living. Work performance becomes tied to job satisfaction, promotions, a raise in pay, and opportunities for international travel. Enthusiasm for new development paradigms and methodologies diminishes, and there is a tendency to revert to older, simpler approaches from the past.
Despite countless interventions from governments and NGOs over the years, the poor continue to get poorer while the rich get richer. Long-term development work involves repetitive tasks that yield the same results. A tenure of over seven years is usually long enough to assess one’s efficacy, defined as the ability to achieve desired long-term results. For example, a program’s effectiveness in reducing poverty or protecting children from abuse can be determined within this period. After seven years, a development worker, regardless of training and capacity building, becomes a development placebo. Moving between organizations, programs, or roles does not mitigate this status. This perspective is based on my extensive experience as a planning, monitoring, and evaluation manager in various contexts.
An effective program should produce the desired long-term results within seven years. If it does not, even the most dedicated development worker may become ineffective. The concept of becoming a development placebo remains an unaddressed issue within NGOs, overlooked in strategic planning, program evaluation, and transformation workshops. Therefore, it may be wise for development professionals to consider voluntarily stepping down after approximately seven years.
Ultimately, long-term work in the development sector may do a disservice to target populations, and resources might be better allocated to emergencies or interventions aimed at achieving equality and inclusion. Leaving development work for the sake of the poor and marginalized can be seen as a heroic act, although it is undoubtedly a difficult decision for those with a deep passion for development work.
Nono Felix
