Cherries and Cockroaches

The psychologist, Paul Rozin, has said that a single cockroach will completely wreck the appeal of a bowl of cherries, but a cherry will do nothing at all for a bowl of cockroaches.

I read a book recently called Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Among millions of other things, he argues that people tend to remember the negative much more than the positive. If I say five positive things about you and one negative, you’ll invariably dwell on the negative thing I said. It’s human nature.

This sort of thing prompts us to want to avoid negative outcomes at all cost. We like good things but we put much more energy into avoiding bad things. Studies show that golfers tend to shoot better when avoiding a bogey rather than shooting for above par. Animals apparently do the same. Alpha males tend to win more fights when preserving territory or their role in their leadership of the herd (or pride in the case of lions). Defense rather than offense.

All this tends to keep things closer to the status quo. I’ve seen this manifest itself in many circumstances, including my job. While donors, organizations, governments, etc. all want to generate positive outcomes (improve quality of life), the reality is that we invariably expend more energy on avoiding negative outcomes (saving lives). Generally speaking, that’s a good thing. But it can make us all risk averse and possibly miss some opportunities.

* * *

We’re in the middle of a severe drought in the Horn of Africa. We need to get aid to the neediest as quickly as possible. We’ve improved on this over the years but we still have much to learn. Ten years ago there was a big emphasis on trucking water to people during severe droughts. We still do that on occasion but it’s cumbersome and expensive. The world began to realize there may be a quicker and better way to do this (other than expensive modifications to watershed management). What if we just gave needy people cash and let the drivers of the private sector fill the needs? Much of the world has been averse to the idea of giving poor people money. Too risky, it is said. We need to tell them what they need. Or, they’re probably destitute because they don’t know how to make good decisions with money.

In fact the reality is quite different. The data shows that the poor generally prioritize well when provided cash. They don’t have the luxury of being able to make mistakes. We can always find, and point out, exceptions, but generally speaking, the poor, particularly the abject poor, are far more efficient with limited resources that the middle and upper class.

The concept of using cash as a tool to reach the needy has been around for a long time but it has taken a long time for people to warm to the idea. As phones have made their way to the deepest corners of Somalia, cell coverage (strangely) being as good as what you find in the US, a key piece of the puzzle was already in place. Another essential ingredient was an easy-to-use money transfer service. This has also been in place for several years. Moreover, this allow cash to get to them far more quickly and, with electronic transfers, much more safely.

The last big piece is whether or not people would have access to what they need, whether or not they have money. In Somalia, the private sector has proven to be very efficient at keeping supply chains open in some of the most adverse conditions. If people have money, the private sector can generally make it happen, whether it’s delivering water, food or medicine. Imposing UN or other organization logistics can distort markets, add expense, create redundancies and/or simply not provide value added.

* * *

Cash transfers have worked well and they’ve now become an essential tool in the toolbox. But they’re not perfect. How do you identify those in need, particularly if they are in a remote location? Who verifies that the phone numbers you have correspond to the people you identified? Has the list of recipients been kept confidential such that they aren’t subsequently targeted by predators? What if the private sector fails? In smaller markets, it can contribute to inflation.

The point is, cash transfers, previously considered unthinkable, have been used around the world to get aid quickly and efficiently to the needy – more resources making it to the hands of the those in need and less squandered on the logistics of aid delivery. We're hopeful that donors will step up and continue to  make these resources available in the weeks and months ahead. It shouldn't be used in all circumstances but for some situations it works amazingly well.

The humanitarian world is, and always will be, rife with cockroaches. There have been bad experiences where the cockroaches have beat the system, infiltrated the cherry bowl, and diverted aid. While it's not pleasant, it’s important not to become overly focused on the bad and lose sight of the good.