Tuesday, July 27, 2010

ON VARIOUS TRILEMMAS

ON VARIOUS TRILEMMAS

A 2-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri
July 2010

Most of us are familiar with the concept of a ‘trilemma’. I for one, in college, wanted to do well in studies, cavort with beautiful women and play football. I learned soon enough that, at best, I had to pick two out of three and by doing so I would forego the third (and my second division is a tribute to my choices). The gastronomic trilemma (good food, served quickly, easy on the pocket, choose any two) is another that we all commonly face. The Government of Delhi has faced an engineering trilemma (to specification, on time, within budget, choose any two) vis-à-vis the Commonwealth Games and is well on course to make an international shame of a billion Indians.

Which brings me to the policy trilemma that is so much in the news these days thanks to the coverage of the economic downturn. It goes like this – a nation’s economic policy makers would like to achieve three objectives.

The first is to have an independent monetary policy, which translates to the central bank being able to use tools such as interest rates and money supply to stabilise the nation’s economy (and thereby deal with inflation, bubbles, depressions, overheating, and whatnot).

The second is to maintain stability in the nation’s currency exchange rate, thereby making it easier for households and business to engage with the world economy and plan for the future.

The third is to have an open capital market that allows for international flows of money, thereby enabling citizens to diversify their holdings by investing abroad and encouraging foreign investors to bring in resources and expertise.

And herein lies the trilemma – policy makers can at best choose two of the three objectives – by doing so, they lose control of the third. If they decide on an independent monetary policy and a fixed exchange rate, like China, they have to control the flow of capital in and out of the country. If they decide on a stable exchange rate and an open capital market, they cannot use monetary policy to address economic disruptions – the example of countries within the European Union, and Argentina in 1991, come to mind. And if they decide on an independent monetary policy and free flow of capital, such as the US and the UK, the currency has to float.

This helps to explain certain things. An economic downturn combined with high public debt has different implications for the UK, who can inflate away their debt and also enable a cheaper currency to stir exports, compared with those for the PIGS (i.e. Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, for whom neither policy option is available and cutting public expenditure and begging for handouts from Germany are the only ways ahead). China is reluctant to let its currency float (despite considerable pressure from the US) because of its implications on monetary policy and controlled capital flows as well as on the more obvious exports competitiveness of its economy.

There are two criticisms to the policy trilemma . The first relates to the validity of the objectives. There are arguments in favour of including employment creation and inequality reduction as explicit policy objectives for central banks. There are also arguments against the free flow of capital as an objective, and examples (Chile, Malaysia) wherein capital controls are seen to have contributed to greater policy autonomy. The second relates to its ‘all or nothing’ approach, with arguments in favour of adopting intermediate options in the three policy domains, such as capital account management through selective controls and managed currency exchange rates.

Which brings me to the final trilemma of this paper – the donor trilemma. In this era of extra-ordinary donor power and domination within the Indian non-governmental development sector, I find that most of the better donors have three (not always explicit) objectives for their NGO funding policy.

• To work with and support NGOs that are excellent – that lead the way, that develop models for others to replicate, that have a single-minded focus on working with the poorest, that influence policy, etc.

• To work with NGOs that are honest – that put their (the NGOs) intended beneficiaries at the centre of their work, that reflect on efficacy and the change they actually bring about, that develop rigorous and transparent systems and procedures, that are accountable to their stakeholders, etc.

• To get their NGO partners to do what they (the donors) want and/or think is right – on what is done, how, where, who for, and why.

The donor trilemma is that any NGO that meets two of the objectives is thereby unable to meet the third. Excellent and honest NGOs are genetically incapable of being driven primarily by donor priorities, and there is only so much that they will do to meet donor demands. Honest butt-kissers will at best be mediocre in their work. And excellent NGOs that also kowtow around to their donors will have difficulty in being true to themselves.

Development funding agencies would do well to understand the implications of the donor trilemma. One, no NGO partner can meet all three objectives. Two, the choice of which objective you are willing to let go should be critical to your choice of NGO partners. And three, any NGO that adheres to your every command is compromising on either excellence or on honesty.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ajay said...

very well written ,chau.

Ajit Chaudhuri said...

Hi, Ajit

1. If I could write such serious stuff with humour, I would have made my readers to pay! Or, are giving your 2-pagers free for now, so that the addicted folks will end up paying for their subcription?!?

2. What I like about your 2-pagers is the way you relate things to the NGO-development sector.

best wishes,
R.K.Anil

Ajit Chaudhuri said...

Dear Ajit,

A privilege to have our monthly dose of "Ajit-isms" which at this pace, will leave way behind the  "isms" of your more famous namesake !! I dont agree with the fundamental premise - that an NGO has to be either an appartachik or a whore to have a mutually beneficial partnership with a donor. To me, it is a bit like a marriage. And it can be a conventional Indian marriage where the donor, as the husband, is always right. Or it can be a more equal partnership. The number of such partnerships is in the same proportion as the number of "happy" marriages - which is an entirely subjective statistic and totally contingent on the circumstances of the marriage of the person taking a shot at this statistic!

Biraj Ptnaik

Ajit Chaudhuri said...

hi dalai mama!

yr really a good writer. (glad to know its in my genes!) i really cracked up at the way it started!

if u want my honest opinion.. when you get esoteric about ngo's etc, i get bored.. but until yr talking about i)food, ii)beer, iii)sports, iv)women... i'm all ears!

thanks a lot

lots of love

Eshaan

Ajit Chaudhuri said...

Thanks Chau.... I never needled you on why you did not write all along. But missed this easy to read, insightful dig at policy you send sporadically

Amir Ullah Khan

Ajit Chaudhuri said...

I liked the concept of Trilemmas that you've written about. Could relate to the one on Donor's trilemma about NGOs. I have come to understand that there can be no absolutes but yes, inclinations/patterns that emerge. Some organisation may be having a little bit of all characteristics, no?

At times, the NGOs also face the trilemma of choosing two values out of the 3-- professional excellence, honesty with stakeholders, donor satisfaction.

Anjali Agarwal

Ajit Chaudhuri said...

Great piece! And good to see the 2-Pager in my Inbox once again.
Best wishes,
Arundhati

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
蕭劉明倫松恬 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
雅王任 said...

Poverty is stranger to industry.........................................

Anonymous said...

當最困難的時候,也就是離成功不遠的時候。..................................................

于庭吳 said...

很喜歡看看別人的生活故事,謝謝您的分享哦~~...............................................................

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jaya said...

Ajit - you'll have to change the administration settings so that spam comments dont get posted on the blog. I read this once, and then again. I have been more of a follower of the two choices theory resolved by the toss of a coin...the trilemma seriously presented great possibilities to me, and if one is left with two, I'd extend the scope of options to multiple and then agonize over picking the two...Some options are ofcourse easier to throw away than others...Anyway, the trilemma I am dealing with right now is between being a 'good mother', a 'career woman' and 'a spouse', which believe me are mutually exclusive options...quite obvious which one is getting the go by...Happy Birthday - trust you are treating life well :)

Anonymous said...

文章不求沽名釣譽,率性就是真的............................. ....................................

tallae said...

so true