Power = Money in Development. But should it? and can it even, be anything else?

In a world where it’s Capitalism 1, your work-life balance 0, whoever holds the purse holds the power. In international development, I’d say, that’s pretty much the same. 

Money drives development projects, and this year’s Black History Month theme, “Standing Firm in Power and Pride,” got me thinking about what power really means in our work. We celebrate Black excellence, leadership and contributions to history, but when it comes to impact across Africa, do we ask ourselves, who actually holds the power to define those things. Who holds the power to define change?

Well, I do. And I have a few niggling thoughts. 

 🧩 Thought 1: The Moneyholder = The Powerholder 

In development, money doesn’t just fund projects. It shapes the entire project cycle. And if you’re a practitioner, you know, whoever brings the money often decides what gets done, where, for how long, with whom, and under what conditions. To name a few examples, 

• The funder defines – the agenda. Be it going ‘green’, women in STEM, social mobility, AI knowledge for teachers or employability projects to curb emigration; the moneyman or org, or gov, aligns their development objectives with their personal, national, corporate and political interests. Altruistic or otherwise. 

Development is rarely neutral and this raises the question, whose change are we actually delivering? 

• The funder also, decides - the criteria. Who qualifies, be they country, target audience, implementing partner, relevant theme; and then what “impact” looks like. These criteria likely conform with what is convenient for the money-holder, e.g. where travel advice permits, where networks exist, what is low hanging fruit etc. 

• They determine what minimum standards, processes – procurement or otherwise; compliance – safeguarding, data protection, due diligence and any other bureaucracy which needs to be satisfied i.e. reporting templates. These are more than just administrative burdens, they’re systems that make people jump through hoops they’d never have built for themselves. Some NGO teams would rather run 2 straight weeks of 9-5 trainings than try to open a SharePoint link. 

• And often the legal and financial frameworks which facilitate the implementation of the projects. Yes, you now need to open a new USD domiciliary account to receive project funds and be prepared for the unlikely event arbitration abroad. 

In short, power often sits with the sugar daddy, who ever so benevolently decides, that they want to either eradicate (insert African dilemma here) or empower (insert vulnerable group here). And that shapes a lot of things. 

💬 Thought 2: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells The Story? 

Power doesn’t end when the project does. It extends to who gets to tell the story of the project and its success. Whosoever records, articulates and publishes on the larger platform – in the most stakeholder-sexy way - controls the narrative. And if you’re a Hamilton fan like me, you must know, storytelling is a crucial form of power. Thus, the Narrativeholder = the Powerholder. To explain this point, you'll find that: 

• Marketing and communications budgets are often a privilege international actors carry. At least relative to local marketing and comms. It’s difficult to compare the photographers/videographers resident in many local NGOs and the reach of their social media platforms with the high-def resolutions, appeal and reach of the international media campaigns and platforms. 

• Likewise, impact frameworks and indeed the time and capacity to actually convert those excel sheets into percentages for pulling in funders isn’t always a luxury local actors can afford. Thus, even the stats, oh the precious numbers, and how they are reported are shaped by who can afford to do so. 

⚖️ Thought 3:  Should – and - could power ever really be anything other than money? 

No. 

Just kidding 👀. But, if we’re being honest, power can never truly be separated from the money that makes things happen. Thank you funders. Let’s face it: some of these realities simply can’t be “mitigated.” The moneyholder remains accountable to their own systems, boards, taxpayers, the public, and of course, the trolls - ever ready to drag your slightest mistake to filth. Inevitably, puppet-strings must be attached. 

And I must say, whilst the points I’ve made above indicate areas for improvement in the sector, I do consider some of these points to be great strengths and indeed valuable features of the ‘international’ in international development. Especially when done right.

So, if we accept that money is power, and that’s unlikely to change overnight, the next question becomes: what do we do now?

Find out in my next article as part of this #BlackHistoryMonth series on #Power and #Pride.

Your Development Girlie, 

Damilola Sotuminu

Founder, IMAD