I don't think we should beat up on Mr. Kristoff so much - I think he means he respects people who are motivated by something other than money - something you don't see very often particularly near the NY Times office building!

I agree whole heartedly with Jen N. as well - if you have student loans to pay or a family to support, you won't get very far working at orgs like Doctors without Borders. In fact, horrible inhumane human resources at humanitarian organizations are the slimy underbelly of the humanitarian world. How many burned out, stressed out, broke substance abusing professional humanitarian workers do you know? I know a lot.

Good points all -- and, not to be too harsh on Mr. Kristof, but I do get rather tired of the idea (ideal) that aid workers are somehow suffering martyrs.  Which probably says as much about my own insecurities as anything else.

I think profit can be a wonderful motivator and lead to a lot of innovation and one would hope, better accountability, though there is, as in everything, the greed problem. And then there is the question of the dangers of overly monetizing humanitarian work. If profit becomes a driver of action, how does that affect program design? Is it cost effective to consider cultural nuances in agricultural planning? How do you create a cost/benefit analysis on human dignity, or assistance in reestablishing customary mourning rites? So, while I think there is no nobility in being underpaid and private enterprise can be a catalyst to better performance, I don't really see how to apply effectively in these most contexts. The crises, so often, are profit driven to begin with, throwing in another player looking for cash, even with good intentions, probably isn't the solution.

As for the suffering martyrs...aid workers tend to live quite well "in the field." How many of us have ever had a driver in NYC? I do think better pay would be a plus on the point Jen N. makes. It would also help minority recruitment in humanitarian aid.

think there are two separate issues here.  First, there's the fact - seldom realized in some corners (paging Mr. Kristof) - that humanitarian work is slowly becoming more professionalized, as well it should, given the complexities and responsibilities.  Which, more than anything else, is a reflection of the fact that it's no longer adequate to send just anyone out to the field, at least not if you want programs that actually work, or at least work most of the time.  We don't expect untrained 25 year-olds without any previous experience to design large buildings, try complicated court cases, operate on patients, etc etc.  Yet if you don't pay at least a semi-competitive wage, then you're not going to attract qualified people to work in places like Darfur.  Which helps contribute to massive turn-over, and the recruitment of under-qualified staff. 

(I know of what I mean, seeing as how I wasn't particularly qualified for that first job in Afghanistan.)

The second issue has to do with what donors want to achieve; or, put another way, with how donors measure effectiveness and success.  As with any complex undertaking, it's far easier to measure output (say, number of clinics rehabilitated) than actual impact (did health indicators in the area actually change, and was such change attributable to the rehabilitated health clinics, etc.).  The reason many NGOs focus on dignity, at least as I understand, is the result of two factors: 1) the increasing universality of human rights norms and language, and 2) decades of experience in the field, trying to figure out how to address underlying causes of poverty and conflict.  From which comes the idea that security and well-being involve more than simply delivering sufficient food, or providing shelter; but instead poverty and vulnerability result from an inability to access to all the resources and legal protections necessary to live in dignity.

A rambling way of saying that focus on dignity is as much a benchmark as anything else, to try and ensure a focus not just on outputs, but actual impact.

Of course, all this is well and good, but requires a focus on software as much -- if not more -- than hardware; i.e. community-participatory approaches, trainings, etc.  Which costs money, and takes time.  So, if a donor measures success simply by the number of clinics rehabilitated, then they'd be less likely to want to spend money on all the community-participation elements.  To generalize, this is where for-profit contractors come into the picture.  Unlike many NGOs, they're willing (more willing) to focus on the outputs and, if necessary, ignore the other, more difficult-to-measure aspects.

As for drivers in NY - also no malaria in NY, or mortars. At least most of the time