Essay: Negative consequences of volunteer tourism

As part of the 2001 International Year of Volunteers, the United Nations General Assembly published a report called ‘in Support of Volunteering’, which presented a basic criteria of three points which can identify or distinguish international volunteering from other forms of action. The three points are; that it is not done for financial gain, that it is done of one’s own free will, and that it benefits a third party or society at large – if it only benefits the volunteer then it does not meet the criteria to be classed as volunteering (UN, A/56/288, 2001). The report explains that ‘volunteering is a fundamental part of people’s lives’ (A/56/288ː2), before an interesting comment about volunteering being an ‘ancient social behaviour'(A/56/288ː3). The report outlines opinions of the UN and provides us with a good reference point when critically analysing non-government organisations (NGOs), private volunteer agencies, as well as government funded volunteer organisations. International Volunteering occupies a popular place in contemporary public imaginations in the west, and key shared narrative amongst its supporters is that it has the capacity to positively impact global equity whilst also developing the volunteer’s professional identity (Smith and Laurie, 2011).
It’s important to distinguish the differences between each form of international volunteering for development. Peter Devereux outlines six important criteria of its features: humanitarian motivation; reciprocal benefit; living and working under local conditions; long term commitment; local accountability in North-South partnership; and linkages to causes rather than symptoms (Devereux, 2008:360). It is also worth mentioning the differences between international volunteer cooperation organisations (IVCOs) like the British Voluntary Service Organisation (VSO), which are more focused on long-term development, with those organisations sending short-term ‘gap year’ volunteers. It is due to these kinds of projects that the word ‘volunteer’ has been tainted – with IVCOs choosing to distance themselves from the term because of its negative perceptions of un-professionalism and the over emphasis on cultural exchange. In 2006, VSO released a statement warning of the risks of ‘gap-year’ projects, that it might become a new form of colonialism by reinforcing the ‘it’s all about us’ attitude, in that short term ‘helping’ is favoured over teaching or training (Devereux, 2008:359).
It’s important to take a look at the commercial organisations which are increasingly being negatively characterised as promoting ‘volunteer tourism’. It allows globally conscious individuals to combine ‘seeing’ with ‘saving’, through different projects which they undertake whilst on holiday (Wearing, 2001). Voluntourism is one of the fastest growing markets in the world (Brown, 2005; Tomazos & Butler, 2010), it’s currently estimated at $1.6 billion (TRAM, 2008). Not only does it provide the volunteer with a chance to experience a new culture, but they will also receive career advancing benefits. Benefits however which come at the expense of those suffering from poverty and the problems inherent to life in the Global South. This form of international volunteering brings about far less long-term benefits for ‘the visited’ and far more extremely negative consequences.
By using the US volunteer organisation ELI Abroad (Experiential Learning International) as a case study, I aim to take a critical look at these negative consequences and the stories, images and narratives shared by the organisation to market the programme. Using a postcolonial lense to challenge the notion of a single path to development, I will analyse and critique the popular images and representations of international volunteering more broadly. I will try to bridge the gap between the polarising perceptions of international volunteering; a neocolonial monster? (Pastran, 2014), or as that which has the potential to challenge the economic, technical and cultural focus of globalisation, by encouraging people to connect and relate with each other on a global scale (Devereux, 2008: 358).
ELI’s slogan is ‘travel with a purpose!’ – because, traveling without a purpose (assuming they mean standard tourist/beach holidays) is obviously not what you want to be doing with your summer. Instead of traveling without a purpose, why not be empowered through volunteering in a developing country where you can ‘help’ out by offering your skills and knowledge. ELI’s ‘about us’ section explains their philosophy – ‘the most compelling life lessons come through experience, and that international experiences are among the most profound influences on our sense of self and our view of the world (eliabroad.org). Here ELI puts the ‘volunteers sense of self and worldview’ at the center of the experience. The language used is extremely positive, in that it makes you feel like you are very special for wanting to do something so ‘out of the ordinary’ and that you are choosing to do this because you are ‘globally-minded’. Mary Mostafanezhad (2013) says that this ‘rhetoric of compassion,’ mediates the voluntourism experience, and that it also signifies the expansion of neoliberalism, as states see individual citizens working to alleviate suffering that used to be dealt with by the state (Mostafanezhad,2013:320).
From first glance at their website there is a strong sense that it’s about what you are getting out of the experience as opposed to what you can give to others. This is one of the main critiques of voluntourism, in that locals receive no measurable outcome, or are negatively affected by being drained of time, energy and resources which are needed to help a volunteer acclimatise and feel comfortable (Devereux, 2008:362). Devereux mentions that not all volunteer organisations make the endeavour paternalistic rather than reciprocal, in some organisations there is a genuinely beneficial relationship between the giver and the receiver, because true international volunteering for development is an exchange of knowledge as well as skill. As stated in the UN criteria for volunteering, it should always benefit someone other than the volunteer, thus it’s also important to remember that local people working with organisations who seek volunteers, are well aware that the volunteer will bring essential ingredients to the partnership. A 1999 study in Nepal showed that more than half of the local people interviewed, said that they definitely felt that international UN Volunteers had made a contribution that could not have been provided by the locals (Devereux, 2008ː362).
ELI’s website’s front page statement says that they are allowing volunteers to work ‘side by side with locals’, which shows an acknowledgement of the importance of working with local institutions. They explain how their biggest expense is to their foreign partners on the ground; ‘we emphasize a fair fee for local peoples services, which helps the local economy and raises the quality of life.’ They also explain that host organisations must ‘have the means to meet your needs’ – and since ‘in the third world, that alone is a huge and costly challenge (eliabroad.org)’ volunteers are expected to pay up to $3000 per project, depending on where it is. For example volunteering in Uganda on a microfinance project costs $1520 for a 12 week placement, and volunteers on this project are required to stay for a minimum of 6 weeks.
The fact that ELI are offering placements in microfinance is a major cause for concern and requires a deeper, more critical analysis. First of all it is important to understand what microfinance is and its history. 30 years ago the international development community was elated with the prospect of a new, market-affirming solution to ending poverty in developing countries. Us-educated Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus’ idea of microfinance would, in his words “rapidly eradicate endemic poverty and under-development by creating jobs, raising incomes and include previously excluded groups (notably women) in economic activity’ (Bateman, 2015:1). The UN backed microfinance, nominating 2005 as the ‘Year of Microcredit’ and then United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan stated that “microfinance has proved its value, in many countries, as a weapon against poverty and hunger. It really can change peoples’ lives for the better” (un.org). Yunus believed his goal would be reached by bringing capitalism to the poor, and in 1983 established his “bank for the poor”; the Grameen Bank. For the neoliberal orientated WorldBank and USAID, the ideology behind microfinance resonated with their obsession of promoting self-help, individualism and entrepreneurship as the only way poor people could ever escape poverty. ELI fail to explain the concept of microfinance on their Uganda project page, instead, offering the potential volunteer an explanation of how Yunus, who was eventually ousted from his position and accused of tax avoidance as well as other crimes (theguardian.com), won the Nobel Peace Prize and that Savings and Credit Cooperatives (SACCOs) have had ‘mixed results–a few have been very successful while others struggle to survive’ (eliabroad.org). However they do have a page linked to a project in Mexico where they frame microfinance in such a way that the potential volunteer can comprehend in relative terms. Here it is worth quoting them at length;
‘In the States, we often say that someone “started with nothing,” but our “nothing” and Third World “nothing” are miles apart. Without education, without infrastructure, without government programs, success is virtually impossible. This is where microfinance comes in. Microfinance entails providing financial services to those that traditionally are of no interest to banks. A full-service microfinance program offers loans, savings, insurance and training to these forgotten ones’ (eliabroad.org)
So for ELI, not only is success in the ‘third world,’ ‘virtually impossible’ but those who reside there have been ‘forgotten’. We aren’t told by who they have been forgotten but in light of the rhetoric presented on ELI’s website more generally it seems safe to assume they mean ‘us’. ‘Us’ being wealthy westerners who have all the tools and resources to make sure ‘they’ succeed and are not forgotten again. The idea of ‘us’ in the Global North having all the solutions and ‘them’ in the south having all the problems is, unfortunately, still too common in development discourse. Seeing development as a ‘necessary’ and ‘justifiable’ intervention in order to ‘rescue’, ‘civilise’, ‘educate’, ‘heal’, ‘salvage’, ‘comfort’, ‘represent’ or ‘speak for’ those in the Global South so that ‘they’ can become like ‘us’, is a way of conceptualising development as some sort of moral justification – and that is the extremely dangerous attitude of those obdurate colonial powers we are drastically trying to distance ourselves from. In this way, ELI are perpetuating a colonialist attitude and glazing over the issue of how microfinance can actually worsen people’s economic and social situation.
The collapse of microcredit began in Mexico when The Public Offering of Mexico’s largest microcredit bank, Banco Compartamos, exposed shocking levels of profiteering by high level managers as well as many outside investors and absolutely no evidence of reduction in poverty for it’s poor clients (Bateman, 2005:2). The whole microfinance model had been over run by greedy and aggressive private banks and investors. Exposed as fundamentally flawed, in a report called ‘What is the evidence of the impact of microfinance on the well-being of poor people?‘ the UK government-financed Department of International Development (DfID) concluded that “the entire model had been constructed on foundations of sand” (Duvendak et al, 2011).
What ELI haven’t done is explain the reality of Yunus’ success; how he passed on the problem of poverty to those suffering and profited from them in doing so (Bateman et al, 2019).
26.02.2019