Midway to the US, the Avianca steward officially made his airline the best in the hemisphere. My iPhone and laptop recharged merrily away in their respective jacks; my juice from some crazy Colombian fruit rested peacefully in its foldout cup holder. At that moment, the steward appeared with his cardboard spin-the-arrow game and gaily announced a seat raffle. The prize: free tickets to Curacao.
Add all of the above to things-that-won’t-happen-on-my-flight-next-week-to-Liberia.
As I entered the plane, though, I passed the same sight I see on every flight to and fro a developing country: a business class full of World Bank and (senior) UN peeps. (Add that to things I will certainly see on my flight to Liberia.)
I seldom fly business myself, even on Bank and UN consultancies, mostly to conserve my project funds for research assistants and survey expenses. My incentives are just right: money I spend on me comes out of money I’d spend making my research projects just a little better. Not so the rest of the agency?
I also hold back from business for another reason: $6000 for a single ticket? When the purpose of your trip is to contribute (however little) to ending poverty, something about that price tag just doesn’t seem right.
The Bankers and UNers have a good response: I’m only there for a week, and I’m much more productive if I can sleep on the plane.
To which I reply: your productivity for a 0.5% of your time is worth 4% of your annual salary?
In some cases, I might add: what development assistance exactly is achieved in a week?
In an age of diminishing aid and global belt-tightening, now seems an opportune time to change this little practice. Mr. Zoellick? Mr. Ki-Moon?
If you Bankers and UNers out there disagree, please comment. I could be convinced. But let me make one final argument. Five years ago, deciding not to stay in the Bank’s preferred five-star hotel in Nairobi, I roughed it in a nearby four star guesthouse (principled, I know). If I hadn’t, I never would have met that cute aid worker, dusty from southern Sudan, at the Internet cafe down the street.
Jeannie and I married 18 months ago.
So remember this in your business class comfort: the hot humanitarian workers fly coach.
Too right. I could not agree more.
Fascinating that this discussion seems to have honed in on primarily World Bank employees’ welfare in flight as a proxy for all development professionals’ welfare. In fact, many of the Bank people posting here in favor of BC seem to imply that the extent to which they travel and need to work (no rest stops allowed! too much work!) is extraordinary in comparison to… everyone else who has a serious job requiring travel? As though most INGO workers do not work at very least equally long hours and get by quite well on economy class flights and cheaper hotels/per diems?
I happen to be one of the hot young aid workers in coach class, so maybe my perspective will change as I age and grow a fatter paycheck and more ‘perky’ expectations, but I note that my boss is 70+ years old and a tall guy, and happily gallops off from DC to Africa on coach. On whether WB (or anyone else) would really be losing significant talent if they degraded their employees to ride coach: I graduated from one of the big 2 IR grad schools in DC and I can verify that there was no shortage of clamoring for WB positions because of ‘low pay’ or coach class flights; People who went off to work for big finance or consulting firms were going to do that anyway. As well, I think it worthwhile to point out that three years after having graduated, my many mid-30-something friends at the Bank acknowledge that they and most of their colleagues are generally underworked /underutilized compared to their experiences in US government or consulting firms.
Finally, while I don’t think it diminishes the importance of the topic of conversation above, I would like to testify that there are bigger mountains to climb when it comes to stemming extravagance and waste that flies in the face of what those of us who are committed to a development mission will consider the spirit of our vocation… When I was working for a US government contractor in Sudan two years ago I often stayed with a UN-employed consultant friend in Khartoum. She was 26 years old, getting a fat, tax-free paycheck, which was supplemented by a monthly $5,000 cash DSA to cover living expenses–standard for UN consultants on 11 month renewable contracts at the time (I understand it has since been reduced). UN employees living anywhere in the country other than Khartoum were entitled to a fully paid international R&R every six weeks. I was privy to discussions about how on so-and-so’s last R&R she had so much cash from her DSAs that she was able to buy a fine work of art or an expensive watch. I heard people in the north-south border areas who had not had an R&R in five weeks express to one another that they are nearly dying to get out of the country. This is roughly half as much time as most NGO or other expats spend in country before heading for relief somewhere with heated showers and electricity (which UN staff are more likely to have on the ground anyway).
My point? Human beings are adaptable. Most of us can survive (albeit with some grumbling yet also the satisfaction of doing the work we do) with middle-range guest houses, economy (or I’ll oblige economy plus) flights, smaller per diems, etc. Maybe there are some exceptions, but like some commentators above, I’d be hard-pressed to believe that those people who ‘need’ luxury when traveling beyond what they are used to at home are irreplaceable by less demanding and equally qualified but more mission-committed individuals who can suck it up and find reward in their efforts and achievements rather than in their perks. The defenders of a policy of BC travel for everyone need to get over themselves and get in touch with the people they’re ostensibly working to assist–because yes, that money CAN be channeled back into programs that will benefit the poor far more than the WB employee needs a good night sleep.
In reply to adaptable’s comments. I’ve worked for the WB and for the UN and for a small NGO, I get the whole diatribe against the WB and UN, there are valid and serious criticisms to be made, but I also think his/her post reeks of the type of holier than thou positioning that everyone (WB, UN, NGOs) within the development community takes when looking at other agencies/organisations.
There is a culture of flying business class in the WB yes, but there has also been a concerted policy effort within the organisation to battle this. The flight booking criteria within world bank for instance requires proving that your flight is the cheapest cost option, it is not automatic that you fly business class, you have to make an argument for it. The problem is the policy is not watertight, it is dependent on grade levels and it depends on which region, which head is in charge etc. When I was there the Latin American region had started implementing a policy of coach only for all staff levels, all situations. Given that the WB has roughly 10,000 staff members and a pretty complicated staffing structure it’s not surprising that to say ‘the WB always flies business class’ is not a particularly nuanced or accurate description of the state of affairs.
Equally to argue that WB pay full business class costs is deceptive, they have agreements with the airlines depending on how much business they send their way, some airlines automatically upgrade from coach to business class for WB staff. That’s not to say though that it doesn’t happen and it isn’t a valid area of debate. It is just too easy, in my opinion, to caricature the situation to feel smug about it rather than to seriously discuss the situation.
Yes going business class as a matter of policy seems a bit whack, but for some very long haul flights where someone is going for a two day trip (and yes this can raise the wider issue of what sort of planning sends someone for such a short period etc etc but let’s assume this trip is valid) is it really that reprehensible to allow them to go business class? Especially if it is actually an arrangement with the airline that means the cost is not that much higher than the coach flight. These sort of arguments are much more nuanced than some of these comments allow.
Going to the second point of R & R, yes it may be that the R&R cycle could be lengthened but I find something particularly arrogant about adaptable’s stance that you measure how reasonable that cycle is by what NGO’s have decided. It’s a position that assumes a lot about the quality of care NGOs take of their staff. And yes, there are people, in all systems and all areas, including and probably more shockingly so development, who abuse the system. But one obnoxious staff member boasting that they use DSA to buy luxury items is not the same as saying DSA is a bad idea or that these salaries are too high. To really make that debate you have to do comparison across industries, talk about opportunity costs, incentives etc, I am sure a reasonable argument could be made to reduce these costs but the argument that NGOs are cheaper and the people you try to help get paid a fraction – ergo the UN figures are obviously patently shockingly wrong – is an emotional and sanctimonious argument not a rational considered one. In my opinion at least.
Given that many of the things that development workers, NGOs included, ask for could be considered extravagant luxuries by developing country standards, where do you draw the line, what is the moral basis of these decisions. If you reduce it to the absurd argument that only if we live by the basic standards above the poverty line can we work without qualms to our conscience in development, where above this point do we all agree on a middle ground. Is it about the living standards of those in the developing world we serve or is it about the basic comforts (as opposed to needs) that a person is entitled to, do we take into consideration the alternative incomes/careers available to someone working in development and should we really lampoon them as ‘not committed’ enough if they want incentives to forgo private sector for development work. If we do accept some incentives are fair, what is the limit etc etc.
given that the effectiveness of development aid isn’t even proven, it’s no wonder that we have no benchmark to determine when business class is worth the expense. the “talent” of WB/IMF employees seems largely mythical to me if you can’t put a clear number that values their impact. that’s the whole myth of development work in general, really. the WB/IMF play important roles in global economics, but that has little to do with helping the world’s poor. the development elite have a pretty sweet deal – they travel the world, stay at high priced hotels, get social praise for their career choice (“I could be richer, but I want to help the poor”), argue that flying coach will devastate their important work, and the only metric of their success is that they make us feel better about global inequality.
this debate underlines for me what the key problem is with the global development industry: the people.