首页> 外文期刊>World Development >Aid or exploitation?: Food-for-work, cash-for-work, and the production of 'beneficiary-workers' in Ethiopia and Haiti
【24h】

Aid or exploitation?: Food-for-work, cash-for-work, and the production of 'beneficiary-workers' in Ethiopia and Haiti

机译:援助或剥削?:埃塞俄比亚和海地的食品营造,现金工作,以及生产“受益人 - 工人”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The distinct subject positions of "beneficiaries" and "aid workers" pervade global aid vernacular, the grey development literature, and the field of development studies, but this binary obscures additional and vital forms of labor within the global aid industry. This analysis is based on the juxtaposition, comparison, and historical contextualization of two case studies drawing on two independent ethnographic research projects in the Somali Region of Ethiopia and southwestern Haiti. We find that although not designated either "employees" or "aid workers," many beneficiaries are required to work to qualify for assistance: for example, food-for-work programs in Ethiopia and cash-for-work programs in Haiti both require beneficiaries to perform difficult manual labor with aid agencies to qualify for disbursements of food or cash. Accordingly, participants in these programs figure themselves workers and not the passive recipients of charity, and in both places, we find that participants critique the inadequacy of the wages for their work. Beneficiaries who work for aid are therefore what we call "beneficiary-workers:" they work within the aid industry, but are neither officially employed nor adequately compensated for their labor. Further, these beneficiary-workers are alienated both from the benefits of their labor and the means of designing or leading the aid programs on which they depend. Aid that requires beneficiary-workers' labor is therefore not fundamentally designed to alleviate poverty or spur economic development; it is instead designed to discipline the poor and to valorize and justify the aid organizations that delimit their labor. By revealing the effects of food-for-work and cash-for-work project in these two places, and by highlighting the critiques of work-for-aid projects leveled by participants themselves, this analysis questions the ethics and appropriateness of food-for-work and cashfor-work projects. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:“受益者”和“援助工作者”这两个截然不同的主题立场遍布全球援助方言、灰色发展文献和发展研究领域,但这种二元结构掩盖了全球援助行业中其他重要的劳动形式。该分析基于两个案例研究的并置、比较和历史背景,这两个案例研究借鉴了埃塞俄比亚索马里地区和海地西南部的两个独立民族志研究项目。我们发现,尽管没有指定“雇员”或“援助工作者”,但许多受益人都需要工作才能获得援助:例如,埃塞俄比亚的以工换粮计划和海地的以工换现金计划都要求受益人与援助机构进行艰苦的体力劳动,才能获得食品或现金支付的资格。因此,这些项目的参与者认为自己是工人,而不是慈善事业的被动接受者。在这两个地方,我们发现参与者都批评他们工作的工资不足。因此,为援助工作的受益人就是我们所说的“受益工人”:他们在援助行业工作,但既没有正式就业,也没有充分的劳动报酬。此外,这些受惠工人被疏远了,既得不到劳动的好处,也得不到设计或领导他们所依赖的援助项目的手段。因此,需要受益工人劳动的援助从根本上不是为了减轻贫困或刺激经济发展;相反,它的目的是约束穷人,并使界定他们劳动的援助组织价值化和正当化。通过揭示“以工换粮”和“以工换现金”项目在这两个地方的影响,并强调参与者自己对“以工换赈”项目的批评,该分析质疑了“以工换粮”和“以工换现金”项目的道德和适当性。(C) 2020爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号