dear m,

yeah ... nothing like the sleepy khartoum i knew 10 years ago ...

of course, the question is: when the u.n. is leaving (or at least massively downscaling) - what's gonna happen to all hose sudanese "semi-expat" people, plus the whole service industry that is now catering to the foreign staff (u.n. & n.g.o.)?

also, has this socio-cultural "foreign" presence had any effects onto the local population in a wider sense? do music, movies, cultural practices disseminate?

another question: what's the ratio of u.n./n.g.o. personnel in khartum to those in darfur?

and, the most important of them all: whatever happened to the "acropole hotel"???

inquiring minds want to know ...

--raf*

Kha

Renting a property out to a 'khawaja' is considered socially prestigious as they usually pay in hard currency and expat tenants are reputed to be (whether this is an urban legend or not I do not know) clean and responsible.

As this rep exists everywhere I have been, I would guess that for the landlord playing the odds, it is true.

That is, the odds he or she face of a non-paying international renter are lower than a local renter. There's obviously a triage by passport and employment status (i.e. multinational, international org, NGO, local contract, etc).

But then there is also a pricing difference by the same.

Of course, nothing is 100 percent.

I would note that in countries with poor legal structures, that renting to a local usually has an extended risk, thus inducing perverse incentives to avoid locals, even if theoretical law intends to "protect." First, foreigners are less likely - ceteris paribus - to be able to enforce rights abusively. Second, foreigners are less likely to stay and depending on local contracting rights, lock in rent X forever, thus incentivizing the short-term rent over longer terms (e.g. Cairo where availability for the foreign renter seems boundless, but for the native renter, problematic).

Otherwise, "Usually following a 'tip off' (aka, that guy from school you never really liked and never invited to your parties), the police swoop down on these parties, arrest the revellers, regularly lash the males, shave their heads"
I dare say a new fashion trend will emerge....

and generally humiliate the females who have to go through the ignominy of their fathers picking them up from the police station while trying to explain that they really were studying at their best friend's house and just popped by the party house to pick up a book

A fair cop.

Otherwise, sounds like the typical scummy corrupt expat life. Poor little Student Intern blogger is Shocked!

What a way to dump on my career choices. There is nothing like being a lazy bureaucrat within an international organization.

This is one very ignored aspect of the inefficiency of technical experts in the developing world that you dont often learn about at university.

Though a downside of the preference for renting to foreigners, at least in Cairo, is the preponderance of crap flats at big prices. Ugly furniture, 20 year old conditioners and lots of formica are available at $2000 per month in Egypt for the khawaga who is willing to pay...

of course, the question is: when the u.n. is leaving (or at least massively downscaling) - what's gonna happen to all hose sudanese "semi-expat" people, plus the whole service industry that is now catering to the foreign staff (u.n. & n.g.o.)?

It won't be the first time, following every coup or 'revolution' in Sudan there has been an exodus of expat communities leaving unemployed local staff behind who are then slowly absorbed into less prestigious more mundane jobs such as academia and government jobs.

also, has this socio-cultural "foreign" presence had any effects onto the local population in a wider sense? do music, movies, cultural practices disseminate?

There is a rather vibrant underground existence anyway so no more so than when globetrotting Sudanese return from their pied a terre in Europe or the Gulf.

another question: what's the ratio of u.n./n.g.o. personnel in khartum to those in darfur?

I do not have exact figures but my guess from the distribution of resources and programmes I would say 3-1 with those in Khartoum travelling back and forth sometimes but very few opting to settle permanently in Darfur.

and, the most important of them all: whatever happened to the "acropole hotel"???

Have no idea what you're on about mate, lived a rather scumy expat life myself so I'm assuming that was more of a gone native establishment.

Poor little Student Intern blogger is Shocked!

Oh I know very amusing L, bless her little delicate heart.

Generally re rent and preference of expats over locals, I wonder how much of that is also due to potential scandal factors. I could be wrong but I can see that if there were any conflict between a local tenant and landlord, the latter would be more inclined to be judgemental of the former's practices than he would of an expat's ones on the basis that expats are amoral sub-human pig fleshed kuffar anyway.

Bikhair, I agree, working at an NGO was always painted as a blue skies scenario until I found myself developing that empty glazed look behind the eyes. The waste of resources particulalry is fucking painful.

Simon, ah the fond memories, I can see that old flat in Garden City now.

dear m,

the "acropole" is a hotel in downtown khartoum, owned by a greek family. it was THE place where foreigners would stay (incl. bob geldof during live aid). the hotel staff could organize everything. i do have fond memories, particularly of the breakfast.

--raf*

it was THE place where foreigners would stay (incl. bob geldof during live aid).

Ha, doesn't get more native than Bob.

I've never worked for the UN myself (more's the pity) but I have abundant second hand info that confirms everything you write, and more.

I once had a lengthy conversation with an MD from Northern Ireland who had gone to the Balkans with a UN mission (he had a great deal of experience with treating gunshot wounds . . .) Granted some of his stories might have been an exageration, but he has so many and in such detail that if they weren't largely true, they ought to have been. One of my favorites involved using UN planes to fly in hookers from Italy.

One of the biggest problems appears to be that the UN sends people off to Khartoum with a NY-sized expense account -- plus a fair sum to compensate them for being an expat. This completely warps the local economy with, to me anyway, hilarious consequences. Something is seriously wrong when a crap apartment in Kabul with only occasionally running water and electricity goes for more than a penthouse with a Central Park view.

I know that the UN isn't the Peace Corps but you'd think people joining the UN would have at least some expectation of roughing it a bit in foreign lands. I do, I admit, know a couple of UN people who are as tough as they come but a great many more seem to work the system for everything it's worth. I recall one woman in particular who had been posted to the Caribbean to oversee a bunch of projects. She had a huge housing allowance, a car and driver, etc. One of the perks was that, as a UN employee, you were allowed to bring all kinds of stuff (cars, large kitchen appliances, etc.) into the country duty free. When your posting was over, you could sell them off and make a tidy profit as duties were so high. Apparently all the UN people did this as it was a nice little earner.

Now I can see people getting danger pay to go to Darfur but you'd think people would be lining up to take a pay cut to swan around the Caribbean.

I know that the UN isn't the Peace Corps but you'd think people joining the UN would have at least some expectation of roughing it a bit in foreign lands.

I am still naively loathe to criticise the UN as as a child it was my panacea for all the world's ills of uni/bi/multipolarity (yes I was a geek) but recently the civil government-like bureaucratic nature of the UN and its perks, diplomatic passports etc have made it inevitable that the calibre of people drawn to it are not purely altruistic. It seems to me that the balance of incentivisation and absurd overindulgence is now seriously skewed.

Well, a bit of realism about incentives

Long-term staff always grow jaded - the roughing it for the good of mankind thing only works for short-termers or really super-ideologically dedicated types.

Such are always a minority.

So, the habits of an organisation have to be understood in terms of internal incentives and career staff interest. Retaining staff also will be in issue in competition with other choices.

One of my favorites involved using UN planes to fly in hookers from Italy.

Well, that's just wasteful, I am sure cheaper entertainment was available locally, and would have had the.... well never mind.

One of the biggest problems appears to be that the UN sends people off to Khartoum with a NY-sized expense account -- plus a fair sum to compensate them for being an expat. This completely warps the local economy with, to me anyway, hilarious consequences. Something is seriously wrong when a crap apartment in Kabul with only occasionally running water and electricity goes for more than a penthouse with a Central Park view.

Well, in re Kabul there is competition for a very small housing stock that is suitable to expats. Recall even with the above conditions, that's a step above a half-destroyed house or indeed a hovel. Further, the owner may have spent serious capital in repairing and bringing in at some risk amenities that Western expat staff expect on long-term assignment.

Your comparison w Central Park penthouse ends up abusive, you have to price in risk. Risk to the owner for renting to Westerners who behave as if they're in Paris. Risk to capital invested as a general matter. Instability risk - i.e. everyone pulls out with a government collapse and the entrepreneur is left with an expensive investment he can't get a return on.

Short term incentives mean pricing will skew towards recovering costs as rapidly as possible.

Of course, given subsidies for housing, the renter doesn't feel a huge incentive to economise.

I know that the UN isn't the Peace Corps but you'd think people joining the UN would have at least some expectation of roughing it a bit in foreign lands.

Why?

That gets tiresome.

Longer term, expertise is fungible and UN does have to compete indirectly with multinationals, etc. for staff, with no expectation of roughing it.

I do, I admit, know a couple of UN people who are as tough as they come but a great many more seem to work the system for everything it's worth.

And what's the problem?

Listen, long-term any system has to be set up based on personal incentives, individual real incentives.

Anything set up based on "greater good sacrifices" and drawing on more than a tight cadre of highly motivated, ideologically committed staff is going to fail.

Anything

I would have thought that would be clear.

UN of course has, as far as I have seen, some messed up incentives, in part due to the system being designed with this "I would expect people joining the UN" Greater Good claptrap in the background.

Expectation of longer-term "sacrificing" behaviour in any impersonal institution - corporate or larger/established NGO or governmental agency - is pure foolishness.
One of the perks was that, as a UN employee, you were allowed to bring all kinds of stuff (cars, large kitchen appliances, etc.) into the country duty free. When your posting was over, you could sell them off and make a tidy profit as duties were so high. Apparently all the UN people did this as it was a nice little earner.

So?

Now I can see people getting danger pay to go to Darfur but you'd think people would be lining up to take a pay cut to swan around the Caribbean.

True enough, but you're forgetting something. Real Incentives: That UN staffer has to look (consciously or not) at long term career interests. A pay cut to go to Carib means (i) less retirement pay, (ii) self-benchmarking down for future posts - there is some kind of averaging system, so taking a pay cut means caping one's upward mobility which the avg person doesn't like to do, (iii)internal prestige as well as perspective on private opportunities.

If you stop looking at the UN as some abstraction and look at it merely as an institution like any other, the behaviour is not merely to be expected, it is something to be designed for.

This kind of thinking, by the way, is what leads Communist projects and ... well even the magical thinking of the anti-Gov. American right to fail. The magical expectation that "public service" by long termers - which are necessary in the modern world - will follow the same behaviour patterns of highly motivated short-term cadres.

They don't and never will.

Gah, serves me right for going out and swimming instead of ranting, L just stepped all over what I was going to say. If you plan to hold on to people for a longer term, and not lose them as soon as they hit 30 and decide that maybe they want to have enough money for their kids' college, or to finally get to actually stay in nice hotels when they travel, or to have a proper house and not a grad-slave-style slum, or what-have-you, you're going to have to pay them competitively with, or at least not hopelessly worse than, various multinational corporations that WILL be looking for people with overseas experience & a knowledge of how to work the UN system. If you only pay enough to attract gap year adventurers and the completely altruistic, you'll never build any kind of institutional memory or institutional competence.

UN of course has, as far as I have seen, some messed up incentives, in part due to the system being designed with this "I would expect people joining the UN" Greater Good claptrap in the background. Expectation of longer-term "sacrificing" behaviour in any impersonal institution - corporate or larger/established NGO or governmental agency - is pure foolishness.

The crucial factor here is balance and crucially, department. Recruiting young world changers as UNVs or disaster relief workers is low cost, short term and low maintenance as L mentioned but incentivising long term staff to stay with the organisation particulalrly if they are in the humanitarian domain is where the chasm between professional and personal application begins to widen.

In my experience, higher level humanitarian staff especially in the fields of re-distributing UN funds or putting pressure on local government to facilitate aid etc, do not give a toss and are not personally invested in their goals which leads to travesties such as donors holding the UN to ransom and withdrawing donated funds if not utilised within one fiscal year. And this is in Sudan.

I have no problem with the UN competing with multinational companies in order to keep their staff, I DO have a problem when employees are in the fields of humanaitarian relief and are being overpaid and overincentivised to not do a job.

If you stop looking at the UN as some abstraction and look at it merely as an institution like any other, the behaviour is not merely to be expected, it is something to be designed for.

Grand, most institutions fall down on the personal gain/public good dilemma, hence the almost mutually exclusive nature of representative politics, the higher up the politician, the more likely he/she will become divorced from his flock.
It's not a criticism, it is a genuine dilemma.

Lucky Meal, with the golden arches, has been there before the Darfur thing even started.

I used to like their Fries.