The recent article titled “How kween hungry youth are killing migratory birds” from the Daily Monitor ( a news publisher ) sheds light on a pressing issue in Ayorei village, Kween District, Uganda. Due to extreme poverty and food scarcity, local youths have resorted to hunting migratory birds, such as yellow-billed storks, for sustenance and income. Despite Uganda’s commitment to international conservation agreements, like the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa, these policies seem disconnected from the realities faced by grassroots communities.
The disconnect between policy and grassroots reality
Low- and middle-income countries have increasingly adopted policy frameworks modelled after those of developed nations, aiming to implement well-structured regulations across various sectors. On paper, these policies demonstrate a commitment to governance and progress, often earning international recognition.
However, at the grassroots level, the reality is starkly different, many communities remain unaware of these policies, leading to widespread non-compliance and, in some cases, outright defiance. This raises an important question: What is the real impact of policy advocacy in low income countries, one of the most recommended interventions in development?
Is policy advocacy a long-term investment or an immediate solution?
Despite being a key focus for international efforts, policy reform often seems disconnected from everyday realities in low-income countries. These nations, frequently overlooked in global development priorities, are precisely the areas where effective altruism seeks to maximize impact. But is policy advocacy the most effective approach for addressing highly neglected issues, such as factory farming and wildlife in low-income countries?
From my observations in Uganda, policy advocacy efforts are being implemented, but their effectiveness remains uncertain. Are these interventions primarily about laying the groundwork for future, more accountable governments to act on these policies? Or is the intention to push for policy adoption and ensure its immediate enforcement despite systemic challenges such as government support or weaknesses?
If the former, how do we measure success? If the latter, what mechanisms exist to ensure follow-through in environments where governance is weak?
Direct impact interventions: A more tangible approach?
When comparing policy advocacy to direct impact interventions, such as the Give Well highly recommended charity, the Against malaria foundation’s mosquito net distribution, the contrast is striking. As a direct beneficiary of this intervention, I can personally attest to its tangible impact; without it, I might have struggled with malaria during my childhood.
These types of interventions provide immediate relief and are felt at the grassroots level, making their effects both visible and measurable. They also seem to bypass some of the challenges that policy interventions face in weak governance environments.
The challenge of corruption: Undermining both policy and direct aid
However, even direct interventions are not immune to challenges. Corruption frequently distorts their intended impact, diverting resources away from those who need them most.
Take, for example, Uganda’s iron sheets scandal, where high-ranking officials, including the vice-president and Prime Minister, were implicated in misappropriating aid meant for vulnerable communities. If corruption can infiltrate even the most well-intended interventions, where does this leave cost-effectiveness-oriented organizations?
What’s the best way forward for effective altruism?
What strategies exist to navigate these challenges? Should effective altruism rethink its approach to policy advocacy in fragile governance environments?
Or is there a way to integrate direct interventions with systemic reform efforts to ensure lasting change?
I’d love to hear thoughts from others in the community. How do you assess the trade-offs between policy advocacy and direct impact, especially in contexts where corruption and weak enforcement mechanisms are significant barriers?
The policy-impact gap: How effective is policy advocacy in low-income countries?
The recent article titled “How kween hungry youth are killing migratory birds” from the Daily Monitor ( a news publisher ) sheds light on a pressing issue in Ayorei village, Kween District, Uganda. Due to extreme poverty and food scarcity, local youths have resorted to hunting migratory birds, such as yellow-billed storks, for sustenance and income. Despite Uganda’s commitment to international conservation agreements, like the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa, these policies seem disconnected from the realities faced by grassroots communities.
The disconnect between policy and grassroots reality
Low- and middle-income countries have increasingly adopted policy frameworks modelled after those of developed nations, aiming to implement well-structured regulations across various sectors. On paper, these policies demonstrate a commitment to governance and progress, often earning international recognition.
However, at the grassroots level, the reality is starkly different, many communities remain unaware of these policies, leading to widespread non-compliance and, in some cases, outright defiance. This raises an important question: What is the real impact of policy advocacy in low income countries, one of the most recommended interventions in development?
Is policy advocacy a long-term investment or an immediate solution?
Despite being a key focus for international efforts, policy reform often seems disconnected from everyday realities in low-income countries. These nations, frequently overlooked in global development priorities, are precisely the areas where effective altruism seeks to maximize impact. But is policy advocacy the most effective approach for addressing highly neglected issues, such as factory farming and wildlife in low-income countries?
From my observations in Uganda, policy advocacy efforts are being implemented, but their effectiveness remains uncertain. Are these interventions primarily about laying the groundwork for future, more accountable governments to act on these policies? Or is the intention to push for policy adoption and ensure its immediate enforcement despite systemic challenges such as government support or weaknesses?
If the former, how do we measure success? If the latter, what mechanisms exist to ensure follow-through in environments where governance is weak?
Direct impact interventions: A more tangible approach?
When comparing policy advocacy to direct impact interventions, such as the Give Well highly recommended charity, the Against malaria foundation’s mosquito net distribution, the contrast is striking. As a direct beneficiary of this intervention, I can personally attest to its tangible impact; without it, I might have struggled with malaria during my childhood.
These types of interventions provide immediate relief and are felt at the grassroots level, making their effects both visible and measurable. They also seem to bypass some of the challenges that policy interventions face in weak governance environments.
The challenge of corruption: Undermining both policy and direct aid
However, even direct interventions are not immune to challenges. Corruption frequently distorts their intended impact, diverting resources away from those who need them most.
Take, for example, Uganda’s iron sheets scandal, where high-ranking officials, including the vice-president and Prime Minister, were implicated in misappropriating aid meant for vulnerable communities. If corruption can infiltrate even the most well-intended interventions, where does this leave cost-effectiveness-oriented organizations?
What’s the best way forward for effective altruism?
What strategies exist to navigate these challenges? Should effective altruism rethink its approach to policy advocacy in fragile governance environments?
Or is there a way to integrate direct interventions with systemic reform efforts to ensure lasting change?
I’d love to hear thoughts from others in the community. How do you assess the trade-offs between policy advocacy and direct impact, especially in contexts where corruption and weak enforcement mechanisms are significant barriers?