Kellyn Lovell’s Post

"Many powerful organizations have been insulated from having to interrogate how their power has been used or abused because the conversation remains abstract. The Power Footprint seeks to make it less abstract." Just finished reading this fascinating exploration of a framework for measuring and redistributing power in international development and philanthropy. Well done, Sonja Betschart, and the many minds who contributed to this report! While the entire report is worth a read, here are the observations I found most resonant: 1) The phenomenon of "capacity-building" in international development is uni-directional and laden with inequity. "How capacity is understood and talked about is a reflection of where the power rests. INGO staff have never required capacity training to work in the South but Southern NGOs require capacity to work in their own communities." 2) The catch-22 (and inherent risk) of models that are designed to enhance transparency and accountability, like the Power Footprint, or impact-weighted accounting, or any others that have emerged, is that they require the buy-in on those whose power they are intended to challenge. "An irony emerges, that even in designing innovations such as the Power Footprint to disrupt the status quo, it must be done with the approval of those that often benefit from that status quo – a further manifestation of the Global North power that compels actors to innovate within its rules." 3) As imagined in a more just and equitable future, power is "a facilitator rather than a restrictor." I think this point is so crucial in understanding why something like the Power Footprint is needed – better understanding and measurement of power will inevitably affect how it is distributed and wielded.