When Help Makes Enemies

From cash transfers, grants and donations to reciprocity that keeps neighbors whole

Trigger notice: This piece includes references to corruption, threats, and arson.

Consent & safety note: I confirmed with “Saida” (a composite pseudonym) through her proxy that she’s comfortable publishing under a pseudonym and that no details in this piece can triangulate her identity. I also offered her a read-through of this edited transcript, provided it would not increase her risk. Location, employer, and dates are deliberately withheld; dialect terms and local identifiers have been removed or masked.

---

I’ve carried versions of this conversation for years. It’s ordinary and it’s unbearable. Ordinary, because the same patterns repeat across programs and places. Unbearable, because people get hurt.

“Saida” is a composite pseudonym for a 35-year-old humanitarian field officer and mother of five. Her eldest daughter is also pregnant. We spoke shortly after a traumatic event in her community. The conversation has been edited lightly for readability; I’ve kept pauses and emotions where they mattered.

Transcript (edited)

Will: Saida, can you tell me how you got your job and what you were asked to do?

Saida: I was called and given an employment letter. I was told I’d be identifying vulnerable people to receive cash - sent to their phones via a mobile money service.

Will: Did you have to pass an interview or do anything special to get the job?

Saida: No. My uncle had already paid for me to get the job.

Will: Who did your uncle pay?

Saida: My manager - he’s a friend of my uncle. They said they needed a woman for the role.

Will: Is it common to pay something to get employment?

Saida: Yes. It’s competitive. Everyone wants this job.

Will: And you were asked to give out cash?

Saida: Yes. I had to create a list of vulnerable people who would get a transfer to their phone.

Will: How did you do that?

Saida: My uncle and I held a meeting. People could add their names to the list by paying a small amount. We also made sure our close relatives were first.

Will: Does that seem fair to you?

Saida: How else could we do it? Everyone is vulnerable, and my family needs help too.

Will: What about the people who didn’t get on your list?

Saida: They weren’t happy. Some threatened us, but most were just unlucky.

Will: What happened when the aid organization left and the money stopped?

Saida: People got angry. They thought we kept their money or blocked them. People who never received anything wanted revenge. They burned our house.
(Saida covers her face and cries. We pause.)

Will: Are you ready?

Saida: Yes.

Will: What happened next?

Saida: We tried to get help from the agency, but they had gone. My uncle was found dead.

Will: Why do you think people did this?

Saida: They were jealous, hungry, angry. I would do the same.

Will: If you could do it again, what would you do differently?

Saida: I’d stay with my women’s savings circle and not take the job.

---

What the conversation doesn’t show

If you’ve worked in aid, you can almost script this: a short-term cash program, an under-specified “vulnerability list,” and a thousand pressures (status, scarcity, kinship, fear) rushing through the smallest cracks in the design.

When I entered this field decades ago, I would have read Saida’s story as personal failure. It’s cleaner that way. But that reading is lazy. What happened to Saida was produced (and then amplified) by structure.

• Gatekeeping without guardrails. Saida was tasked with making a list without transparent criteria, community oversight, grievance channels, or audit. Lists become favorites. Favors become fees.

• Perverse incentives upstream. If hiring is pay-to-play, the first reimbursement happens downstream - through the list.

• Manufactured scarcity. Short-term cash infusions with unclear timelines create a scramble. When aid stops, people assume theft rather than depletion. Rage needs an object; it finds the nearest door.

• No accountability loop. Without public ledgers, complaint paths, or appeals, anger goes sideways- into rumor, retaliation, and, sometimes, flames.

I’ve seen the fixes we try: exit ramps, audits, appeals, whistle-blowing, per-household caps, independent stewards, transparent registries. They help. Sometimes they’re life-saving. But there’s a deeper current pulling us back toward the same shore: our culture of allocation.

Allowance, as habit, makes us gatekeepers. Grants, distributions, lists. We reward those nearest the gate and punish those just outside it. We then ask people to trust the gate.

There is another muscle we can build … one our ancestors and many contemporaries still use every day: reciprocity. In a village savings and loan association or a credit union, funds are pooled; people borrow against the pool; debts are repaid in cash or in kind; bonds are visible; forgiveness is a governance decision, not an accusation. The structure assumes participation and returns agency.

I don’t believe we can “fix” Saida or her uncle or retroactively defuse the anger that burned her house. But we can change the structures that make gatekeepers out of neighbors.

Here’s the shape I keep coming back to:

• Pool commitments. Let communities seed a shared pool (cash, goods, labor hours, service vouchers) then swap within clear limits and public accounting. No one “gets” for free; everyone participates with claims and obligations that can be tracked, redeemed, even forgiven by design.

• Publish the rules, not the rumors. Value indices (how things are priced), credit / swap limits (how much can move in a window), and inventory (what’s actually there) should be visible and auditable. People fight less with what they can see.

• Route trust, not extraction. When multiple pools list the same vouchers, value can move between them under the same rules. You don’t need a perfect market; you need guardrails, receipts, and local stewards.

• Design for human pressure. Kinship will tug. Hunger will bite. Build in grief paths, caps, and circuit breakers for when the water runs too fast.

Borrowing can be humane. Donations become endowments when they seed a pool that keeps working after the humanitarian project ribbon-cutting photos are gone. Reciprocity (tracked, limited, redeemable) can protect the social fabric where one-off distributions often tear it.

If you feel the same as I do reading Saida’s words, consider this an invitation: shift from allocation to commitment. Make public goods accessible through clear, pooled commitments instead of hand-outs. Build for long-term health.

I’m proud of the work many people have done to revive these traditions and translate them into today’s tools. I’m more proud when a neighborhood no longer needs a “list,” because the pool itself remembers who has given, who has received, and where care is still owed.

For Saida, and for all of us who are tired of ordinary tragedies.

---

Aside: What I’m arguing for isn’t new; it’s remembered. Ubuntu’s “I am because we are,” Andean ayni and minka , LORAs/ROSCAs, Sikh seva and langar , Islamic zakat/waqf/qard hasan , Jewish tzedakah/gemach and Jubilee ideals, Christian solidarity and subsidiarity, Buddhist dāna and Sangha care, Gandhian sarvodaya , the cooperative movement, and Ostrom’s commons all point the same way: reciprocity over allocation, rules over rulers, institutions that remember. Pools and credit unions, not gatekeeping lists. Public ledgers and grievance paths, not rumor. Endowments that keep giving, not drops that spark competition. These traditions also keep us honest: they insist on on-ramps for the most vulnerable, design forgiveness and fee waivers, and put stewardship under clear guardrails. If Saida’s story is a warning, these lineages are a manual for fireproofing the social fabric - so neighbors can remain neighbors, even when resources are thin.