Koch’s Book Made Me See Unintended Consequences in a New (and Frustrating) Way
What Happens When Theory Meets the Messy World of Aid Projects
In October 2023, I reviewed a thought-provoking book for my work in the aid sector: Foreign Aid and Its Unintended Consequences by Dirk-Jan Koch. I was thrilled to receive positive feedback from the author, both on Medium and LinkedIn.
Most authors in this field, including Koch and other prominent thinkers, come from the aid providers’ side — donor or development agency countries. I’ve learnt a lot from their perspectives, but as a practitioner in the aid industry and a citizen of a recipient country, my background allows me to approach things from a slightly different angle.
Over the past year, I didn’t just read and review the book. I actively tried to apply its recommendations in my work, hoping to align my actions with its principles.
However, I must admit that after nearly 25 years in this sector, my skepticism toward aid has grown, as it is shown in my previous writings. Yet, I’ve remained hopeful and optimistic in attempting to implement Koch’s ideas.
Now, a year later, I can say this: Koch’s recommendations are invaluable, but putting them into practice? That’s a whole other story.
From Scepticism to Structure: Koch’s Impact on My Work
What I appreciated most was how Koch moved beyond critique to offer practical recommendations for different players in the aid sector. He provides various recommendations to address unintended negative consequences (UNC) and encourages policymakers, practitioners, and evaluators to adopt more flexible plans to manage unexpected results and collaborate with local partners.
Koch’s book aligns closely with the principle of “do no harm” — a concept that reminds us that aid, no matter how well-intentioned, can inadvertently create harm if we aren’t careful.
This harm could be something obvious, like how the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Haiti “introduced” a cholera strain from Nepal. Or it could be less visible, like fostering dependency or creating conflict within communities.
For me, “do no harm” has always been an important baseline in my work in the aid sector, especially as a citizen of a recipient country. While I have applied this principle in the past, I never had a structured framework to refer to. My go/no-go decisions have always been guided by my personal compass and principles. And when challenges or obstacles arose, I often lacked a theoretical reference to support my arguments.
We have safeguards in the aid sector that focus on specific, predefined risks, like environmental or social harm, often using a compliance-driven, rigid approach. Koch’s concept goes further beyond safeguards, addressing the unpredictable, interconnected nature of aid systems. Unlike safeguards, which target known risks, unintended negative consequences (UNC) assessments encourage anticipating broader ripple effects and adapting to complex, real-world challenges.
The book showed me that while it’s difficult to fully implement this principle, it is possible. His emphasis on assessing, anticipating, and mitigating UNC offers a structured way forward. The theories and methodologies he presents are solid, giving me a framework I can rely on.
After reading the book and writing my review last year, I began applying the recommendations that are relevant to my work — during project or program design, implementation, and evaluation.
Project Design: My Creative but Doomed Attempt
During one project design process, I decided to include a section to address unintended negative consequences (UNC). Bold move, right? I thought so too.
But based on past experience, I knew that slapping a straightforward title like “Preventing and Anticipating Unintended Negative Consequences” onto a draft outline was like putting a big “Reject Me” sign on it. So, I got creative. I tucked it away under “Implementation Challenges” and then buried it even deeper under “Other Potential Effects.” Clever, huh?
Feeling pretty confident, I thought my sneaky strategy had worked and the section would slip through unnoticed — or even better, get approved. But nope, my fellow consultants caught it, and let’s just say they weren’t fans. “Too complicated,” they said. That was the end of the explanation.
Now, I’m not naive. I suspected there was more to it. Let’s be honest — nobody likes talking about potential risks or consequences, especially ones that might make the project look less shiny to donors. Raising concerns about UNC could make the whole thing seem more risky, delaying approval or, in the worst case, jeopardizing funding.
“And if the project didn’t get approved? Well, we’d all be out of a job for the implementation phase,” they reminded me. So, out went my carefully crafted section, leaving me to shrug it off and say, “Better luck next time, UNC.”
Fortunately, in this case, the UNCs I identified didn’t involve life-or-death situations or anything with fatal consequences, so I could live with letting it go. That said, I always make a point to informally share my concerns with donors or recipients when I get the chance — before the project kicks off.
However, if the potential consequences are too risky and I am unable to voice my concerns, I simply withdraw from the assignment. No project is worth the sleeplessness that accompanies a guilty conscience.
Project Evaluation: The One that Got Cut Anyway
I had better luck pulling this off during the program mid-term evaluation — at least initially. While evaluating the program, I identified some potential unintended negative consequences (UNC), documented them under one of the OECD evaluation criteria, and even proposed mitigation strategies.
To my surprise, my team leader and consultant colleagues didn’t just accept my findings — they appreciated them and even added input that made the analysis stronger. Things were looking promising.
But then came the aftermath. Both the commissioning body (the one that hired us to evaluate on behalf of the donor) and the large multilateral agency implementing the program were, let’s just say, not thrilled. In fact, they were downright angry reading that section.
With various arguments and tactics, it seems they managed to have the section removed from the final evaluation report. What does the final version look like? I have no idea — I haven’t seen the published report to this day.
Project Implementation: The Stage When It Gets Ignored
When it comes to project or program implementation, the situation is usually set in motion by then. If there’s no assessment of unintended negative consequences (UNC) built into the project design or documents, the chances of spotting, preventing, addressing, or mitigating UNC during implementation are pretty slim.
From what I’ve observed, it’s rare — almost unheard of — for projects or programs I know to implement Koch’s recommendations, whether consciously or unconsciously. Once things start moving, it appears that UNC is frequently completely ignored.
What Makes Addressing UNC So Difficult?
So, why is it so difficult to examine unintended negative consequences (UNC) at every stage of a project — design, implementation, and evaluation?
1. Knowledge Gaps? Not Quite
Knowledge gaps are the usual suspects in aid projects, but in this case, I don’t think they’re to blame — at least not on the aid providers’ side. From what I’ve observed, the issue isn’t whether UNC exists or how to analyze them. It’s whether they’re worth including in the first place.
In one project I worked on, the arguments weren’t about the quality of the analysis but whether mentioning UNC might complicate things. Including UNC could delay funding approvals, trigger unnecessary debates, or even make the project look too risky to donors. It was less about gaps in knowledge and more about avoiding the hassle.
2. Rigid Systems vs. Complex Realities
Aid providers like donors and development agencies operate within rigid structures — hierarchies, performance metrics, and strict guidelines for design, implementation, and evaluation. These systems reward outputs like disbursed funds and approved projects but don’t leave much room for complexities like UNC.
Koch’s complexity theory explains this mismatch well. Development projects operate in dynamic, interconnected systems where even small changes can have unpredictable ripple effects.
But rigid systems struggle to adapt, and in some cases, the easiest way to avoid disruptions is to ignore UNC altogether.
3. Self-Preservation at Every Level
Then there’s self-preservation, which I’ve seen play out across all actors in the aid sector. Everyone has something to protect:
- Donors and development agencies worry that admitting unintended negative consequences (UNC) might slow down approvals or hurt disbursement rates, which could reflect poorly on their performance.
- Practitioners like consultants and project teams avoid mentioning UNC because it can lead to endless debates, rejected reports, and wasted working hours — especially if the Terms of Reference (ToR) don’t mandate a UNC analysis.
- Recipients — whether government institutions, local NGOs, or communities — prefer faster approvals and funding disbursement. Acknowledging UNC could risk delays or future funding opportunities.
In implementation, if UNC weren’t assessed during design, there’s rarely a budget or mandate to address them. Worse, admitting UNC mid-project can feel like admitting failure, creating internal consequences for everyone:
- Donors risk losing future funding allocations.
- Agencies might receive poor performance reviews.
- Recipients fear losing credibility or future aid opportunities.
By the time you get to evaluations, the self-preservation cycle is complete. Nobody wants to produce a “bad” evaluation, let alone one that highlights UNC. It’s easier to leave those questions unasked.
A Bigger Problem
Ultimately, it’s not just one factor that makes examining UNC so difficult — it’s the combination of rigid systems, self-preservation, and the pressure to prioritize short-term outputs over long-term accountability.
While knowledge gaps might exist, they’re often just an excuse. The real issue is structural, and unless this cycle changes, Koch’s recommendations for tackling unintended negative consequences will remain out of reach.
Small Steps Toward Breaking the Cycle
As a practitioner, I know I don’t have the power to “break the cycle” alone. But what I can do is keep incorporating unintended negative consequences (UNC) into every study I conduct, no matter how challenging it might be.
With Koch’s recommendations, I’ve learned to better assess which UNC are truly fatal and which are manageable. This clarity helps me take a stand — if an analysis I believe in is rejected and deemed critical, I can step away with confidence (and still sleep soundly at night).
While systemic change feels daunting, I believe it starts with small, deliberate actions — by practitioners, donors, and recipients alike. If more of us begin addressing UNC at every stage, even informally, we can push for the larger reforms the sector needs.
And who knows? Maybe Koch will write a follow-up book one day, sharing strategies for breaking the cycle and ensuring UNC are taken seriously. Until then, we can all start by taking the first step.