Cover Image
close this bookAid and Entrepreneurship in Tanzania (Dar Es Salaam University Press, 1993, 165 p.)
close this folderVIII ON THE TRACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE CULTURES
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentDefinitions of functional organization
View the documentDistribution of initiatives
View the documentRelations between Tanzanians and Norwegians
View the documentProject variations on mobilization capacity
View the documentRole definitions
View the documentDecision-making structures
View the documentCorruption and favouritism
View the documentNORAD: isolated from local communities and the state

Relations between Tanzanians and Norwegians

The questionnaire asked the respondents how the Norwegian NORAD employed personnel related to Tanzanians. The answer alternatives were defined as "well" and "domineering" at the extremes. In between we distinguished between well and poor, with knowledge of local conditions as the reference point. As Table 30 demonstrates, our selected group of Tanzanian and Norwegian aid administrators were not very positive to the relations established between Norwegians and Tanzanians. Only 1 in 5 said Norwegians functioned "well, with knowledge and respect". The rest were more or less negative, 1 in 10 defining Norwegian personnel as "domineering, considering themselves superior". This information is critical. The personal relations are a strong indicator of the quality of the organizational setup. These data indicate that the problem of recruiting personnel with knowledge of and respect for the recipient society may be a large problem for NORAD.13

Table 26. Norwegian-Tanzanian relations


Nos.

%

Well with knowledge and respect

11

22,4

Well, but without much knowledge of local conditions

19

38,7

Poorly, without much knowledge of local conditions

13

26,5

Domineering, considering themselves superior

6

12,2

Total

49

99,8

A control question was asked on variations among Norwegians. The data indicated substantial variations (Table 31). Nearly 40% said there were variations. But the rest of those who answered (of 47) indicated that the variations were present or they were small.

Table 27. Personnel variations


Large

Same

Small

Total

Nos.

18

15

14

47

Percent

38.3

31.9

29.8

100