Development Aid: Empower not Prescribe

“Aid appears to have established as a priority the importance of influencing domestic policy in the recipient countries.”
Benjamin F. Nelson

Linda Polmann in her speech for TEDxHamburg describes international aid as an industry. It focuses on investment but involves other industries to benefit from investment return. Today aid industry provides work places to thousands of people all over the world and grows significantly from year to year.

Meant in definition to be voluntary and selfless, development aid through its efficient application should aim for further aid reduction. But instead of being cut development aid today plays important role on world markets. After its decrease in the years 2011 and 2012  official development aid last year achieved the high record of $134.8 bln and showed the growth of 6.1% compared to 2012.[1] These figures not only show the increasing readiness of countries to help in developing sustainable future for all. But also the raising influence of a donor country on economic, cultural and political spheres of a recipient country when providing development aid. Facing the increase of world’s official development aid special attention should be drawn to the ties for recipient countries which accompany such aid.

The idea of voluntary financial help sounds tempting for aid recipients until the rules of the game are imposed. In the book “Dead Aid” Dambisa Moyo says “The mistake the West made was giving something for nothing.” But was there really nothing in return? Not only development aid maintains dependency but also forces recipient countries to implement certain change which can hardly be beneficial for aid recipients.

Source: http://buildingmarkets.org/blogs/blog/2012/06/14/how-deep-doth-run-the-question-of-local-procurement/

Starting with misfeasance I will give an example of World Development Movement campaign organization report in 2005. It informed about British government pushing aid recipient countries to privatize water services, even if with low benefit for them, through paying British companies with financial aid resources.[2]

Though the example speaks for itself I am talking not only about misuse of aid money. The whole attitude of imposing donor beneficial conditions or restrictions for receiving development aid is wrong. Introducing certain conditions gives the semblance of partnership between donors and recipients. While partnership is about fair participation of both parties. Recipient countries are rightful owners of financial aid but when accepting conditions they have less control and decision-making on how the aid is distributed. So setting less conditions does not mean decreasing control of money use but rather wise coordination of money flows.

The necessity to raise recipient countries’ voices was introduced in Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in 2005. Here the idea was presented that recipients should elaborate their own strategies for development while donors should align behind those strategies and use local resource systems. Then Accra Agenda for Action in 2008 followed raising the question of more deep and strong participation of recipient countries in aid distribution.

It was introduced by inter Press Service based on a U.N. study on African economies that imposing restrictions or conditions to aid recipients reduces the value of aid by 25 to 40 percent.[3] So if not concentrating on gaining advantage from development aid recipients, ways of using local resources would be considered in more details. And then a sound voice of recipient should be heard.

Interpress Service News notes the example of Eritrea given by Njoki Njoroge, director of the 50 Years is Enough campaign. Eritrea found out that it would be cheaper to build its railway with local resources and experience than be forced to spend development aid on conducting its conditions such as hiring foreign architects, experts, engineers.[2]

Providing conditions or restrictions to receive development aid not only promotes ties but forces developing countries feel obliged to accept the posed rules. But what if the wanted changes do not fit in the recipient’s policy? What if the local specialists can contribute more than expected? What if non of the already experienced development strategies fits? What if a recipient country’s society does not want the rapid change? What if an aid recipient proves to have better capability to manage the aid use?

William Easterly says there are two types of approaches to organization of development aid: a top-down imposing approach from Planners and a grass-root bottom-up approach from Searchers. He says:

“A Planner believes outsiders know enough to impose solutions. A Searcher believes only insiders have enough knowledge to find solutions, and that most solutions must be homegrown.”[2]

It would be false to say that a Planner does not have good intentions, enough education or capacity to bring ideas into another society. But the system a Planner was brought up in sets limits to his ideas and introduces what is right and what is wrong in his certain society. While mindset of a member of another society may vary much from rights and wrongs of a Planner.

Since Paris Declaration of Effective Aid the certain progress has been made in the field of empowering aid recipients with their own ways to develop and breaking tied aid. The results of research on progress of implementing Paris Declaration showed that by 2010 the proportion of aid recipient countries who elaborated sound national strategies for development has more than tripled since 2005.[3] But today the question remains about if those strategies are implemented effectively and how to make voices of donors and recipients equal in the process of aid distribution.

Tied aid brings limits to collaboration between donor and recipient countries which results into low effectiveness of aid distribution and low participation of aid recipients. Therefore conditions and restrictions for development aid should be gradually eliminated in ongoing aid campaigns and should not be represented in newly introduced aid programs. According to Interpress Service News several countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, United Kingdom today are step by step breaking away from the idea of tied aid.[2]

Development aid has its core meaning in bringing new into real. In many cases the effective way to have sustainable aid results is to empower local people. And the way to do so is to take local policy more seriously. To listen to the voices of local officials, activists, organizations, citizens. To give them the opportunity to build their next day the way they want to see it.

Bibliography:

1. Provost, C. (2014) “Foreign aid reached record high” in Guardian, April, 8. Retrieved: 28/12/2014 from http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/apr/08/foreign-aid-spending-developing-countries.

2. Shah, A. (2014) “Foreign aid for development assistance” in Global Issues, September 28. Retrieved: 27/12/2014 from http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/35.

3. 4th High level forum on aid effectiveness (2011) “Aid-effectiveness 2005-10: progress in implementing the Paris Declaration” Busan, Korea, November 29 – December 1. Retrieved: 28/12/2014 from www.oecd.org/development/effectiveness/48734301.pdf.

No hay comentarios / 31 Dec 2014 por Tatsiana Prokharchyk
IMSD / Accra Agenda for Action, aid, aid recipient, development, donor countries, Easterly, Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, tied aid

Comentarios cerrados.