Side notes to comments on last blog
I am happy to see we’ve gotten some good comments on the latest development blogs! I have a few other side notes to add after reading the comments.
If it is indeed true that aid cannot reach the hands of those who most need it and is only augmenting the corruption of the government to which it is given, why continue this less than efficient circle? Not only are we wasting donor and government dollars by handing them over to corrupt governments and agencies, we may also be contributing to what William Easterly calls the “aid curse” – where high aid revenues going to the national government benefit political insiders, often corrupt insiders, who will vigorously oppose democracy that would lead to more equal distribution of aid (“The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good” (2006)). Steve Knack of the World Bank has found that higher aid worsens bureaucratic quality and leads to violation of the law with more impunity and to more corruption. Hmmm...can aid really contribute to making government worse in the recipient country? It seems so ridiculous to even imagine because the nature of aid is to assist countries in need not make them worse off, right??
I do agree with the people who commented on the previous blog that whether aid reaches the hands of the poor has a lot to do (and maybe everything to do) with whether the government receiving the aid is corrupt or not. But I do believe that some of the fault does lie with the donors. Why perpetuate the cycle? Would it not be possible to bypass bureaucracy and take aid away from bad government to try to get it into the hands of the poor? Easterly makes a good point, “…if aid is apolitical on the receiving end, so it should be one the giving end. Can’t Western voters demand that their aid agencies direct their dollars to where they will reach the most poor, and not to ugly autocratic friends of the donors?” Many will argue that aid should go through even bad governments to promote their political development and democracy. But if aid’s true goal is to reach the poor, why not make this as easy as possible?
4 comments:
Hadn't read the blog for too long. Since the book review anyway. Hey, Very interesting, thought provoking et alle. Policy black hole from the US interests seems an opportunity for self determination. Squandered probably as improvement is very hard to come by. I like Roberto's thought that PC's impact is so minimal and diffuse as to be lost in the scope. This is precisly why it can be of value to be there. Doling out habitual giving can't make a real impact. But Two young men who can survey, or at least believe they can, teach their sons to learn the math and they can find the clean water long after your gone. Slow but true. At least I hope it works that way too. Dad
I hope you don’t mind my comments to your posts…
Why continue with this less than efficient cycle of dealing with corrupt recipient governments? There is no other way. It boils down to the principle of national sovereignty in international relations. The charter of UN sponsored IFIs (i.e. WB, IMF, IFC, UNDP, etc.) requires involvement, agreement, approval, and/or implementation by recipient governments. The same holds true for national government aid agencies like USAID, OPIC, and DFID. This is why the people in places like Zimbawe will continue to suffer until the country’s leadership and government take a different course of action. I read Easterly’s book last year and do agree with his characterization of the foreign “aid curse” creates a dependency. If the objectives of foreign aid are met, then this revenue source will dry up for recipient governments and no more money to divert and fund bloated bureaucracies, pay for populist political promises, finance ill-conceived projects or initiatives, or simply stuff in pockets. So, it is in the interests of recipient governments to maintain the status quo to keep the money coming – among other things. Since there is no accountability there is no incentive to change the modus operandi. People respond to incentives…I guess Easterly got it right!
Lets look at Easterly’s point that you quote: “…aid is apolitical on the receiving end, so it should be one the giving end. Can’t Western voters demand that their aid agencies direct their dollars to where they will reach the most poor, and not to ugly autocratic friends of the donors?” I wish this could be the case. What was the reaction when Hamas won elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and eventually took over Gaza Strip? Somehow, I don’t think my fellow American voters would be demanding, if given the chance, that our aid money reach the people of the Gaza Strip. This reminds me of a joke I heard from a beltway bandit with MENA expertise last year: “Do you know what is worse for a US government official than getting caught with a dead girl or a live boy in this town? Getting labeled as pro-Arab” It is very, very hard to reconcile Easterly’s point with the political realities on the donor end and the political/sovereign issues on the receiving of the donor-recipient relationship.
Can NGOs be the answer? I don’t know much about them to make an educated assessment at the moment. I hope to get some visibility over the next few months. The main weakness of the NGOs is that they are still regulated and monitored by host governments, which can pull their operating license at any time. That is why NGOs, especially foreign ones, tread carefully on what they do which limits their impact and/or effectiveness. Most of the native NGOs I’ve come across where I’ve worked use the money to simply exist. Paz y Convivencia in San Pedro Sula is a perfect example? The grant money translates into little programs, skill building, or project implementation for the poor. No accountability, therefore no incentive for results. The foreign ones might be a bit more results oriented, but a common complaint is the high overhead costs for the expat staff. I empathize with the expat NGO crowd. I know how expensive the fare and booze can be at the Embassy Club, InterCon, Sheraton, or Abdoun!
It is easy to be discouraged in the face of such bleak prospects in regards to foreign assistance and underdeveloped countries. But once you see poverty, misery, hunger, and suffering of people outside of the Western-developed world you have to do something, even if it involves imperfect and dreadful partners. I recommend you read the essay: “The Tragedy of the Commons” by Garrett Hardin if you haven’t done so. Some problems don’t have technical solutions. RS
now I stay in touch..
и всё эе: отлично. а82ч
Post a Comment