Let's start the discussion here.
As far as I’m concerned, development aid works and that’s why it was created. As Professor Kanade points out in this question, in the present form is of course problematic. That’s why not only scholars but also development practiotioners have come to a conclusion that it needs “a new paradigm”, I mean, another way of thinking and implementing development aid.
Indeed, in my opinion this new paradigm of international cooperation for development should stress two important ideas:
1. The idea of creating a real “partnership” between donors and recipients of aid: it is known that since a long time ago, donor countries impose conditionalities to provide money or start projects for development. As we’ve read in the essay “Dead Aid”, donors tend to choose only by themselves how, where and when their aid is going to be spent for. This is one of the big reasons why development aid was not working for so many years in many countries. But if donors start to sit down with the recipients so as to plan together which are the problems that don’t let them develop properly, which are the best ways to solve them and, in short, if donors let them the chance of “ruling” their own process of development, aid would really work in a better way. At least, quite a lot of country’s development agencies and NGOs are now working in this way so I’m happy about that.
2. The idea of monitoring and evaluating how development aid is being implemented: again since a long time ago (and especially before the financial crisis burst) it was demonstrated that there was more than enough money to spend in development aid, so donor countries (through their development agencies) tended to manipulate it without very much knowing how they spent it and without many concerned about the outcome of that development aid. Yet another mistake of the use of this kind of instrument, as many development programs and projects ended up being forgotten and without having provoked any development in the recipients, of course. So how can we overcome this problem? For example, starting being serious about monitoring and evaluating the progress of the programs and projects of development, both in the short-term and in the long-term. It would help to control and to check if they are working or not, and especially if they are useful to reach development, of course. I think that it could also help to reduce corruption and bad use of aid too.
These are only two ideas that I consider to be of great importance if we really want aid to survive and to be used to its real purpose, that is, development. Now it’s time for you mates to reply and to write more ideas!
Thank you and kind regards,
María José
I think as you mentioned in the presentation that development aid creates a sense of dependency in the recipient countries, where instead of relying on themselves they wait for external support. There is a Chinese proverb that describes the situation perfectly which says: “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”
If these development aids are indeed given with goodwill to help developing countries and LCDs in alleviating poverty and progress steadily then why not help initiate projects and workshops focused on developing capabilities of the citizens of these countries so that they coulld be able to take matters into their own hand? Or, encourage large investments that would generate long-term revenues, employment and economic growth instead of just sending out money?
On another note, ensuring that development aid goes to development projects is very crucial. I think here Maria Jose made good points.
The majority of the recipient countries of aid are authoritarian states that suffer from corruption within the government and mismanagement of the different affairs of the countries including mismanagement of public funds. Thus, it is necessary to take measures that would ensure that aid does not go into the pockets of these people but rather on projects benefiting the communities that need it the most. Hence, setting institutions that work on assessing the situation in the specific country to evaluate which sector is most in need or which communities need it the most. These institutions should also be responsible for monitoring the projects and programs implementations, with complete transparency from the side of the government and the institutions as well.
Great points Maria Jose and Israa. Now, from your discussions, you both seem to agree that development aid is not a bad idea per se - in fact, there is a lot of potential good it can do. Unfortunately, the strategies that create dependency are wrong. Israa's example of the Chinese proverb was apt here. Sometimes, lack of trasparency, accountability, multi-stakeholder approaches etc. are also big problems. But let me throw in a more systemic problem to this discussion. As I mentioned in my presentation, development aid is, at the end of the day, taxpayers money in the developed countries. Corporations and businesses are some of the biggest taxpayers. Now, if that is the case, it would appeal to logic that donor governments would expect something in return from the aid that benefits the taxpayers as well. There is nothing wrong really in that expectation in principle. Yet, what this means is that the recipient countries hardly have a say in where the development aid goes. The sectors where they go are usually chosen by the donor countries based on their interests (such as the case of Ugandan highway that I mentioned in the presentation). Plus, if there is a sort of quid pro quo expectation, is it really 'development aid'? One classic, and indeed quite revealing case of this systemic problem is here or http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/feb/06/old-british-aid-policy-rears-head.
I encourage you all to go through this short article and let me know what you all think. Is this a systemic problem that defeats the very foundational purpose of development aid? An alternative view could be that there is nothing wrong with mutually beneficial aid policy - where everyone benefits - the recipients as well as donors. Your views?
I agree with my partners, that aid is needed. But as them, I also think that the problem is not aid itself, it is the ways in which that aid is implemented, so my opinion is really close to my partner´s. The negative consequences with aid have been expossed in the readings and also in the presentation, so the question should not be: if aid is needed or not, the question is: how the aid should be. First of all, we have to clarify something: the aim of aid is to give developing countries tools to develop themselves. So the motives of donners, should not be to achieve their own goals, or to make profits from developing countries, it should be only to help another country that for one or another reason does not have the same conditions. In that way, the last thing to do is the implementation, after studying those adverse consequences there is something clear: the aid may not only be to give money to a State’s governement and let it do with the money as it wants. The reason is obvious: most of the times States in a situation of crisis have problematic governements. So aid has to be only for the people not for governements, and not to give them the money directly. It should be through long term projects: it means from entrepeneurship of small projects, to develop a big industry with natural resources of the State (because as we can see, the developing states usually are very rich lands).
It is evident that there are some needs that have to be immediately covered: such as food or shelter. So, the main role of the international community and donners in general, is to control or monitor resources. These are tangible and measurable resources, so if they are well distributed, there should not be any misplacement of capitals, for example.
In Conclusion: the clue is the effective supervision of resources. As we can see, along all these years billions of dollars have been invested in aid. So, the problem is not a lack of resources, it is how they are invested, who decides on those investments, who controls them, and by which parameters, so donners have to make more efforts than only giving money. In my opinion, a good way (not an easy one), is to make a very serious plan, thinking that one single aid, can be enough if it is well developed. There should be instituions that identify the main problems and study the the country’s economy, so in that way they can develop one or another economic activity. Finally, there should aso be an institution which controls the entire process, because we have to remember that development is a process, so the important thing is to control all of its stages. Furthermore, the people of the State has to be involved in the whole process, not only the government. People should identify their own needs as well as the policies to satisfy them.
Monitoring should be as in bussiness, not a single cent should be lost. So in that issue, we have to treat those resources as if they were a private Company: with efficiency, with internal and external financial auditions, in which all the efforts are aimed to one direction (instead of revenues, the objetive should be social welfare).
Hi,
Of course, since development aid born, usually people use to say that it isn't useful because of many systematic causes, as corruption, or the lack to effective action plans to transform this aid in real opportunities to access to exercise human rights and satisfy real needs. Dispite this fact I believe that development aid not only is useful, is a proper behaviour of human being which allows us to be one of the most successful spicies in terms of Survival. Therefore, development aid isn't something new, and also it is true that is a complex issue.
I'm my opinion, it isn't good or bad itself to provide anyone money, a fish or a fishing rod, as I said before, this a complex issue and we have to assess it deeply to achieve our goals. Thus, I think we must act following the next steps:
1- Analyse the context: we have to analyse which are the own features and needs of the place where we are going to invest the development aid.
2- Measure our footprint: we have to analyse the positive and negative impacts of our actions, trying to maximise positive impacts and minimise negatives impacts. In this step, it will be very important to build a close relationship with stakeholders, in order to find a closer general picture of the impacts in that context.
3- Design and execute our action plan: we have to prioritise which are our main actions and objectives, regarding the context and the social, economic and environmental impacts, and we have to apply this plan to reach our aims.
4- The assessment: finally, we have to assess the outcome of our action plan, in order to improve whatever mistakes and/or future plans.
In conclusion, development aid isn't only useful, in my opinion, is a solidary and mandatory way of understanding life and human dignity. Also, I think that, nowadays, the only way to understand development aid is since a perspective where these actions create share value for both parts, the inversor and the beneficiary, because I think that charity or philanthropy is an old and unfair view of how we should build a better world, and the time has proved that it is a wrong and ineffective way.
Greetings,
Jesús Gavilán Hormigo.
Sorry, I would like to say "shared value" above...
Greetings.
I agree with you all and I was impressed with the article as I am familiared with this kind of aids. Many countries tries to sell the old weapons and the old jet or whatever so they got money while they are giving the aid, it is a kind of commercial agreements . I observed when some countries gave a car or bus or ambulance , old one of course, it works just for a while so sometimes it is a good way to start with something but it is a waste of time and money. I think many of them tries to get political action and they feel good helpping this way just like the medicine when they said it is better getting the expired medicines than nothing, in some way I agree that they have some help but we should start to think how we can help the poor countries as all my life I heard that we are helping Africa and it is still poor, how come? Where is all the money and the aid....
This make me think about the terrorism when it is starts in Arabic world they use the religion as a way to get to the people and started to pay them the house and the education for their children but after they study they have to die to help their people, the suicide bombers are young boys, they feel so grateful for the organization which gave them all the necessities and after that they die for them. These kind of actions become normal in the arab world and in another countries in the Far East.
The problem here is that the aid they receive it seems good for them but they pay expensive for this action. The real way is between big countries and the power so it is not because they defend something or helping poor people to get better life it is manipulating the people to get to the power.
I agree we have to keep helping but with better management and to find the way to help people to manage their own life instead of waiting for the big countries ro resolve their problems. It becomes like a habit for the undeveloped countries to wait for the aid and they feel it is a must and they don't think how to help their countries to go through. We have to think about how can these countries get better life and developement. Any way I am so disappointment as I observed that education is not enough to get to the development, Internet has a lot in this case as people believe now more in what you can read on internet more than studying the real meaning.
I am sorry I might get out of the subject but it seems so similar.
Have a good day!
Hello everone,
I believe that development aid works BUT NOT IN ALL CASES. The main problem is when altruism is replaced by political and economic interests. Development aid is often used as a form of ¨soft power¨ by many powerful countries. Moreover, I believe that there is no such thing as free lunch. When development aid is provided, it is somewhat expected that the recepient gives something in return (not up front but maybe in the future). Maybe I sound a little pessimistic here but I have witnessed this many times since I come from a country which has been a recepient of development aid for many years.
Another problem, as mentioned in one of the slides and by Isra, is the vicious cycle of corruption in the governments of recepient countries. This does not only happen in authoritarian states but even in democratic ones. The flow of aid is highly dependent on local politics. Back in the Philippines, a bulk of development aid is pocketed by politicians through their ¨ghost¨ projects. There are even times when aid is withheld by politicians until the elections.
Another thing to consider is what many call the ¨debt trap¨, which a lot of recepient countries are facing. As we know, there are times when countries have to meet certain conditionalities in order to receive development aid
(e.g. World Bank´s Structural Adjustment Programmes) and more often than not, these conditionalities actually worsens the situation of the country instead of improving it.
I agree with Maria Jose and Isra´s ideas; to ensure that development aid is directed to where it is supposed to go, an independent institution must be set up to monitor, evaluate and audit development aid projects. Transparency and accountability are important. Another way to ensure that the development aid works is by making sure that the project is inclusive, meaning all parties involved especially the recepients should have a voice. It is important that there is a channel or a platform through which recepients can effectively communicate with the donors. A feedback mechanism must be set in place.
With regards to the question on mutually beneficial aid policy, I am not in favor of this practice as I see it as a means for rich and powerful countries to take advantage of poor countries who desperately need aid. Moreover, how does one measure if benefits are actually mutual? The practice is wrong but it continues to happen anyway. As I said earlier, there is no such thing as free lunch.
Cheers,
Maria Elisa
Very good discussion everyone. I think you all hit the nail on its head. Development aid, by itself, is neutral. It is the intention behind giving it, the conditionalities attached to it, the manner in which it is utilized, and the monitoring of it, that decides whether it eventually is good or bad. Any development aid that creates dependency without self-empowerment, and any development aid that is not in accordance with the priorities of the recipient, will always result in adverse impacts. Thanks everyone for bringing in your perspectives. I look forward to the next week's discussion.
Cheers,
Mihir