Sustainable Development, Talk about the good work being done to meet both the present and future needs of people and the planet.

2255 Followers

Questioning Aid - again

Sara Wolcott | Thursday 1st October 2009

It's not the first time, but it's particularly serious. The usefulness of Overseas Development Aid (ODA) is once again under question throughout the 'developed' world. From Sweden - long a strong giver of ODA - to the UK to the USA, citizens and their elected leaders are more openly questioning how useful is aid for sustainable development. And this time, sustainable development means not only Africa's development, but Sweden's (and other country's) ability to sustain long term financial donations in a situation where it is unclear whether or not 'aid works'.

The financial crisis is partly to blame. Many threw up their hands in fury several months ago at the ease with which bankers got millions and millions while for decades it has been a struggle to give the world's poor even a half of the less than 1% of overall budget that most countries commit to give to ODA. Sustainable development was reduced to mere rhetoric. Now, with budgets tightened (I've yet to hear a viable plan for how either the UK or the US is going to get out of the enormous debt my unborn children are currently saddled with as a result of the bailouts and the ongoing loans, not to mention any future damage due to climate change), and people looking to pinch, that old question is raised again: why should we give money to someone else's poor when we've our own poor people to look after?

I'm glad to see ODA having to think seriously about outcomes and accountability - the question, what's really value for money, is an important one. DFID (the UK's ODA arm) is putting renewed emphasis on Monitoring and Evaluation. But ODA, like much of governmental work for long term societal change, is not always easy to evaluate. Some of the best work is almost impossible to evaluate - how can you say, with certainty, that a particular program in a particular town has made an impact? Was it the training a group of professionals received that made a difference? Was it a conv images-6

ersation at the right moment? Was it trust built over 10, 15 years of working together that enabled a new venture or a new program to make a difference? Was it the larger political economic situation which most ODA has little control over? Much of the time, you can't say (though of course sometimes you definitely can).

To really understand when ODA is fostering good work for sustainable development will require greater education of the citizens in the developed world, as well as good programs in recipient countries, programs that encourage high levels of ownership by the recipient country. One piece is realizing that with ODA, its going to be very difficult if not impossible to account for 100% of the money, and to expect that that money will never go into the hands of corrupt governments. Yes, one can lessen corruption - but so long as one is working with and trying to support the people who are ruled by corrupt governments, some of the money from Sweden (or the UK) will line corrupt pockets.

Add Your Comment

1000

Recent Comment

Anne McCrady | Posted: 15 November 2009

As we have proven over and over again in Africa, just throwing money at problems is foolish. Investment must be redefined to include human resources and long-term relationships. There is good news though, the involvement of ethical people, companies and organizations begins to dissolve corruption and empowers the people who care about a place.

Jeff Mowatt | Posted: 15 November 2009

This is an area where P-CED tends to diverge from social enterprise in that government corruption has been one of our targets. In Crimea for instance where moves were made to go around us with non transparent addition, we blocked the project by copyright and used the media to draw attention.

http://www.p-ced.com/1/projects/ukraine/
http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/economicdev.html
http://eng.maidanua.org/node/331

Earlier work in Russia had been extremely successful and in 2004 I'd approached our APPG on microfinance offering to present the case. In retrospect I realise that these things were yet to be invented.

Speaking plainly it seems to be an area in which established practitioners guard their territory and that the founder of our organisation found himself blocked from re-entering the UK with a valid visitor visitor visa, something to be regarded with suspicion.

Corruption is after all, using a position of power for personal benefit..

joseph ojo | Posted: 2 October 2009

If the desired changes fails to happen then the world is doomed. This is because much of the world's resources lies in the third world which as yet host the greatest global challenges which is fast assuming a cataclysmic proportion.
It is said that we cannot continue to di a thing the same way and get different result. We must continue to demand for greater accountability in governance.

Kevin Long | Posted: 2 October 2009

Joseph and Sara - good perspectives and both of you are right but do you really believe that any of those changes will happen on our life time?

Sara Wolcott | Posted: 2 October 2009

I agree. I also think that for aid to be really effective, it needs to tied to all policy, not just policy to alleviate poverty. Real ODA would include not allowing companies that violate human rights to continue operating, and not supporting the arms trade with known war lords, etc. Not easy, not even simple, but until there is greater integrity across the board, I don't see much hope for change.

joseph ojo | Posted: 2 October 2009

I really sympathise with this writer on the frustration over the development assistance to poor countries in spite of the fact that even developed countries are increasingly burdened by debts. Whatever may be the arguments, recipients of these aids are only partly to blame for appearing to be constant beggar. Most poor countries have found themselves in this soory situation as a negative consequence of the actions and inactions of the super powers including some of these donor nations.
Corrupt government are known to have been supported as long as business and security interest of these nations are protected. In essence, most nations in the Third World are never independent in the real sense of the word because their stronger partners are providing supposedly the 'big brother' cover.
Aids will continue to end in private pockets as the latest armtwisting by governments e.g. Nigeria which ensures that funds are channeled through their agencies for programmes. It is just not working.

Kevin Long | Posted: 2 October 2009

Yes, a much higher level of ownership by the country recipients in the countries are needed - but - it is nearly impossible because it is so difficult to implement those vast dollar/pound amounts into direct service.