|
It's not a shock to discover that there are problems with the implementation of many aid programmes. It isn't news to most in the development community to learn that a fair proportion of the aid that forms official development assistance is lost through poor planning, obsolete and unnecessary schemes and outright corruption. The Panorama programme didn't reveal anything that many people haven't been seeing or saying for many a good year.
Even those, like myself, who have not seen it first hand have heard the anecdotes: the ubiquitous 4x4 with darkened tinted windows, paid for with ODA, driven by government officials around communities where the people struggle to eat; the pointless white elephant capital projects costing millions to build but empty and unused because there are no professionals or equipment to supply it; the pre-election aid handouts by governments to encourage people to vote in the 'right way'. All elements and parts of the aid business reality. It may have succeeded however in shocking many people who are less well informed about the business of aid. Despite all the problems aid has however, I support the fundamental principle of giving aid and what it represents. A world without aid would, in my opinion, be far more worrying even than one with a deeply flawed aid programme.
What worries me as an observer is that many will interpret the programme in a way that I'm sure was not the intention of the programme makers. Aid has an important role to play in development, despite its limitations and its inherent problems it has saved the lives of millions over the years and lifted many out of extreme poverty. Unfortunately I fear that many will not take note of the parts of the programme where this was mentioned and will instead focus solely on the negatives, miss the fundamental message and selectively use examples to call for an end to aid. This would be a disastrous outcome and fortunately one that is not likely to happen. The true message of the programme was more to do with how the aid is managed and spent rather than challenging the entire principle of aid itself.
Evenso the programme did highlight a long term problem with aid that the DRC research has also shown. Aid is largely an unearned income. It does nothing, or very little, to foster a sense of accountability. Where accountability does exist it often lies primarily between the government and the donors rather than the government and its people. DRC research into taxation and, more generally, financing the state has featured the relationships between income streams and accountability (and from there good governance) strongly.
What is needed is obvious to state but perhaps (mainly for political reasons) more difficult to implement. In the short term aid needs to be managed and distributed more effectively. It needs, in the medium term, to be targeted more intelligently with a view to, in the long term, reducing aid dependancy and strengthening the ability of the state to increase its domestic resources. If the state is further encouraged to increase its ability to raise capital domestically, in a way which promotes accountability towards the people it supposedly represents, then it is far more likely that governance is improved, growth becomes sustainable and development equitable. There surely must be some scope to encourage this process through mechanisms of ODA and aid policy.
In the shorter term however it is imperative that aid effectiveness is improved drastically. Stories like the one presented by Panorama will eventually serve to feed funder fatigue amongst those who ultimately foot the bill for much of the ODA; the taxpayer in the North. Ultimately this could seriously jeopardise many, many lives in the South.
One organisation doing some interesting research into aid effectiveness is UK based consultancy firm called Development Initiatives.
-----
Adam Randon
|
