Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Historical background
It is generally believed that the idea that wealthier countries could aSSi5t
poorer ones to develop originated at the end of the Secpnd World War.
79
80 IniCTHationo 1 Development
However, its origins are really earlier than that, since between 1929 and
1941 the League of Nations provided China with 30 technical experts
in areas such as health, education, transport and rural co-operatives
(Rist 1997: 65). Following the war, assistance started on a much larger
scale with the formation of the United Nations and its specialized agen-
cies, arid the establishment in 1944 of the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). The initial role of the IBRD, better known as the
World Bank, was to raise capital for the reconstruction of Europe and
J apan, while the IMF was to promote international monetary stability.
The first loans to developing countries were to Latin American coun-
tries in 194 8 and 1949 (Hellinger, Hellinger and O’Regan 198 8: 14;
Ryrie 1995: 4—5).
US bilateral a5Sistance began in 1948, with the Marshall Plan to assist
with Western European reconstruction in the face of advancing commu-
nism in Eastern Europe; soon foreign economic aid was integrated with
military aid to meet Cold War objectives (Zimmerman 1993: 8).
The idea that there could be a concerted international effort to
address poverty and underdevelopment is attributed to President
Truman, whose inauguration speech announced continuing support for
the UN, the Marshall Plan, and the establishment of NATO. His fourth
point was aid: ‘We must embark on a bold new program for making
the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available
texto
for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas’ (Rist 1997:
71). The late 1940s and the 1950s was a period of optimism, in which
peo- ple believed that it was indeed possible to eradicate hunger and
misery resulting from underdevelopment, perhaps within a decade
(Hoffman 1997).
The underlying theory was that growth in developing countries would
create development, and that it would be achieved through large invest-
ments of capital, coupled with technical expertise. The emphasis was on
modernization and industrialization, using surplus labour from rural
areas to achieve import substitution (Tarp 2000: 19—23). Keynesian eco-
nomic theory was the order of the day, with its emphasis on government
investment adding further intellectual support for the value of providing
foreign aid.
European aid programmes developed strongly in the 1960s as
European countries recovered from war and were in a position to join
the effort to assist the developing world. In particular, as decolonization
of Asia and Africa proceeded, former colonial powers, such as France
and Britain, launched major development assistance programmes to
their former colonies.
Aid and Development 81
040 160
035
0.30 -140
40
ODA ta A ca
0.05
(rignt scale)
0.00
Source: OECD Development Co-o pera tion Report Stiin i77 HT ÿ Û 010 y • Ê •
Figure 3.1 DOC mernbers’ net ODA 1990—? 008 ont DAC Secretariat
simulations of net ODA to 2009 ancl 2010
Such a distribution was clearly not needs-based. If aid has not been
wholly effective in relation to its publicly promoted humanitarian objec-
tives, it may have been far more successful in achieving its other, less
trurripeted, yet often more calculated goals.
Some of the better known abuses of aid include Japan’s allocations to
leverage votes from small states to support its pro-whaling stance in the
International Whaling Commission, and the way numerous donors pro-
mote try de through a host of mixed credit schemes (see for ex ample
Bain 1996).
Another commercial aspect of aid has been the fact that over decades
much Of it ha5 been ‘tied’ to developed country providers. Such involve-
ment of private sector companies based in donor countries has been
roundly criticized as costly to developing countries. Tying may require
firms who manage projects to be registered in the donor country, pro-
cure commodities, such as food aid, frorri donor sources, and place
donor country expatriates in developing countries as technical advisers
(Simons et al. 1997: 187; Randel and German 2002: 14-15; Padilla and
Torrilinson 2006: 14, OECD DAC 2007a). Technical assistance (supply
of developed country ‘experts’) is also a large component of total aid. In
2002, still 38 per cenr of total bilateral ODA was technical co-operation
(Randel, German and Ewing 2004: 21) with the World Bank suggesting
that 100,000 foreign technical experts were employed in Africa alone in
1999 — an incredible number.
The linkage of tertiary education places to universities in donor coun-
tri•S 1S R further aspect of aid ty ing, which has also distorted educational
aid strongly in favour of tertiary education rather than basic or Frimary
education. For example, examining Australia’s educational assistance in
the first half of the 1990s, around 70—75 per cent event to tertiary let e1
while only 6—10 per cent went to primary and secondary combined,
despite the fact that research has consistently shown high social rates of
return for spending on primary edrication (Sim.ons 1997: 1s 0—o ).
Overall, some progress has been made since 2000 in untying aid, wit.h
recent figures suggesting only 7 per cent of 200 7 aid was tied (Clay,
Geddes and Natali 2OO9}. However, the larg e US food aid contribution
remains tied, and technical assistance (which is excluded from this Fig-
ure) remains at 2002 levels as a proportion of total aid. In 2008 at the
Accra High Level Forum, donors pledged to plan the further untying of
their aid, but even when aid is untied it seems donor-based companies
5till gain a high percentage of aid contracts (Tomlinson 2010: 176).
The post-Cold War decline in aid since 1992 has been accompanied
by a rise in private sector investment in selected developing countries,
notably China and Latin America. This was the period when debt
rescheduling and structural adjustment lending began in earnest; donors
recognized that debt service repayments, sometimes greater than the aid
countries received, were crippling certain low-Income highly indebted
developing countries, so poiicy change was needed.
Aid has also been 5haped by new agendas, and since the 1990s, influ-
enced by the view that it is only effective where ‘good policies are in
place. ‘Good policies’ really mean policies consistent with the so-called
‘Washington Consensus’, or the particular brand of neo-liberalism being
promoted by Anglophone countries in the donor community. At the
same time, a commitment to the 1996 DAC goals, and the subsequent
MDGs agreed in 2000, to halve the proportion of people living in
poverty and their associated social goals has influenced donor govern-
ments to re-assess where aid was going, what effect it was having and
whether the goals could be reached. The focus turned to assisting those
countries where poverty is significant but where ‘good gon ernance’ poli-
cies were in place (Dollar and Levine 2006). Yet initially donors varied
considerably in the extent to which their aid was really focusing on
achieving the MD Gs (Baulch 20 04) and Tomlinson noted that, despite
aid growth, there was initially not a real shift to the MDG sectors of
education, health, food security and poverty reduction; rather foreign
policy and debt reduction drove the direction of new aid spending.
However, since 200 8, the focus on MDGs has improved, with 42 per
cent of new aid going to support their attainment (Tomlinson 2010).
However, it is fair to say that from 2001 foreign policy objectives
have reasserted themselve5 in aid agendas — signalled in December 2001,
when the USA pledged Pakistan over US$1 billion in debt forgiveness,
investment, trade arid refugee relief (Jefferys 2002: 3). This was clearly
associated with the US Government’s ‘war on terror’ policy (Human
Rights Watch 2002) and its need to maintain a close alliance with
Pakistan because of its engagement in neighbouring Afghanistan.
OECD COrintrles have since seen development co-operation as a useful
tool in their fight against terrorism: OECD aid to Afg ha nistan
increased tenfold between 1999 and 2003 and ‘in the case of the UK,
Iraq became the top recipient of bilateral aid in 2003/4 ... usurping
India’ (Howell 200fi: 125). Indeed, between them, these two countries
received 37 per cent of the total new aid funds from 2002-06, most of
the rest going to debt relief, technical co-operation and other emergen-
cies (Padilla and Tomlinson 2006: 14). Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan
remain major aid recipients in 2008, indicating the continuing impact of
the ‘war on terror’ on aid disbursements (OECD 2010a). And while the
OECD DAC’s agreement to allow debt write-off to count as ODA may
have contributed slightly to reducing indebtedness it failed to contribute
new aid money to developing countries. In addition, donors such as the
USA, Australia and Denmark have incorporated anti-terrorist activities
through a range of programmes criticized as dealing with threats to the
rich through programmes intended for the poor (Padilla and Tomlinson
2006: 11; Spillane 2004: 167,- Hameiri 2008). Thus just as an ‘aid
effec- tiveness’ agenda was gaining ground, the geopolitics of the ‘war
on ter- ror’ began to undermine it again. However, the effectiveness
agenda has
recently returned, in part no doubt sparked by the debate about the
extent to which the MDGs are being met and in part due to the higher
profile of increased aid budget5, articularly at a time of global financial
recession.
and Kharas’ research revealed that Cambodia receives over 400 donor
mis5ions each year ‘and government officials report spending 5 0 per
cent of their time meeting and reporting to donors.’ (2010: 15). Some
developing countries may have more than 2000 official development
projects per year (Frot and Santiso 2010). And while the number of aid
projects has dramatically increased, their average size has significantly
reduced in the last I 0—I S years (Fengler and Kharas 2010; Frot and
Santiso 2010). Volatility of aid levels is a further problem particularly in
countries in which political and security considerations play a large part
in donor aid flows (Fengler and Kharas 2010: 17—19) or when ‘the
number of donors to a country is small, and when the aid budget is
heavily concentrated within the forms of aid which are “reactive” to the
recipient country’s predicament, 5tlCh as food aid, emergency aid, and
program budget support aid’ (Bulir, Gelb and Mosley 2008: 2046).
Strategies which reduce aid fragmentation and volatility, while retaining
some flexibility, are seen as important for effective aid, along with
approaches which align better with developing country budgets and pri-
orities (Moon and Mills 2010).
While thèse aid effectiveness initiatives have been underway, the num-
ber and scale of natural disasters and complex humanitarian emer g en-
cies drove a considerable expansion of emergency relief funding during
the 1990s and the 2000s. OECD aid for emergencies, around US$1 bil-
lion in 1990, had reached some US $ 10 billion by 2005, or 10 per cent
of all aid (German and Randel 2002: 151; OECD DAC 2006, Table
18). With continuing emergencies in Sudan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia,
Palestine and Somalia, humanitarian aid continued to rise to almost $12
billion in 2008, nearly 12 per cent of total ODA (excluding debt relief);
it is likely to have dropped back to around 10 per cent of ODA by 2009
(GHI 2010: 5). However, as Jefferys (2002: 2) shows, emergency
humanitarian aid is rarely dispersed according to need; rather it depends
on the geopolitical interests of donors and, ofteri as a result, the media
profile of particular hiimanitarian situations. For example, major floods
in Pakistan were much slower to attract funds than the Haiti earth-
quake for a number of possible reasons, including the less dramatic
media that floods generate compared to earthquakes and a lack of con-
fidence in the Pakistan government (Burki 2010). In another case, the
enormous response to the 2004 Asian tsunami which led to US$7,100
being available for every person affected contrasts starkly with the US$3
per head available for those affected by the Bangladesh floods of the
same year (Tsunami Evaluation Coalition 2006).
Many of the recipient countries of humanitarian assistance are con-
flict-affected states, and the ability of local and international humanitar-
ian players to provide aid ‘in a neutral, impartial and independent way’
(DARA 2010: 9) and maintain humanitarian space in such locations has
become more difficult. In particular, in places 5uCh as Afghanistan and
Iraq, military forces have also been involved in aid activities, blurring
the distinction between neutral humanitarian aid workers and combat-
ants. Even in other types of emergency, such as Haiti’s earthquake, mili-
tary forces have been involved in the response to a far greater degree
than in the past (GHI 2010: 9). The increasing politicization and ‘secu-
ritization’ (i.e. the use of aid to assure donor security) of aid risks dis-
torting aid agendas and priorities and challenging the ability of
humanitarian workers to meet the needs of affected populations
(Collinson, Elhawary and Muggah 2010; DARA 201O; GHI 2010;
H arnieri 2008; Jacoby and James 2010; Lischer 2007; Save the Children
2010).
Other major changes in aid in more recent decades have reflected
greater attention to social and environmental rather than just economic
aspects of development. The struggle to gain recognition that aid could
contribute to gender inequality when it should be enhancing gender
equity has been a long, hard one (see Chapter 10) and, whilst all donors
now have gender policie5, the translation of policy to practice is more
difficult. Official donors have also adopted NGO language about par-
ticipation, empowerment and community development, but rarely has
the full import of these approaches been implemented. Genuinely inclu-
sive and participatory aid requires major shifts in processes, attitudes
and behaviours to really transform power relationships at organiza-
tional and interpersonal levels (Groves and Hinton 2004) . These are
hard to achieve, even for their original proponents, though Hickey and
Mohan find that where participation is based firmly on citizenship
rights, there appears to be some success (Hickey and Mohan 2OOH). Yet
efforts to bririg a rights-based approach to development co-operation,
have struggled to gain legitimacy and enjoy practical application. In
addition, changing global circumstances have brought a range of other
aid agendas to attention, among them preventing the devastating spread
of HIV AIDS, combating the trafficking of people, and promoting drug
control through support to farmers to convert from growing opium to
other crops.
Another area in which it has been difficult to make progress is the
environmental sustainability of aid efforts, despite the attention brought
to these issues by the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and advocacy by envi-
ronmental NGOs. Theimpact of climate change, particularly on agri-
cultural and food production, and the likelihood of more frequent
extreme weather events in developing countries, is, however, renewing
94 Interns tioowl Decelopm ent
ment o1 Asian and African countries over 50 years shows that while
institutions matter, policies are important as well. The more successful
Asian countries had all ‘adopted policies that combined (i) macro-eco-
nomic balance, (ii) rural-bia5ed public investment and (iii) economic
freedom for smallholders’, whereas none of the African countries had
done so (Booth 201: s8). In particular Booth highlights the importance
of agricultural policies, a point emphasised as far back as the late 1970s.
One of the most recent consequences of the intense debate about the
effectivene5s of aid and accountability of donors is the call for greater
transparency about where aid goe5 and what it does. The first Aid
Transparency Assessment was published in 2010, finding a wide varia-
tion in donor transparency and a lack of comparable data (Publish
What You Fund 2010). Another re5ponse, partiCularly among civil soci-
ety organisations, has been the development of charters and standards,
initially for humanitarian response, but now covering development
work as well (HAP International 2008: The Sphere Project 2004: INGO
Accountability Charter 2006). However, as Eyben (2008) points out, it
is important to reflect on the pTocesses of mutual accountability, address
the power imbalances and engage in relational dialogue that respects
diversity of views and allows for adaptive learning i1 aid is to become
more effective.
Criticisms of aicl
Yet, even as new calls for an emphasis on poverty reduction and recog-
nition of the failings of the Washington Consensus gain some traction,
criticisms remain about the power inequalities implicit in the aid system,
and indeed in the wider glo ba1 political and economic arrangements
which keep poor countries poor.
For example, NGOs argued that as a result of the ‘Post-Washington
Consensus’, the ‘governance’ agenda was being distorted to allow the
powerful international financial institutions further opportunities to
impose their policy agendas on developing countries, creating unrealistic
and non-democratic demands on them for major public sector reform
(Randel et al. 2004). NGOs argued for a greater focus on democratic
accountability mechanisms and a human-rights based approach to
development which would enable poor people to act as citizens, rather
than be the objects of externally imposed policy prescriptions.
hon-government organizations had earlier made concerted criticisms
of a number of major aid projects, specifically those supported by the
World Bank and/or the Asian Development Bank, such a5 Kedurig
Aid and Development 99
new meaning after 2001 when the emerging view rendered the South ‘as
a source of international crime, terrorism, and conflict that contributed
to global instability’ (Howell 2006: 12a). Fear that failed states would
be havens for terrorists galvanized donor countries to engage seriously
with these issues, and provided a perceived legitimacy for more aggres-
sive intervention (Duffield 2005: Hameiri 2008). As the Administrator
of USAID said in 2006: ‘Unlike the Cold War, we are now menaced
more by “fragile states than conquering states” ... opening up the devel-
oping world to economic opportunity and expanding the ranks of dem-
ocratic states are now vital to our own national security’ (Natsios
2006). Such thinking lies behind interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq
that remain contentious. Of course, the use of aid in conflict settings is
not new but the scale and frequency of aid operations in association
with UN-led peacekeeping is what has changed, and it is likely that this
trend will persist in the future.
Many aid organizations have worked hard to ensure that the victims
of conflict are assisted in ways that avoid fuelling violence through a
deeper appreciation of the dynamics of conflict (Anderson 1999). Apart
from the obvious role of aid in assisting refugees and displaced people
affected by conflict, aid is being used in the transition to peace and
democracy, for example in supporting peace talks and monitoring peace
agreements, the establishment or re-e5tab1ishment of the state insti-
tution5, macroeconomic assistance, the conduct of elections, supporting
justice systems (including international criminal tribunals for the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda), landmine awareness and clearance and the
restoration of livelihoods in the longer term. The complexities of pro-
viding aid in these contexts should not be underestimated, particularly
where political instability persi5ts and power shifts constantly at many
levels. Indeed, the dependence of newly emerging states, such as
Afghanistan, on foreign security forces and donors may itself contribute
to the legitimacy problems such nascent states face (Suhrke 2006).
These issues have generated considerable research and debate about
strategies donors can use in situations where states are ‘fragile’, ‘failing’
or ‘collapsed’, terms which often obscure more than they reveal about
the causes and possible solutions, and the complex processes of state
formation and capacity development involved (Nelson 2006; Millikin
and Krause 2002; Rosser 2006; Fritz and Menocal 2006) . Different
donors take a range of different approaches to such problematic con-
texts, for example, some take a ‘peace, human security and basic needs’
approach; others an ‘economic development and good governance’
approach; and others a ‘global security’ approach. Some combine two
or even all of these (Fritz and Cammack 2006). A clearer picture is
developing about the relationship between nation-building (the develop-
ment of citizenship identity among a population), state-building (estab-
lishing the formal institutional structures of a state) and peace-building
(building mechanisms and proccsses for resolving violent conflicts,
engaging in reconciliation and establishing lasting peace). Lessons from
research on aid for peace-building emphasize recognition that under-
standing that politics matters, while not allowing aid to be politically
driven. Research also stresses the need to maintain good development
principles, build state capacity (including extending the reach of govern-
ment to the rural areas), engage for the long term and invest considers
able resources. The need to deal with the causes of conflict and conflict
players is also evident (Fritz and Cammack 2006).
However, not all writers believe this rational approach will succeed.
Duffield (2002) draws attention to the huge growth in the ‘shadow
economies’ — the informal sector and the illegal cross-border networks
and flows of cheap goods, entire parallel systems to the formal econ-
omy, officially unregulated but controlled by powerful players. This
shadow economic network sustains warring parties in confliCt zone5,
enabling them to conduct modern warfare. These networks and flows
have also sustained people, provided them with essential goods, food,
medicines and consumer items unobtaina ble or unaffordable through
other channels. Liberal globalization, he argues, has created the spaces
within which these shadow systems have flourished. Such systems, he
argues, ‘resist liberal norms and values’ (Duffield 2002: 1059). Duffield
sees the aid system, with its own public—private networlcs of practice, as
a new approach to imposing a ‘will to govern’ over these ‘borderlands’
as part of a wider security system; for him, the rediscovery of ‘develop-
ment’ as the solution to these borderland ‘crises’ fails to recognize the
reality that an alternative modernity i5 being practised within them, one
that challenges liberal system5. Failure to understand this, he believes,
may lead to further disillusionment with the outcomes of such redou-
bled aid efforts.
Of course the contribution of aid to peace-building, however success-
ful or otherwi5e it might be, is but one use of aid as a ‘public good’. A
global ‘public good’ may be considered any i5sue that has trans-bound-
ary benefits, or addresses trans-boundary problems. Among the most
obvious are global environmental challenges such as climate change,
deforestation, trans-boundary pollution, the spread of disease, especially
HIV AIDS, drug trade and people trafficking, and reducing population
growth (Kau1 1999). This motivation for aid involves its use for these
purposes, which may in some cases, distract from the poverty-reduction
focus.
Already a significant proportion of developrrent assistance is being
spent on these types of activity. Interestin g ly, as Hopkin5 (2000: 436)
points out, many of these global pu‘ blic o ods initiatives provide some
global regulation in the face of market failure and thus present an
alter- native to the neo-liberal paradigm. They also, however, reflect the
use or aid for purposes of self-interest to developed countries. The most
recent developments in aid, which lirik it tightly to western security
objectives, illustrate this clearly. examples include the sums being spent
on slowing or halting the flow of people to developed countries and
com- bating the trade in illicit drugs. Interestingly, the broadened agenda
for dev elopment assistance may be one of the factors that have led to polit-
ical support for some of the increases in aid announced since 2002.
There are difficult tensions between maintaining the focus of aid on
poverty reduction and building political constituencies in the developed
countries for increased aid budgets. The ‘global public goods’ use of aid
may build support but it clearly creates the risk of pursuing multiple
objectives that cannot all be met and which may even conflict at times.
Notes
1. Korea became a member of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD on
l January 2010.
2. Figures total more than 100 per cent due to rounding.
o . RED D + would also include forest conservation, sustainable forest management and
increasing forest carbon stocks.