By Jennifer Doherty-Bigara
US foreign assistance has been a divisive issue among politicians, academics, and voters. The tension surrounding aid to developing countries partly arises from a perception problem and partly from differing opinions about what its role is and should be. For some, it is a way to end poverty, for others simply a political tool. In reality, foreign aid has multiple purposes depending on the donor, the executing agency, and the recipient.
The debate around aid is not new. These days it comes to the fore when donors announce cutbacks or foundations announce major new initiatives. In an era in which almost half of US voters support cutting assistance to needy countries, it is worth examining the pros and cons of aid. The table below sums up a few of the different arguments. The list is not authoritative, but simply represents the different stakeholders and topics that influence the debate over the role of aid.
|
PRO |
CON |
| Extra mile. Additional capital can lift societies above subsistence and out of the “poverty trap.” | Budgetary dependency. Foreign assistance inhibits domestic initiative, limits local mobilization of resources, and discourages community ownership. |
| Spillover effects. Economic and other forms of support in the short run and can have tremendous spillover effects in the long run that multiply the effects of the original aid. | Accountability. Developing countries lack the necessary institutional capacity to execute development programs funded by international resources. |
| Building institutions. Execution of projects builds national competence and results in highly proficient local specialists. | Transparency and corruption. Unsustainable allocation of resources and diversion of funds for personal interests has been common practice. |
| Lessons learned. Aid programs have been refined over the years to best meet the needs of developing countries, electronic banking is one notable example. | Private sector. Aid crowds out investments that could be made by companies to trigger the expansion of local entrepreneurship. |
| Technology transfers. Scientific tools and knowledge are disseminated and form the base of a long-term application of new technologies. | Neocolonialism. Developed nations invest in specific countries in which they have particular (not always altruistic) interests. |
| Transforming future generations. Education and health aid builds self-sufficient societies. | Limited evidence. There have been notable gains in health, but despite efforts to expand education (especially to girls), there are few signs that educational support has led to better livelihoods. |
| Synergies. Aid enhances diplomatic relationships among countries and long-term world stability. | Power disparity. Aid is used as a bribe (or condition) by world powers to get what they want from poor countries. |
Whichever side of the debate you support, the unfortunate truth is that myths about foreign aid have distracted people from real issues at hand. At its core, aid is not simply a monetary transfer from one country to another. Rather, it is one of many tools for raising the quality of life in developing countries. While vitriol occasionally accompanies the aid debate, most interested parties are focused on how to make it more effective and what alternative methods are available to better reduce global poverty.
Jennifer Doherty-Bigara works for the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), with specific focus on climate change, sustainable cities, and social inclusion. She is a second year Master of International Development Policy student at the McCourt School of Public Policy and holds a Master’s in International Affairs from Sciences Po Toulouse.
Established in 1995, the Georgetown Public Policy Review is the McCourt School of Public Policy’s nonpartisan, graduate student-run publication. Our mission is to provide an outlet for innovative new thinkers and established policymakers to offer perspectives on the politics and policies that shape our nation and our world.
Great article! Definitely sums up many ideas and schools of thought in the foreign aid debate. Hoping every person working on this field, is mainly focused on having a positive, conscious, and loving impact on other countries and their citizens. If done so, everything is possible! 🙂
Definitely, recipient countries lack the necessary institutional capacity to both properly first design and then execute development project/programs that normally must be spread over a longer (then one year) time. But donor countries that are mistakenly assuming that institutions work at comparable level, lack the capacity/willingness to detect that inability of the other side and the knowledge/patience how to check/correct that it, as they are generally pressed for (budgetary short) time to dispose of funds and not willing to be accused of interference into internal affairs of the other ostensibly equal/sovereign/democratic partner country. More attention/reference needs to be paid to findings/experience of agencies such as UNDP and its PPM/Procedure (Project & Program Manual), making sure that their rules are stuck to and followed by both donor & recipient institution/country.
Some thoughts: Foreign aid debate will remain as vibrant with the available democratic space and market place for ideas, while politicians, academics and the public/constituencies’ perspectives are as varied as their life experiences, interests and world view, and the discourse becoming louder (growing in intensity) in an environment of increasing competition/prioritization in the allocation of resources. The rationale/purpose of aid are as always established/defined thru the lens of the donor/developed countries, motivated — as officially articulated in its national policy and international relations, by altruism. However, how aid pans out and translates in the real world of recipient countries and their peoples are influenced/determined by environmental-historical-structural-political-social-economic-cultural conditions, acting in synergy resulting to an active and dynamic complex state of affairs. Likewise, the nature of the relationships are as dynamic and multiple assuming various forms (at different times) e.g., symbiotic, commensalistic, mutualistic etc.etc One should not forget that foreign aid is not one controlled isolated laboratory experiment where a donor simply step in, providing an array of inputs it perceive will generate and trigger a set of expected ripple effects in the recipient country as conceived and planned within a timeframe. It may help for developed countries to reflect and ask themselves what it took to bring them to their present state of high-economic growth and prosperity for their citizens. At the same time and more importantly, why poverty is as intractable in their midst in their own societies, with the growing spectre of widening gaps and income disparities among their own people, despite economic/technological advances and development, political maturity of the populace and developed political/social/economic/cultural structures, systems, institutions, and prevailing peace, national stability/ security to boot etc etc The answers to these questions may enhance the on-going debate, generate fresh insights, and open wider windows of opportunity for effective foreign aid and reduce global poverty. By the way what is the debate about again? Poor countries? Or Poor people in poor/low-income/middle income countries?
I strongly think the perception that sub-Saharan African countries lack the institutional capacity to effectively utilize foreign aid is deceptive. As a person who had the opportunity to work with aid officials in Ghana for about five years, I noticed the tremendous intellectual ability and experience aid officials possessed. The protagonist of the “institutional capacity” argument must be able to explain in clear terms how institutional capacity impact aid effectiveness. In my opinion, there is a great deal of NEGLIGENCE on both sides of the aisle(donor and recipient institutions), which has been the major cause of mass failure of donor funded projects. When we confuse NEGLIGENCE with INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESS, it provides an escape route for aid officials and governments to extricate themselves from blame. The first time I set foot in the City of London, I was able to immediately understand why most roads in Africa are in a deplorable condition. The roads in London are about 8 inches thick, whilst in many part of Africa, road projects constructed with donor funds are very thin(about 1-2inches). When these roads begin to deteriorate, the problem is simplified by citing institutional weakness as the causal factor. How do we expect African Governments to maintain roads that begin to deteriorate even before the construction ends? I have also seen a large scale rice project, Kpong Irrigation Project, imposed on a rural community in Ghana whose inhabitants are predominantly fruit and vegetable farmers. The project began with 3200 framers actively engaged. By the time of completion, only 200 farmers were actively engaged in rice cultivation. The rest had reverted to fruits and vegetables, citing high cost of cultivation and processing, and lack of local preference for local rice as the main reason. This is a clear example of negligence of duty(poor planning) and not institutional weakness. More examples exists. Researchers can explore this lingering issue and I strongly believe they would be alarmed at the high degree of negligence in the aid delivery process.
There are a lotta long comments on here