development-network - "Do we really need development work at all?!?"

donor interests

donor interests

"Remember that the purpose of American aid is not to help other nations, but to help ourselves"(Nixon, President of the USA from 1969-1974)

--> one problem of official development aid is that it alway needs to fit the needs of the donor country, otherwise the donor has little interest to give those amounts of money

this makes development work very inefficient at times and it even leads to projects which contradict themselves when different donors invest in the same area



Do we need development assistance?

I think, there are several "dimensions" of development assistance that are worth to be thought about. For example the ethical obligation of the rich countries to give development assistance to the poor countries. Do we have a duty to help the poor or is it rather a volantary activity driven by philanthropical, religious or historical motives?
Another dimension is the motivation of donors, as the first contribution suggested. Besides ideological reasons, development aid is certainly to a large extent driven by self-interest, be it for economical or strategic-political reasons. In my opinion, however, all of them have their right, as long as the poor benefit from it. From an economist's point of view such "win-win situations" are even desirable. If our own economy benefits from helping others, so what?

But the most severe problem in my eyes is the failure of development assistance to achieve lasting results. Not only that the means invested in DA are in no proportion to the benefits, in the long term things often even become worse! Since the 1960s over $1,7 trillion have been spent on DA! Today about $50 to $60 billion are spent every year. And despite all the failures that have been made in the past, not much has improved. Of course we can say, that projects are evaluated and often show positive results (like a positive Net Present Value for example). But most often these are short term effects, measured while the project was still in place. But how do things look like 20 years after the project was terminated? After WWII people predicted that by the year 2000 there will be no more poverty in the world. Measured by this superior goal of development assistance, the output of all the efforts is depressing if not even negative, and where there had been an economic boom (e.g. South Corea, South East Asia) it can hardly be attributed to DA...
It seems to me that the "dev biz" (development assistance industry) has a main goal - it's own survival. It wants to keep going, to stay alive, and even to grow. Employees want to keep their jobs and the responsibilities that come with them. Work is often created and invented for pseudo purposes. And often this work does not meet real demand or need (although this changed in the recent past).

So at the moment I am quite doubting about the sense of development work. I am sure that this is not likely to change and things will go on for a long time as they did, but I do not believe that it is good as it is.

P.S. I would like to recommend a very nice book, titled "Despite good intentions - Why development assistance to the third world has failed." by Thomas W. Dichter. He is an insider who worked for 35 years in development assistance. Quite interesting and enlightening.



Rudi Witt

 really good ideas...but...

I myself never thougth of the existance of a so called "development assistance industry", but itsounds quite plausible. Rudi, your comment is really broad and hits many of the existing problems. And it is obvious: many things go wrong and especially because people/governments cover their own interests with a pseudo "assistance" interest.
But my question is seeing all whats going wrong is: Is this a question of WEATHER to do development work or HOW to do development work?
Couldnt it be a possible solution to introduce more "quality control" for what claims to be development assistance? ..some kind of stricter rules on who is allowed to do what?
...or further research toimprove the quality and efficiency of projects?


...improving DA?

Ele, what I think, is: development needs its time, much more time than the bounding time limits of development projects. It is the nature of the actual development assistance that projects have to terminate after lets say at maximum 5 to 10 years. No donor would agree to give money for a program that continues for decades. We want to see quick results, close the files and move on, since there is "so much to be done".. And what remains are broken dreams and wasted money..

And secondly, development per se is an incredibly complex process. Infrastructure, access to market, credit, natural resources play a role as well as rights, institutions to enforce these rights, the policy framework, history, the social environment, culture... In my opinion this is the reason for the failure of development. As long as development comes from 'outside' it wont work. No elaborate project or program can ever encompass all issues that are necessary for success.. People must have ownership of development...

Well, anyhow, as I do not have very much experience myself, I cannot really judge. And in no way I want to doubt the sencerity of people working in development assistance (after all I want to work there either ) But I have my doubts whether the way things are done really can be improved. Instead of marginal changes and adjustments we should hold on and think for a while. Sometimes the best alternative is to do nothing....







Rudi Witt

Re: donor interests

So just imagine there would have never been such a thing like development assistence: How would the situation look like today? Would it really be better? Or is it just that yes, maybe the costs are much higher than the benefits, but in the end it did have good influence, too.

There is one more theory I would also like to discuss about. Some people say that through colonialism WE ('the western world') are the cause for the bad situation in the 'developing countries' these days. That is why WE should also find ways to help them out of their 'misery'.

Do you think this is a plausible morale argument?

colonialism

What do you think, Prisca? *g*




Rudi Witt

 Re: donor interests

Michael asked me to put this links ito the forum which he found interesting in the context of our discussion...

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4191950.stm
> https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4188382.stm




Re: donor interests


Yes, a large share of money is spent on wages and office equipment. I also read that world-bank employees are allowed and even encouraged to travel a lot. And they have the privilege to fly first class only.. Just to attend some meeting for a day or two. And consultants are often payed a much higher wage (up to 60 times higher) than their local counterparts. I guess that about 50% of aid money stays in our donor countries.
And then there is massive corruption in many of develepment countries. Yesterday I heard a story of an African minister who took several hundred million US$ of development aid to his own bank. The total amount was three times the GDP of his country!
By the way, googling for "corruption in Africa" I found an interesting interview with a Kenyan economist:
https://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

As a reply to Prisca, I would say: In the light of this interview, develpment assistance is no real  compensation for the wrong the western nations did to the colonized countries. It does not help, it makes things even worse, and bring countries into dependence. It's like feeding a slave. The food that you give is just to ensure, the slave does not starve and can continue working for you for many years...
It seems to me that despite all the democratic thinking, the only law that is in power on the global level is the law of the Jungle. The one, who is stronger than the others can do whatever he wants, while the weak have to accept what is done to them.






Rudi Witt

Re: donor interests

Colleagues,

What President Nixon is said to have said here is what has been done with most of the development aid to developing countries. There are a lot of aid conditionalities, most of which are of benefit to the donor countries themselves. A recipient country is given condiitions to purchase all the assets from the donor country. In a sense, the money is going back to the country that donated it. The recipeint country will not any forex. It will spend more forex in purchasing materials to maintain the assets. In the longer. losing even more forex than the amount of aid given.

However, not all conditions are bad so to say. I belive the donor countries always want to see results. They need to account for the money to their taxpayers. As such there is need to put in conditions that will ensure transparency and accountability by the recipient country. As Rudi pointed out, leaders in most recipient countries are corrupt. They give themselves consultancies and jobs and charge exorbitantly just because it is donor money. These things need to be checked.

To avoid duplication of efforts, donor countries need to ensure that they implement projects for which they have conducted enough assessment, not with assumptions to suit their objectives. Projects are only sustainable once the people grsp the concept through learning by doing. But most project involve experts who are more concerned of just repeating an experience they had in another country. This cannot work for the benefit of the developing country.


Mike.

Re: donor interests

I read all your contributions with great interest, it's such an important subject to discuss!
I think that beyond the bigger picture of the development sector, its historical aspects and its implications for our present world, the question of the rights or wrongs of this field is a profoundly personal one for all of us.
Over the past few years, I have met many professionals who I have chosen to be my role models. People who made me understand that at the end of the day, it is all what I make of it.
I do believe that what we call development comes with a historical burden that is hard to deal with, and I am aware that my position in this field as a white European with a university education is highly sensitive. I do believe that the intentions that triggered the unfolding of this huge industry (which is really what it is) were all but noble, be it consciously or unconsciously.
Yet, as this world is today, so much support is needed. So much money, time, hope and ressource is still being wasted in the name of development, and still the most promising concepts end up being handled as a mere exercise. There have got to be people who go out there and help to chanell all these resources and ensure their potential is fully scooped out.
In order to be such a person, I think we are never ought to lose sight of the giant on whose shoulders we are operating (meaning the colonial past, but also the realities of current global power structures). A questioning and critical mind is certainly healthy. More often than not, people who go into the devlopment sector forget their ideals and reasoning and get stuck in the career trap. And there are those that remain alert, and humble, and willing to reposition themsleves, serve and learn and always, always remain respectful. I think if I had not met people like that, I wouldn't have wanted to work in this field. But I do, because i believe that so much good can come out of development if it's just done right!
I think the real challenge lies in being a supporter, not a helper. I think people can't be helped unless they want it. All we can do is support them in whatever they believe is best for them. Everybody will testify to this. How will they know what is best for them? That's such a huge part of development COOPERATION: to let them figure out what they need, and offer assistance where it's necessary.
 
Greetings,
Desiree