Is aid the best way for rich countries to help the developing world?
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Yes
Oliver Buston
Has anything of substance come out of L'Aquila for the world's poor? Today's announcement of a deal to support farmers in poor countries is potentially one of the brighter moments. The aim of the $20bn ($12bn) package is to help poor countries feed themselves rather than us doling out millions in food aid to keep them alive. And one day soon they might even be able to feed us, too.
Barack Obama showed the global leadership expected of him in bringing this deal to the table and said he was doubling US aid for agriculture. The question now is how much of the $20bn is really new money? We're still pushing governments to clarify where the funds will come from.
A welcome point about the food security deal is the emphasis it puts on making aid for agriculture more streamlined and effective. There have been hugely positive developments in the past decade, with smart aid being channelled in support of improved leadership in developing countries. The old clichés of aid propping up corrupt dictators no longer hold true.
The field of agriculture has seen some impressive results. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra) is an initiative funded by international donors including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. It has been working to boost agricultural productivity in Africa by training smallholder farmers, supporting the development of high-yielding seed varieties, and ensuring that farmers have access to good quality seeds, tools, and fertiliser. Since 2006, Agra has trained and certified more than 5,000 new agri-dealers and aims to reach 9,000 by 2011. This is having a real positive impact on farmers: in 2006 in western Kenya, a farmer had to travel an average of 17km to an agri-dealer to purchase seeds and fertiliser; today that distance is an average of only 5km. There are many more such examples of smart aid and the initiative on food security will confirm that increasing trend.
And at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in September, President Obama will get the opportunity to accelerate what he helped start here in L'Aquila.
The writer is the Europe director of One, the advocacy group co-founded by Bono
No
Fredrik Erixon
No, it will not matter much for development in poor countries if small and great powers in the G8 cheat on their Gleneagles pledge to boost foreign aid. The simple reason is that increasing aid never has been, and probably never will be, a source of genuine economic growth in developing countries.
If history is our yardstick, aid should be scaled down: not even the greatest enthusiasts of foreign aid can produce evidence demonstrating beyond doubt that aid has had a discernible and positive effect on development in poor countries. In fact, a dispassionate account of evidence from 50 years of aid-giving strongly suggests that governments should stay away from it.
If the governments of the rich G8 nations were genuinely determined to boost growth in Africa and other poor regions, a useful first step would be to stop spraying their own inefficient farmers with subsidies and take away their tariff protection.
Development is about behavioural change. Countries are poor because they have economic structures and political systems that reward unproductive economic behaviour. To grow economically, countries need to reform, root and branch, their economies.
Time and again we have witnessed the power of economic reforms for development. When eastern Europe, China, India, Chile and others opened their economies to trade and investment, and did away with thousands of regulations that strangled new and old entrepreneurs, growth soared. Such growth sustains itself. It spurs new wealth and revenues not only at the time the reforms are implemented but in the following years.
In poor countries that seriously reform economic policy and consequently enjoy sustained development, aid is unnecessary. At best, it may have only a marginal effect on development.
On the other hand, in poor countries with political leaders who are unwilling to change, aid tends to cement bad economic and political structures that perpetuate poverty. Aid has predominantly been given to the second category of countries. That is the sad reality.
Fredrik Erixon is the director of ECIPE, a world economy think-tank based in Brussels
The pledges Gleneagles
*At the G8 summit at the Gleneagles Hotel in Scotland, in July 2005, leaders agreed to write off the $40bn owed by 18 highly indebted poor countries to the World Bank, the IMF and the African Development Fund.
*The G8 members from the European Union also agreed at the Gleneagles summit to reach a collective foreign aid target of 0.56 per cent of their gross domestic product by 2010 and 0.7 per cent by 2015.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
The Third World and the Middle East suffer horribly from Dictatorship. A dictator is someone who frauds elections to remain in power and/or to gain power. Making elections unfraduable is the best remedy. That would take down the 95% of dictators globally who are pro-western dictators and the 5% who are anti-western dictators. The result would be a great reduction in the monies flowing to secret Western banks and tax havens, much greater democracy, freedom, justice and development for the populations of the Third World. Bring on unfraudable election and voting systems! They exist, but - surprise - the West doesnt want them. Why not? Think about it. The world is not how it seems and not as laid out by Western liberal press like Independent, Guardian, Economist, IHT, BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, Sky etc.. And the problem and the solution are not as laid out by Sachs, Bono, Clinton, Blair, Brown, Geldof.
Mr Alex Weir, Harare and Gaborone
(currently working on an EU-funded Aid Effectiveness Project)
The best solution is to actually say what you think would be the solution. For example, see my post below. Think - propose - discuss until agreement is reached - apply. You should move to the second step, now.
And I really have no idea of any "unfraudable" voting system! And the social structures remain unchanged regardless the voting, because you are free to vote only after you are physically safe, and you are safe only after you are protecting your interests ... as I said below.
We should leave Africa (and Afghanestan et al) to work out its own issues. If we have the guts to do this, Africans will find their own level of sustainability and will thrive. It may well be that the continent cannot support the current population and that a correction needs to take place, but after that, Africans will prosper.
Keeps people passive
I personally believe in Fair Trade, it's helping third world countries help themselves.
The UN-commission in charge of the protection of human rights caracterized the Merkle's report about the human right situation in Germany as "insufficient". In an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, however, German journalists don't dare to broacht the difficult human right situation in Germany and to mention the perpetrators of most severe human right violations. It is not astonishing that the Merkle who is personally responsible for the drastic degradation of the human right situation in Germany is not
criticized at all for the further deterioration.
It's time to demand the Merkle to stop human right violations immediately.
The solution is to find a way to encourage people to cooperate to defend their common interests. Civic education would be a good starting point. Is costs much less than economic aid, and it could have great consequences. However, I'm not sure that political elites in developed countries want to do that, because they would lose control over poor regions. So, for now, they subsidize stability. The next genocide is postponed, but Western citizens pay mafias in poor regions. Let us grow up and do the right thing. Which is, we need to cooperate to protect our common interests against the narrow interests of our politicians (in developed countries) and mafias (in poor regions). It results that the main problem is not poverty, but widespread, criminal, lack of interest and racism. Good luck!