Direct .vs. Indirect Aid

Advocates of government-to-government aid do not have to defend such an outdated concept of ODA. Since at least 2000, many DAC member nations have tied their aid entirely or in part to political, economic environmental reform. The burden is now on recipient nations to prove that the aid is not being squandered, creating a political culture that tackles corruption, as has been seen with the creation of an ‘anti-graft task force’ in Kenya in 2006. Linked aid promotes political stability, an environmentally conscious government and a consistent economic framework.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that charities and NGO’s will be any less corrupt. Large amounts of money are the corrupting factor and giving aid to multiple NGOs, many of which may not be governed by as strict accounting standards as those based in the UK or USA, creates a system in which it is far harder to monitor and prevent embezzlement.

Central spending growth is still very important. Whilst we can recognise the importance of local markets in development, they provide only half of the picture. NGO’s serve a different purpose to governments, developing local projects such as schools and wells. However, economic growth also requires central spending to develop infrastructure. Indian well-drilling efficacy has increased by 70% since the use of the national space programme to find water pockets. Brazil’s hydroelectric power scheme could never be achieved by NGOs working together. A national education policy could not be formulated by NGOs. To reduce government aid would be to remove the backbone of central spending needed for national development.

For those countries which are aid-dependent, slashing the aid their governments receive would severely harm the nation’s survival and service provision. Israel, for instance, would arguably be unable to survive without its foreign aid from the USA. Similarly, those states such as Micronesia or Tokelau which are almost exclusively aid dependent are essentially protectorates of those states that aid them, giving them political independence and the ability to develop. The other incidence to bear in mind is that on truly developing nations. Between 45-50% of all foreign aid goes to nations such as Argentina, Botswana and Brazil (in fact we sanction many poverty-stricken nations such as Angola and Zimbabwe for political reasons). Reducing aid to these countries reduces certainty and sustainability in development. We should deliver the aid which we have promised, the results of which are now coming to fruition.

We should respect the sovereignty of these nations, regardless of their motives, particularly given that many have democratically elected governments. Reducing government aid prevents recipient governments from being able to allocate aid in accordance with their people’s wishes. Instead aid distribution is decided by foreign charities that may have different motives. NGO’s are, as a general rule undemocratic, unaccountable interest groups. Not only would we be unfairly taking control over development out of the hands of the people and giving it to NGOs who may have worse records than the government, but we are also sending out a contradictory message if we are attempting to encourage responsible, democratic governments in those nations.

Taking the issue of aid out of a government-government sphere of dialogue makes a settlement over debt relief such as that proposed by Jubilee 2000 more difficult. The channel through which to solve debt issues is through debt cancellation, not aid redirection. Even if debts are not cancelled, some nations can in fact pay back their debts centrally: in 2006 Nigeria used oil revenues to repay most of its outstanding, long-term foreign debts.

However, reducing government aid would have immediate damaging effects on those countries that currently are paying off their loans. Debtor countries (in the absence of debt relief) would be left with the immediate choice of defaulting on their loans as Mexico did in 1982 and Thailand did in 1997, resulting in a massive loss of international confidence, or ‘borrowing to repay’ their loans, increasing dependency and poverty.

The idea that NGO’s are better able to deliver development aid is simply a myth. Because charities do not have the political staying power of governments, they are often the first to pull-out when dormant war zones turn ‘hot’ because they need to prioritise the lives of their volunteers. Major faith-based charities such as Christian Aid or Saudi educational charities, are perceived as partisan actors in African states which have tensions between Christian and Muslim populations. Most importantly, whilst groups such as the Red Cross may be able to deliver emergency aid to areas where national governments are unwelcome, typically development aid cannot be delivered to areas of civil war where projects will quickly be destroyed. Aid deliveries may even be diverted to rebel forces, and so keep conflicts alive. The kind of peace that only national governments can impose is needed before serious development can commence.