Last year the British parliament passed a
law, which binds the Britain to give away 0.7 per cent of national income in
development assistance abroad. Britain is one of the few OECD countries that
have met the United Nations ODA target for OECD countries. Today, nearly one in
every Ksh.1, 000 spent on aid by OECD comes from Britain.
However, the British citizens are unhappy
with this law. A petition by the Mail On Sunday, a leading British newspaper, has
received sufficient support to force a fresh debate on the scale of British
largesse. Over 200,000 British citizens who have signed the petition believe
that it makes no sense to rack up public debt while pumping huge sums of
taxpayer money into dubious projects abroad.
The subject of aid has drawn, and continues
to generate fierce debate among scholars and development practitioners. The
proponents of aid argue that it is necessary and it works. The opponents of aid
believe aid is somewhat evil; fuels corruption and props up unaccountable
dictators in a majority of recipient countries.
Moreover, those promoting the petition in
Britain argue that the aid industry has created a global expat elite class,
whose preservation has become more important than needs of the poor. William
Easterly, a virulent critic of aid argues that the top-down, planner’s approach
of aid is both ineffective and flawed. More often than not the recipients of
aid projects have little or no say on the projects. Hence, accountability is
diffuse and there is no consequence for lack of results or impact.
The power dynamic around international aid
is problematic. The donor country often sets the priorities for development
assistance through aid. Yes, there is some degree of consultation, where
respective country officials work with donors to align funding priorities with
national development plans. I am not sure that the results or impact of decades
of billions of aid money provide any evidence that there is meaningful consultation.
There is no doubt that the Africa and the
rest of the developing world needs financial assistance from the OECD. Critical
investments are needed to reduce maternal and infant deaths. Millions of
children die, needlessly, from preventable diseases like malaria, respiratory
infections and malaria. Malnutrition is robs Africa of its future when millions
of stunted children suffer life-long cognitive impairment. Investing in
strengthening public institutions and civil society will bolster good governance
in Africa.
What is needed is a transparent, believable
and effective model for connecting social development needs in poor countries
with OECD resources. The petition by the British taxpayers must not be about
cutting back aid contributions. British taxpayers should petition their
government to be more thoughtful and deeply consultative in prioritizing how it
spends taxpayers’ money. They must demand accountability from recipient
communities and governments as well as British field officers who design and
implement development projects. Moreover, citizens in the developing world need
to petition their own governments to show positive social impacts of projects
funded through aid money.
No comments:
Post a Comment