why may official aid programmes prove disappointing in their impact? to see more of our products...

Why may official aid programmes prove disappointing in their impact?

To see more of our products visit our website at www.anforme.co.uk

Tony DarbyTony Darby

• In 2008 official aid or ODA (official development assistance) amounted to $119.8 billion, the largest amount ever recorded.

• These aid programmes date back to July 1944 at Bretton Woods in the US, when delegates from 44 countries agreed a far-reaching global system of financial and monetary control, which was the catalyst for the Marshall Plan.

• This was a US-financed project to reconstruct Europe after the 2nd World War, worth approximately $85 billion at current prices.

• The Marshall Plan had far-reaching goals, including fixing broken infrastructure and providing political stability.

• Also it meant the US could protect its manufacturing base by helping these huge consumer markets back to life.

• The Marshall Plan established the principle that aid could be given for short-term humanitarian needs and long-term development.

• The desire to alleviate poverty and address emergency needs is still the basis of UK aid today.

• By providing capital for greater investment in Europe the Plan was aimed at helping economies back towards expansion.

• The Gleneagles agreement in 2005 required the world’s 8 largest economies to double aid by 2010, whilst writing off the debts of the 43 poorest nations.

• In March 2010, Chancellor Alistair Darling, confirmed a UK overseas development budget of £9.1bn for 2010/11, amounting to 0.56% of Gross National Income, and that this would be increased to 0.7% by 2013.

• The current Chancellor, George Osborne, has committed to honour these planned increases.

• Aid can prove disappointing in its impact as the majority of aid has been bilateral,that is distributed by one country to another.

• This has meant that money has not been allocated in any systematic, rational or efficient way.

• For governments dealing with a humanitarian crisis in their country, this haphazard approach from donors is difficult to deal with and sometimes counterproductive.

• A year later it is clear that this has not been provided for many of Haiti’s citizens, and fewer than 30,000 people have moved back into permanent housing.

• For example, the 2010 earthquake in Haiti killed over 300,000 and made over 1.5 million homeless.

• The international community pledged $1.5 billion to be spent over the next 12 months on providing an “environment for safe and healthy living.”

• The vast majority of aid is not given to solve humanitarian crises.

• 95% of money goes towards helping poorer nations to develop.

• There are four basic means by which official aid may be distributed.

• Firstly, it may fund consulting work, say on education or transport.

• Around 75% of donor support in Africa is provided by such project aid.

• Secondly, it may go directly to a charity.

• Thirdly, it may be in the form of a direct financial transfer to another national government.

• Finally, it may be donated for specific projects as detailed by the donor country.

• Deciding between competing projects can be a real dilemma for donors.

• There is ample evidence of donors picking the wrong projects to fund.

• Often teams of expatriate experts will be needed to see how the money is spent, and it is estimated there are 100,000 technical experts in Africa alone.

• In 2003 India decided to only accept aid from its six largest donors.

• This gives the potential for a lack of coordination on projects, which can lead to the recipient country failing to gain from aid.

• Coping with all the separate requirements from different donors can be overwhelming for recipient countries.

• Aid in the form of financial transfers can give recipient countries more autonomy to decide how to help their citizens develop.

• The key problem here is the assumption that the recipient country has good, strong governance.

• If a country lacks the political will to develop, or finds that much of its ruling elite are corrupt, then it becomes impossible for aid to have an impact.

• It can also lead to charges of “tied aid”, with crude commercial and political goals being mapped out for recipient countries.

• A survey that tracked money released by the Ministry of Finance in Chad intended for rural health clinics, concluded that less than 1% of the cash reached the clinics.

• A way round this is to allocate funds according to levels of governance.

• However, this remains a very subjective judgement by the donor country.

• Tied aid could be through an explicit agreement to purchase goods and services from the donor country.

• Or, indirectly through subsidising export-credit schemes.

• Over half of ODA is tied according to the OECD, and 70% of US aid is tied.

• This suggests that business interests exert a strong influence over the amount and destinations of official aid, reducing its potential impact.

• The tying of aid is not costless to the recipient country.

• The OECD reports that this type of aid will often increase the cost of foodstuffs that countries will be tied into buying from the donor country.

• Often when a country is at the early stages of development, there are not enough skilled workers or firms strong enough to take advantage of the aid available.

• Using the law of diminishing returns, it is probable that additional amounts of aid will be used less and less efficiently.

• Eventually, the ‘absorption threshold’ will be reached, when providing more aid will be totally ineffective.

• When aid exceeds this threshold, one solution is often to switch money away from the sectors donors are funding to other capital projects, or more worryingly to other consumption priorities.

• This is known as the fungibility of aid – using the opportunity from aid funds to finance other non-developmental projects.

• Even if aid can be allocated successfully, it may create further economic side-effects.

• One potential problem is the ‘Dutch Disease’, which is when a country experiences an upward pressure on its exchange rate due to a large inflow of aid.

• This aid has to be converted from the donor’s domestic currency to that of the recipient.

• The resulting increase in demand and strengthening of the exchange rate can lead to export-led growth being curtailed, and ultimately unemployment.

• If aid leads to a loss of international competitiveness this can ultimately affect the level of economic growth of the recipient country.

• Another damaging effect that aid can have is to create a crowding-out effect upon inward foreign investment.

• This means that aid money displaces potential funds from private investors.

• For some economists this aid dependency is a key reason why development has been much slower in Africa compared to China and India.

• This crowding-out effect may be further exacerbated by the volatility in how aid is donated. Many nations find aid inflows fluctuate considerable from year to year.

• 2005 saw the biggest campaign for more aid the world has ever seen.

• It led to the EU and G8 committing to double their ODA commitment within a matter of years.

• How have the G8 countries done five years on from their 2005 pledges?

• Overall the OECD has estimated that there is a shortfall of $18 billion.

• However, the UK is on course to achieve its aim of 0.7% ODA/GNI by 2013.

• ODA has been successful in providing basic humanitarian needs in many world crises. But not all economists are convinced by increased spending on long-term ODA.

• The key worry is that this aid may have an adverse effect on economic growth.

• Dependency issues, as well as effects such as the Dutch Disease, and absorption questions all provide a potential limit on the impact of ODA.

• With such a rapid increase in international ODA budgets, there is also the worry of diminishing returns to aid.

• There are also potential conflicts of interest as expenditure priorities are skewed as recipient countries listen more closely to donor countries.

• Ultimately, the success of aid will depend upon the motives of both donor and recipient countries.

• The origins of modern day aid programmes can be dated back to the Marshall Plan after World War Two.

• Official aid programmes can be divided into hose having humanitarian aims (usually short term) and those that have development and reduction of poverty aids (normally long term).

• The G8 agreement at Gleneagles in 2005 led to a promise of a substantial increase in official aid but not all pledges were honoured.

• A significant amount of official aid goes to a limited number of countries. This can prove difficult to manage and distribute for the countries who receive large donations.

• Many donor countries prefer to donate to specific projects and also make their aid conditional. This can create further problems for recipient countries and reduce the effectiveness of aid.

• Why did the G8 decide that it wanted to donate a greater proportion of its resources to ODA in 2005? Has the G8 achieves these aims?

• How can countries ensure that they do not experience the Dutch Disease when receiving aid?

• How can donor countries ensure that their donations are not stolen by corrupt governments?

• To what extend do you think that development aid should be radically reduced so that countries become less dependent on it?