On Aid Part 2: Forget Value for Money
Value
for money. Somewhere someone got this confused with aid effectiveness and the
results have been disastrous. Where aid effectiveness asks if the money spent
is resulting in effective, sustainable change, value for money looks at how
much you can get for each dollar spent. While efficiency is important (not
hiring six consultants where one will do), efficiency and value for money are
not the same thing, and this is causing big problems in the world of
development.
As
I discussed in a previous article, donors are saying one thing (‘our focus is
to reach the poorest, the most vulnerable’) and doing another (demanding value
for money, restricting development work to the easy stuff), focusing on the
safest, easiest-to-reach communities because it is cheaper and demonstrates
quicker results. The real result? More and more people are left behind.
A
good example is the MDGs. They were successful in terms of improving education
and reducing poverty on the whole, but take a closer look and ask why only
three of the Least Developed Countries graduated to middle income status by
2015, and why seven LDCs failed to achieve any MDGs at all. Politicians will
tell you it’s because these are fragile or failed states, wracked by conflict
and turmoil. And how can we achieve development outcomes when we are focused
primarily on saving lives?
Well,
by putting money where your mouth is, to start. Major donors, including all
members of the OECD, committed to the SDGs and its motto ‘leave no one behind,’
Except they have, because aid to LDCs has fallen by 6% since 2010. While
other reports argue that development assistance from OECD countries has
actually increased, a lot goes to refugee assistance and integration in their own countries, and a lot to
‘safe’ middle income countries. While it is very important to sustain aid to
middle income countries to safeguard development gains in the medium term, and
it is a humanitarian and moral imperative to provide assistance to refugees
fleeing conflict and violence, there is also a moral imperative to sustain aid
to LDCs.
Many
of these countries have experienced conflict, but the people there were too
poor to flee. The governments barely function and locally-generated revenues
are far below what is needed to provide even the most basic services, let alone
invest in improved services or economic development. Development assistance is
a lifeline for these countries. It is not
charity, but necessity.
Which
is why, traditionally, governments in LDCs have taken a back seat to deciding
how aid will be used and who benefits. However, with the ‘New Deal,’ agreed to in 2011, ‘development
partners committed to supporting nationally-owned and led development plans and
greater aid effectiveness in fragile situations (the TRUST principles), and g7+
governments committed to inclusive planning processes, grounded in context (the
FOCUS principles). Both parties committed to pursuing the five Peacebuilding
and State building Goals (PSGs): legitimate politics, justice, security, revenue
and services and economic foundations.’ It was a serious attempt to put
aid-receiving governments in the driver’s seat while holding them to account
for actually getting things ‘done’ to move beyond ‘fragile’ state status.
Five
years on, the ‘value for money’ and quick results policies has done little to
change the behaviour of donors in any significant way. A recent review of the New Deal noted that there was no
evidence that international actors had increased allocations to the
peacebuilding and state building goals; the 2008 financial crisis reduced
commitment to aid effectiveness, and that a redirection of funds to the crisis
in the Middle East put a further strain on commitments.
Beyond
the issues of the financial crisis and the crisis in the Middle East, what else
is influencing donor habits and priorities towards ‘value for money’ and quick
results?
First,
donor aid strategies need to pass muster with their electorates, aid is tied to
national priorities or interests, like security, foreign investment, and some
‘feel good’ topics like women’s empowerment and education. In order to gloss
over overt self-interest, terms like ‘conflict-sensitive’ are thrown in for
good measure. The Swedish aid strategy views this as ‘knowing
who is benefiting from aid and what the consequences will be.’ Fair enough. But
if it’s going to benefit some members of a community (for example, a former
rebel combatants), does this preclude the entire community from assistance?
‘Tied aid’ was a real problem during tsunami recovery in Aceh, Indonesia, as
donors were adamant that members of the rebel ‘Free Aceh Movement’ not be
recipients of tsunami recovery aid. Given that there were rebels in every
community, it would have precluded thousands of tsunami victims from aid.
Besides, the rebels were tsunami victims as well. It added so much bureaucracy
to an already hectic process, and no love was lost between humanitarian and
development organizations and the donors.
Second,
when aid strategies align with national interests, countries aren’t necessarily
chosen based on need, but on their strategic importance. Yemen, for example,
was an LDC in desperate need of aid. But quite a lot of money flows to Egypt, a
country strategically important for security reasons, but which has reasonable
health care, education and, you know, the mass population isn’t starving. Yet,
poor Yemen. Or rather, the people of Yemen. Perhaps if money had flowed there
to begin with the crisis wouldn’t be quite so acute, or quite so expensive, as
noted by Katie Peters, here. Ethiopia is also a strategic development investment
for many donors, such as the UK. Ethiopia’s stability sustains regional
stability, as Ethiopia is a major player in the region, particularly when it
comes to conflicts in Sudan and Somalia.
Another
challenge is that development aid is being slowly redefined. It has been noted
by Jeffrey Sachs that there has been a
significant shift in language urging a larger presence of the private sector.
The issue, he notes, is that this means loans, which tend towards commercial
projects and not the much needed public service delivery that underpins economic
development. This trend of championing loans over grants further reflects donor
priorities to increase foreign investment and future trade opportunities.
Each
of the above is far from the spirit of the SDGs and leaving no one behind. In a
world of 24 hour news and social media, we can’t pretend we didn’t realize over
one billion people were being left behind. We can’t say we’ve forgotten about
the commitments we’ve made to them. And we can’t pretend to not understand why
we can’t have the best of both worlds: development that is convenient and cheap
but which benefits everyone. Hard choices need to be made. Risks need to be
taken. Pretending they don’t makes us all look we don’t actually care, when at
the heart of it all, we really, really do.
Comments
Post a Comment