On Aid Part 3: Private Sector Finance: Aid or Investment?
If
you have 30 minutes to spare, you need to read an article by Matt Kennard and Claire Provost in
Mail&Guardian Africa. It’s long, but well worth your time,
particularly if you’re on the fence about private sector financing of
international development. Yes, development organizations need more money if
the SDGs are to be achieved, and there is certainly space for the private
sector to play a role. The question is, what role?
Before
I get going on the topic, let me take you back. All the way back to 2005, to
Ahkalkalaki, in the ethnic Armenian region of Georgia. I was at a presentation
of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) which was discussing its new
project to (re)build the road into the region from the main East-West highway
across the country. First impressions? Ecstatic. It had taken us four hours to
traverse 40 km along the banks of a fairly swiftly flowing river. The scenery
was second to none, but beyond that, one of the worst parts of my job. Imagine
making the trip from Tblisi in under two hours (probably not. The food in
Georgia is also second to none so we always stopped to eat regardless of the
time of day or if we were even hungry). Anyway, the presentation was well
underway, when a local community leader in this very marginalized, very
impoverished region asked just who would be doing the actual construction. ‘We
generally hire contractors out of Turkey.’ Murmurs of the inappropriate sort
erupted (let’s recall the less than cordial relationship between Armenians and
Turkey harking back to 1915). Would local people be hired? ‘Hard to say,’
replied the oblivious MCC rep, ‘but probably not. They usually bring their own
workers.’
‘The
door is too far. Our best option is out the window,’ my Russian colleague was
whisper-shouting in my ear. Agreed. The room had erupted. Why build a road, why
say it’s a USD 10 million investment in the local economy, when no one in the
community was actually going to benefit? (Fortunately, violence did not ensue.
But we ushered the MCC rep out of town as fast as possible - I sacrificed what
promised to be a fabulous meal following the meeting for the sake of peace).
So,
why this story? In this instance, because Kennard and Provost’s article
featured the MCC (whose motto is ‘if you want to do aid effectively, you need
to approach development like a business’). The MCC interview brought me right
back to 2005 and my then astonishment that such a ‘grand’ organization could be
so careless. But reading the feature further, my rapidly increasing
astonishment of just how blatant the MCC is about ‘profitable’ development had
me seething.
The
MCC only works with selected countries based on “a set of criteria that
reflects countries that are basically run well politically, democratic, market-based
economies and invest their money in people.” (Given the gross underinvestment
by the Georgian government in ethnic minority regions, it certainly begs the
question ‘which people?’). Let’s pretend that we can extrapolate these criteria
to other private sector corporations that are increasingly partnering with NGOs
on international development. What does that mean for actual development?
First,
it means the money that is desperately needed by least developed countries and
fragile states likely won’t be coming from the private sector. It’s difficult
to safeguard an investment when you a) can’t guarantee a return and b) can’t
guarantee peace. For example, as noted in the Guardian, ‘the private sector has no way of
knowing upfront whether a certain (development) action will achieve desirable
results, so the public sector actors need
to take risks and test new models.’ Newsflash: development is always a risk,
on a scale of low to high. It’s why risk management is part of project
management.
Second,
it means that development organizations that are being pushed to seek funding
through the private sector will prioritize funding for programmes that are less
risky and in stable regions (you can read more about this issue here).
Fragile states beware - the push for private sector finance is not going to
benefit you.
Third,
it means that development dollars start to look more like investment dollars.
‘Value for money’ as the basis for funding will become ever more entrenched and
so the inefficient work of development and peacebuilding (the remote areas, the
conflict affected areas, the areas lacking in substantial natural resources for
exploitation) will be increasingly difficult to fund. And those people and
those countries will continue to be ‘left behind.’ And the investments that do
get made? Those roads that were built (ostensibly to connect investment sites
to major ports and markets) which now connect remote regions and villages with
vital services? Yeah. After the road is built, who will maintain it? Does the
government have the legal right to operate and maintain it using public funds?
Do they even have enough public funds to do so? Will it just be crumbled
potholes in a few years time? ‘Development’ (read: CSR) isn’t a one-off
investment - government capacity to manage infrastructure, raise funds and do
maintenance (or contract it out) over the long term is all tied up with that.
Wasted investments are not helpful.
The
area of private sector financing of development is not very well regulated at
this point. As the push for private sector finance and public-private
partnerships increases, it will be trial and error when it comes to assessing
‘do no harm’ and actual impacts on broad-based poverty reduction. Language on
accountability and enforcing that language will be crucial. Case in point is
the Addis Outcome Document from the Financing for Development Conference in
July 2015. The content is big on private finance as the future of development,
but fails to articulate the necessity of private finance supporting sustainable
development, protecting and advancing human rights, and accountability to poor
communities. Weak language entices private sector finance more than anything
else. It changes the nature of development from being ‘for the people’ to being
a feel-good approach to profit-making.
For
example, in Kennard and Provost’s article, there is a quote from a senior
representative of MasterCard. ‘Let the private sector do what it does best:
profitability is sustainable. Aid is temporary. 2 + 2 = 5.”
No
it does not!!!! The math in this case is unsustainable, irresponsible and
ruinous. There is a disconnect between development sustainability and private
sector sustainability. One is about living sustainably and responsibly within
the ecological boundaries of the earth. The other is about continually making
money. It is not, by definition, socially responsible.
Further,
so much of development is about building the capacity of government at national
and local levels to deliver quality public services. There is no profit in
that. Private sector isn’t going to finance that. And so poverty reduction and
the pursuit of actual sustainable development will suffer funding gaps in
countries where donors no longer want to tread if they are not seeing value for
money (as though the price of the quality of life between an individual in
South Sudan should somehow be the same as in Indonesia. But I digress), and the
private sector sees no immediate profit. They will, however, invest in (not
donate to) commercial projects that may (or may not) benefit local communities.
The elephant in the room is that sustainable development and poverty reduction
is so much more than short term economic gains in a few select communities.
There
is a place for private sector finance in development - in investing in
government economic development strategies. Let’s not confuse the two sectors:
private sector and development sector. They can and should cooperate. However,
the actual funding of development should remain the remit of international
donors and national governments (where they have the capital to do so). Budget
support for least developed countries and fragile states is crucial to the
world’s commitment to ‘leave no one behind.’ It underpins almost everything
else.
So,
I finish with a question: how many of you think the private sector will agree
to impartial, no strings attached budget support?
….
….
….
Yeah.
That’s what I thought.
Comments
Post a Comment