As I was looking through the Economist, I found an article that correlated very well to what we discussed in class yesterday about foreign aid. The article dealt with how foreign aid may or may not have been helpful in the case of Sudan. On one hand, possibly out of fear of losing such aid, Sudan's Bashir recently freed many key political prisoners. This is a good sign, obviously, and may indicate a freer Sudan with better relations between the government and rebel groups. However, the article also makes the conjecture that aid may have done more harm than good. "Banditry, kidnapping, carjacking and looting persist," and conflicts continually erupting between rebel groups have created more and more flows of displaced people throughout the region. This relates directly to the graphs we looked at in class yesterday. The first one showed a positive correlation between aid and GDP growth-though it was missing data. The second graph was a more accurate representation, showing no correlation between aid and economic growth, and perhaps even a slightly negative relationship.
This begs the question of why the UK, for example, is pledging more than one hundred million dollars towards Sudan in aid. Perhaps the Brits are simply optimistic that Bashir will change his ways in response to increased funding of developmental projects. Maybe they are right, as Bashir, along with promising to release all political prisoners, has spoken about creating a dialogue between the government and the rebel groups. But this is an empty promise until the dialogue actually occurs. And the fact remains that the aid itself is doing little good for the population that would be most affected by it, and the situation may in fact be deteriorating.
Although there may be no direct correlation to aid and economic growth I believe, as pointed out in class the other day that we should be breaking down the smaller factors of where aid is going to and how it is effecting people.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to understand that the aid has gone to save many lives and those who have survived off of food, shelter, or development programs in Sudan would probably think differently about whether the aid was making a difference or was needed.
From an economist perspective maybe we should be looking at smaller factors of change.
It also brings up the question of why do we give aid? Is it only based on a factor of producing economic development or maybe it is charity which is about helping out how we can without expecting it to yield results but just plain help who we can?
I agree that the Sudan, with its unstable environment, is not very suitable for foreign aid. The UK has been providing aid there since the 90's and increased the amount dramatically after violence broke out in 2003. This was mostly food and water programs. However, they were not designed for a protracted peace. The people who originally benefited from this aid are now dependent on it. There have been many criticisms of the UK recently because of an aid watchdog report.
ReplyDeleteThis is a case of where aid has been gained through manipulation and will most likely be mismanaged in the state. Yes, Bashir released some political prisoners, but has most likely not changed any of his state policies. In addition, people who are merely given hand outs will not succeed as they have not been taught useful and applicable ways of using it. This is where aid has some of its largest issues. When money is thrown at a problem without looking at the underlying issues (such as the rebel conflicts) it will not be used to help develop the country. Especially with Sudan, a country torn apart by civil war and rebel groups, it will be important to make sure there are people on the ground making the decisions as to where and to who the money should go.
ReplyDeleteInstead of decidedly scratching Sudan from the list of aid recipients, I think it far more beneficial to approach the situation in a different manner. If we have been steadily giving Sudan foreign aid since the 1990s and there has been little noticeable improvement, then donor agents need to re-strategize. William Easterly's "White Man's Burden" provides an excellent starting point for how to rethink how the west gives aid. He talks about how the West has been throwing money at governments, when they should be focusing on the local conditions and what would best complement these institutions to make a difference. If aid agents can find a route to circumvent Mr. Bashir, then the aid could benefit the people without having to worry about dealing with the government.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you on this point. Seeing that the aid has not been used effectively from large bureaucratic donors, it is time to use local authorities and agents to accurately implement aid in order to ensure that it is used wisely. Easterly notes that the large donors often times are not in tune with what the local environment needs with the aid and therefore, their dumping of monetary capital goes unregulated. Harnessing local agents helps to address the most dire needs of the country while also guiding the aid into beneficial outcomes. Having more accountability and feedback in terms of where and how the aid is being used will also help solve a lot of these problems.
DeleteI think UK or any of the West should aid to Sudan but may be come up with a different system. As we talked to class today that to reduce corruption and all in terms of aids we could set up an agency to make sure the aid is delivered in the right hands but it will cost a lot of money and resources to do that. The west agencies or donors just give away money with no accountability and that is also a crucial problem. I would say it would be worth to spend a little bit of more money and do some research and see exactly what is the need basis situation in Sudan.
ReplyDeleteUntil we started talking about foreign aid in this class, I really was completely in the dark about foreign aid. I think it is a problem that we don't know where the foreign aid exactly goes once it enters a country; furthermore, its disturbing that something intended for good, helping the poor, could be hurting the country and adding to corruption. In this case with Sudan, I have to look at the fact that the aid isn't doing much good. This makes me believe that there is a more effective way to get Sudan resources that it desperately needs without causing more corruption. Possible direct investment comes to mind? There has to be a more effective way for Bashir to run the government, as well as the UK helping with this. I think this example of Sudan perfectly illustrates, unfortunately, the all too common problem of directing the foreign aid in positive ways and monitored ways to avoid corruption!
ReplyDeleteSudan is consistently among the top "failed states" of the world, according to American Foreign Policy. In 2006 it was number one, today it is number three. It is important then, in these types of situations to not give direct aid to the government in power, as it is pretty much solidified that they are not equipped to receive aid money, much less take care of their own people. I believe this to be the case in Sudan. Instead, we should use our aid money more wisely and send in reputable NGOs, that are transparent and can be held accountable. Otherwise, who knows what a failed state's government will do with aid money?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/failed_states_index_2012_interactive
I really like your post Chloe because it is a good example of how foreign aid hasn't had many desirable effects in Sudan. Bridget makes a good point that giving direct foreign aid to horribly corrupt and inefficient governments is not a good idea and perhaps a better alternative would be to send money to reputable NGO's. The strategic aims of the Western countries is something we should consider. Having a functioning transparent government in Sudan that takes care of its people is a pretty lofty goal at this point in history. In the eyes of the Western world sending aid money to prop up a bad government is still better than no government in Sudan which would certainly lead to a significant increase of violence and instability in Sudan at least temporarily.
ReplyDeleteI think that the UK, US, and other nations have a duty to help Sudan, but it definitely needs to be done differently. When money is just blindly given to a state, especially one in such a state as Sudan, it is too easy for it to be used for the wrong reasons, which is what has been happening. If Western nations are going to give aid to Sudan, they need more people involved in making sure the money goes into the right hands by keeping a better eye on the organizations involved.
ReplyDeleteWhile those who give aid to Sudan may be causing more harm that good what else can they do to try and incentivize better conditions for those who are impoverished. We could try and send people to give aid directly but this is dangerous for them and may not be allowed by the government. Additionally, we could try and sanction these countries but that would also make the residents of Sudan worse off. The only other alternative to this would be to use force which is out of the question. These make it so countries who are wanting to aid the impoverished in Sudan must use the only avenue they can, giving humanitarian aid. While i believe that this aid could possibly create a dependency for aid, I do not believe that it would end up making the the citizens of sudan worse off. At most it could just contribute to corruption, and it would take a very malicious government to use aid to harm its residents. I dont think that governments would continue to provide aid if it was being used maliciously & they probably are able to see some improvements even if it is not amount to much total which is convincing enough for them to continue to provide aid.
ReplyDelete