I found this article that primarily focuses on Ethiopia, Rwanda, and other African countries, but primarily the relationship with foreign aid. I thought that this could be an interesting post since we had just been talking about foreign aid in class, and also since the topic comes up on the exam.
In the article, Alexis Akwagyiram explains how the foreign aid given to countries like Ethiopia and Rwanda is allocated: toward healthcare and education (a positive) but also allegedly toward corrupt militia. The primary focus of the article, as I stated above is foreign aid, and how more and more African countries are taking steps toward positive regime change, a lot of the time because of political reasons-- to encourage continued foreign interest and investment. What is setting Rwanda apart from other countries, beside the fact that they have had their aid suspended, is their new development plan. The plan is the result of the realization that even though foreign aid is appreciated, "it's not sustainable as a long term development plan".
The article also briefly discusses remittances and explains the development plan in greater detail.
The problem with foreign aid is that it is very difficult to track where it goes after it dispersed. Another problem that aid organizations and donor governments face is that when they try to save the poor and the suffering, criminals are mixed in and they are very hard to separate out. Aid organizations have to face that in order to save the innocent they might have to also save those causing the suffering, which is why foreign aid can prolong conflicts.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of Rwanda, aid going into the wrong hands has been a problem there for decades. During the Rwandan genocide the French were giving money to the Hutu government in order to stabilize it but they then used that money to pay their military who was then using that money to fund the Interhamwe who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Many people believe that France should take the blame for this, but if everyone was held to this standard then no one's hands would be clean.
You have to look at it from the point of how well the country's receiving foreign aid may have developed in certain area. In order to address the issue of aid effectiveness countries have started giving aid to certain sectors like health care or education and overall "the world has witnessed greater absolute improvements in health, wealth, and education in the past decade than in any comparable period in human history" (Huffington Post). This article goes on to explain that "childhood deaths have fallen from 12 million a year in 1990 to less than 8 million today. Or take education; while the goal of universal primary enrollment has not been met, 47 million more children were in school in 2007 than were in 1999. Even HIV/AIDS, devastating though it continues to be, is seeing reductions in infection rates and millions of people are now on life-saving anti-retrovirals". So there might not be an increase in economic development, but I think that foreign aid is paving the way for it to happen in the future with a population that is better educated and in better health.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-suzman/development-aid-is-workin_b_599974.html
This article brings up great points in relation to the catch 22 of foreign aid. I like that Rwanda has taken the stance that aid is nice but in the long run it really doesn't help. Like a child growing up and using money at will till there is none , until it is cut off and they can learn to earn money for themselves being self sufficient.There is definitely still a need for foreign aid in some poorer countries but it should be given with the scope of eventually weening countries off the dependence on other nations for survival.Also poorer nations are subject to the needs of the nation giving aid , as their is always a political price to pay and unfortunately no nation gives entirely out of generosity.The eventual severance of aid will give them independence in every sense of the word.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with the fact that foreign aid payments to developing states are not a great practice in the long run. There is a distinct lack of governmental transparency, and it can cause 'resource curse' like effects, in which governments become less accountable to the population due to the fact that foreign aid acts a source of non-taxable income. Interestingly enough, the UK has announced that it will be ceasing all foreign aid payments to South Africa, stating that it was a testament to South Africa's level of development.
ReplyDeleteThe dubious correlation between external foreign aid and the receiving nation augmenting the institutional framework of their country to warrant this aid is avenue that we ventured down. I would have to agree with Grant’s assertion in regards to the spending practices and economic nature of the receiving countries, how continuing to receive aid may make the countries economic fortunes worse n the long run. This being stated, the continuous existence of issuing foreign aid should be not be abandoned, but rather augmented, custom tailored to each individual nation as need be. If you give foreign aid in a responsible nation specific manner, the benefits will outweigh the costs.
ReplyDeleteI think Ethiopia moving away from its dependence on aid could definitely help in its path towards development. As we know, foreign aid is very difficult to track and can easily get funneled into the hands of corrupt, greedy leaders. After reading this article, it seems as if the country acknowledges that in order to further develop the government needs to invest in higher education, agriculture and its manufacturing sector, all of which it plans to do. The country has already shown improvements with thirty universities being built since 1994 and the government setting a "target for 70% of students to study science, technology or engineering".
ReplyDelete