This entry was posted on October 6, 2009 at 8:31 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This hasn’t been an active thread so far, but I did want to comment that Hernando De Soto’s discussion regarding imposing a social contract on another society has been hugely beneficial in shaping my own understanding of development. I think it frames a lot of the ethical issues regarding cultural differences and values systems really well by situating “ourselves” (as people who live in North America) in our own social context. Taking a given social system as natural is inherently problematic, and a trap that we often fall into. Because our own values system has been the dominant one in our own lives and global society, Western Liberal Capitalist Democracy seems “normal.” Looking at our social system as a social contract – something that is constructed, that we have consented to (perhaps tacitly) – brings heightened awareness of our own biases when analyzing issues relating to development. A system that has taken hundreds of years to develop, with much evidence of conflict and poverty throughout the development, may be ineffective when imposed on another society. I don’t know that I agree that aid is “dead” or not worthwhile, but I think that analyzing development through a lens that takes our own constructed context into consideration is both important and valuable.
I don’t know why there hasn’t been more discussion on these debates. Why not? I think you make a good point here about whether or not our system can be imposed, and am also in agreement with you over whether aid is really “dead”. I will admit that I was not entirely sold on Moyo’s arguments (and the media storm surrounding her), but I do praise her boldness and conviction with which she makes her arguments. I do feel like Collier and Lewis came off the weaker party in this debate, but that is not saying their arguments are without merit. Lewis’ book the Bottom Billion is a short, but interesting read – his conclusions are based on an empirical study of failing/failed/impoverished states. While you can obviously challenge his empirics/methodology, he does come up with several conclusions were aid has been useful (not that I whole-heartedly support his arguments, but here are some that I feel are worth considering):
Aid is subject to “diminishing returns” – when it reaches about 16% of GDP it ceases to be effective.
Aid reduces the risk of rebellion and coups for countries in conflict traps, finding a stabilizing post-conflict effect if sustained for ten years.
Aid is effective if delivered in the first four years following reform. He estimates the cost of a failed state at $100 billion, + the cost of spillover effects in neighboring countries – he estimates that by offering $1 billion of technical assistance, you will receive a payoff of $15 billion.
In 2002, world contributions to aid amounted to $30/African – after costs/debt servicing/administrative fees it equalled $12/African. US contributions amounted to 6 CENTS/African.
I found this to be an interesting fact (as well as the rest), but also want to put a general challenge to all of these facts and how they are drawn, as it is often too easy to place too much faith in empirics and economics.
The debates were certainly very interesting and entertaining, and it is good that people question the way we do things now and suggest improvements. I also agree with Angela, in that Moyo dominated the debates and seemed to ‘win’ even though her arguments were not as convincing (to me) as Lewis and Collier’s. This is typical of debates, I think, that the most enigmatic figure wins regardless of whether or not they have better arguments.
On the whole, I find debates to be not very practical. The very nature of debates is uncompromising and unyielding, so bringing about change or acting on ideas discussed is much more difficult. Debates place situations in black and white terms, when in reality the situations are full of gray areas and a solution may only come from a combination of black and white.
Debating whether or not we should continue giving aid is useless. Economic solutions may work for some countries such as China or India, but that does not necessarily apply to other developing countries. Moyo, in her attempt to point out that the aid cookie cutter pattern does not work for all countries, in essence pointing out how each country is unique and there is no formula that will work for every country, falls prey to her own criticisms as she tries to apply her economic cookie cutter to all developing countries.
Perhaps the debates brought international attention back to the dilemma of developing countries and renewed interest in that area- if so, then that can only be a good thing. But if the purpose was to actually end foreign aid as a tool for development, then I think it failed miserably and for good reason. As it currently stands, foreign aid is absolutely necessary, not for all developing countries and not at the same level, but it is still essential at this point in time for not only development, but sustaining developing countries at their current levels.
Just a side note: Paul Collier is actually the author of The Bottom Billion.
I approach financial aid from a grassroots level. As the grant-writer for UBC’s Global Health Initiative, I have spent the majority of my time researching grants for health promotion, nutrition, and hygiene/sanitation programs. From CIDA, to the McLean and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – there is a wealth of individuals who are putting-forth their money with the intention of helping those in developing countries. Despite the abundance of opportunities, the criteria is quite selective with about 1:20 proposals being accepted. Based on this ratio, foreign aid is not something that is taken loosely. Experts analyze proposal, ensure their budget is reasonable and realistic, and they also make sure those receiving funding come with great motivation, passion, education, and experience for the work they do. For those individuals and organizations who receive funding, amazing outcomes are produced. In Spiti Valley this past summer, the Global Health Initiative was able to do a nutrition survey for micronutrient deficiencies and built a greenhouse to combat anemia. In addition, they demonstrated the importance of hygiene and sanitation by building hand-wash stations. They were also able to begin developing a patient health record system. By examining these outcomes from a grassroots-based example, Paul Collier’s quote, “aid as a seed, as a stimulus, for the bottom billion who are desperately short of capital”, seems accurate. Within the field of health, aid has also played an incredibly important role in fighting malaria and providing antiretroviral drugs. It has provided individuals and populations a better quality of life by touching on physiological, mental, and sociological components. As a result of these actions, individuals in developing countries will now be able to feel empowered to take charge of their lives; become entrepreneurs; be able to work and feed their families.
One of my friends mentioned that on his most recent trip to Africa, he observed that the people were incredibly lazy. They portrayed an attitude in which they believed they could just sit dormant and the aid and solutions from the Western world would just come to them. This is a prime example of how historically-common financial aid was given to developing countries, but not many result were produced. What needs to be focused on is something that is not only more sustainable, but something that decreases the sense of dependency. In the debate, Moya mentioned something about giving African’s jobs, giving them opportunities to become entrepreneurs. Give them the tools the need to grow (for example, invest in things like microcredit and social enterprise). It is important to ethically approach the problem. Ethically in the sense of hearing the voice of Africans..ask what they would do…what they need to get them out of poverty…and what is the best way we can help them because only they know what is right for their country. Aid needs to be done in a different way…a way that empowers people out of poverty.
Check out Acument Fund (www.acumenfund.org) for more ideas on this.
Kind of wish I had seen this before the deadline, but for those interested here’s a cool TED talk by the founder of the acumen fund which Stephanie described above
December 3, 2009 at 1:56 am |
This hasn’t been an active thread so far, but I did want to comment that Hernando De Soto’s discussion regarding imposing a social contract on another society has been hugely beneficial in shaping my own understanding of development. I think it frames a lot of the ethical issues regarding cultural differences and values systems really well by situating “ourselves” (as people who live in North America) in our own social context. Taking a given social system as natural is inherently problematic, and a trap that we often fall into. Because our own values system has been the dominant one in our own lives and global society, Western Liberal Capitalist Democracy seems “normal.” Looking at our social system as a social contract – something that is constructed, that we have consented to (perhaps tacitly) – brings heightened awareness of our own biases when analyzing issues relating to development. A system that has taken hundreds of years to develop, with much evidence of conflict and poverty throughout the development, may be ineffective when imposed on another society. I don’t know that I agree that aid is “dead” or not worthwhile, but I think that analyzing development through a lens that takes our own constructed context into consideration is both important and valuable.
December 4, 2009 at 9:54 am |
I don’t know why there hasn’t been more discussion on these debates. Why not? I think you make a good point here about whether or not our system can be imposed, and am also in agreement with you over whether aid is really “dead”. I will admit that I was not entirely sold on Moyo’s arguments (and the media storm surrounding her), but I do praise her boldness and conviction with which she makes her arguments. I do feel like Collier and Lewis came off the weaker party in this debate, but that is not saying their arguments are without merit. Lewis’ book the Bottom Billion is a short, but interesting read – his conclusions are based on an empirical study of failing/failed/impoverished states. While you can obviously challenge his empirics/methodology, he does come up with several conclusions were aid has been useful (not that I whole-heartedly support his arguments, but here are some that I feel are worth considering):
Aid is subject to “diminishing returns” – when it reaches about 16% of GDP it ceases to be effective.
Aid reduces the risk of rebellion and coups for countries in conflict traps, finding a stabilizing post-conflict effect if sustained for ten years.
Aid is effective if delivered in the first four years following reform. He estimates the cost of a failed state at $100 billion, + the cost of spillover effects in neighboring countries – he estimates that by offering $1 billion of technical assistance, you will receive a payoff of $15 billion.
In 2002, world contributions to aid amounted to $30/African – after costs/debt servicing/administrative fees it equalled $12/African. US contributions amounted to 6 CENTS/African.
I found this to be an interesting fact (as well as the rest), but also want to put a general challenge to all of these facts and how they are drawn, as it is often too easy to place too much faith in empirics and economics.
December 4, 2009 at 9:12 pm |
The debates were certainly very interesting and entertaining, and it is good that people question the way we do things now and suggest improvements. I also agree with Angela, in that Moyo dominated the debates and seemed to ‘win’ even though her arguments were not as convincing (to me) as Lewis and Collier’s. This is typical of debates, I think, that the most enigmatic figure wins regardless of whether or not they have better arguments.
On the whole, I find debates to be not very practical. The very nature of debates is uncompromising and unyielding, so bringing about change or acting on ideas discussed is much more difficult. Debates place situations in black and white terms, when in reality the situations are full of gray areas and a solution may only come from a combination of black and white.
Debating whether or not we should continue giving aid is useless. Economic solutions may work for some countries such as China or India, but that does not necessarily apply to other developing countries. Moyo, in her attempt to point out that the aid cookie cutter pattern does not work for all countries, in essence pointing out how each country is unique and there is no formula that will work for every country, falls prey to her own criticisms as she tries to apply her economic cookie cutter to all developing countries.
Perhaps the debates brought international attention back to the dilemma of developing countries and renewed interest in that area- if so, then that can only be a good thing. But if the purpose was to actually end foreign aid as a tool for development, then I think it failed miserably and for good reason. As it currently stands, foreign aid is absolutely necessary, not for all developing countries and not at the same level, but it is still essential at this point in time for not only development, but sustaining developing countries at their current levels.
Just a side note: Paul Collier is actually the author of The Bottom Billion.
December 4, 2009 at 10:57 pm |
I approach financial aid from a grassroots level. As the grant-writer for UBC’s Global Health Initiative, I have spent the majority of my time researching grants for health promotion, nutrition, and hygiene/sanitation programs. From CIDA, to the McLean and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – there is a wealth of individuals who are putting-forth their money with the intention of helping those in developing countries. Despite the abundance of opportunities, the criteria is quite selective with about 1:20 proposals being accepted. Based on this ratio, foreign aid is not something that is taken loosely. Experts analyze proposal, ensure their budget is reasonable and realistic, and they also make sure those receiving funding come with great motivation, passion, education, and experience for the work they do. For those individuals and organizations who receive funding, amazing outcomes are produced. In Spiti Valley this past summer, the Global Health Initiative was able to do a nutrition survey for micronutrient deficiencies and built a greenhouse to combat anemia. In addition, they demonstrated the importance of hygiene and sanitation by building hand-wash stations. They were also able to begin developing a patient health record system. By examining these outcomes from a grassroots-based example, Paul Collier’s quote, “aid as a seed, as a stimulus, for the bottom billion who are desperately short of capital”, seems accurate. Within the field of health, aid has also played an incredibly important role in fighting malaria and providing antiretroviral drugs. It has provided individuals and populations a better quality of life by touching on physiological, mental, and sociological components. As a result of these actions, individuals in developing countries will now be able to feel empowered to take charge of their lives; become entrepreneurs; be able to work and feed their families.
December 4, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
One of my friends mentioned that on his most recent trip to Africa, he observed that the people were incredibly lazy. They portrayed an attitude in which they believed they could just sit dormant and the aid and solutions from the Western world would just come to them. This is a prime example of how historically-common financial aid was given to developing countries, but not many result were produced. What needs to be focused on is something that is not only more sustainable, but something that decreases the sense of dependency. In the debate, Moya mentioned something about giving African’s jobs, giving them opportunities to become entrepreneurs. Give them the tools the need to grow (for example, invest in things like microcredit and social enterprise). It is important to ethically approach the problem. Ethically in the sense of hearing the voice of Africans..ask what they would do…what they need to get them out of poverty…and what is the best way we can help them because only they know what is right for their country. Aid needs to be done in a different way…a way that empowers people out of poverty.
Check out Acument Fund (www.acumenfund.org) for more ideas on this.
December 6, 2009 at 8:46 am |
Kind of wish I had seen this before the deadline, but for those interested here’s a cool TED talk by the founder of the acumen fund which Stephanie described above
http://www.ted.com/talks/jacqueline_novogratz_a_third_way_to_think_about_aid.html