MAMADOU YAYA
DIALLO
Official Development Aid, a way to lead to the development,
a break or inefficient?
Before to answer to this question, it is important to
define what Official Development Aid (ODA) is. Thus, according to OECD
Development Assistance Committee, ODA is defined as government aid that
promotes and specifically targets the economic development and welfare of
developing countries. The DAC adopted ODA as a “gold standard” of foreign aid
in 1969 and its remains the main source of financing for development aid.[1]
International
development cooperation is once again under fire from criticism. Official
Development Assistance (ODA) is often perceived as inefficient and rhymes with
waste of money. The recipient countries of its aid have always remained equal
to the same and despite the aid already received, it is not enough to solve the
scourge in which they continue to live: low income per capita, high
unemployment rate, literacy rate high, corruption ... etc. As a result, several
authors have recently published books stressing that aid can have detrimental
effects and act as a brake on the development of recipient countries. This is
Dambisa Moyo's example, Dead Aid (2009): “Moyo states clearly, so there can be
no misunderstanding that it is time to stop pitying Africa. Pity has not helped
the continent, and has actually hurt its external and self-image. Everywhere
today, we see the image of an Africa that is poor and needy, unable to help
itself. It is time for that to end.” Yash
Tandon, Ending Aid Dependence (2008) , he argued that what is important for
African Countries is to learn lessons from South and East Asia and to apply
them within understanding of the different global economic conditions that they
face today. He adds also that different forms of aid are also problematic in
different ways, thus breaking aid down into component parts lets us be more
specific about changing the aid system and how aid is provided. Among other
authors Monga 2009 et Nwokeabia 2009[2]. Moreover,
if I am not mistaken, it has never been said that a country has become rich
thanks to official development assistance.
It is also important to
note that most of the member countries of official development assistance,
despite their involvement and membership, have unfortunately not respected the
target set by the UN to reach 0.7% of GNI in 2017[3]. Only five countries (Sweden, Luxembourg,
Norway, Denmark and the United Kingdom) compared to the total numbers of
participating countries. This is probably what Teresa Hayter (1971) says in her
book : Aid as imperialism[4] :
“ that the assistance provided by the World Bank and the countries of the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) serves primarily
the interests of Western countries and their transnational corporations. ODA
promotes the control of developing countries' resources by the ruling class of
Western countries. In addition, aid helps keep poor countries in a dependency
relationship with the West.” But this
dependence must be seen in a pragmatic way, that is to say, the recipient countries
must, beyond their policy, show a Common, Win Win interest towards the West
because, in general, we know that always inscribed in an interested
relationship by which the dominant party seeks to win in favor of the weaker
party.
Finally, I would like
to emphasize one last point, because the efforts still made by Western
countries towards the recipient countries of development aid, the donors must
define a much more effective policy and a rigorous control over the management
of the resources granted, because the containers of his helpers have always
been confronted by corruption. So I wonder what about all the help they
received?
It will also be
necessary to try to reconsider the management done on the resources that is to
say to offer less help and only in fields where there is a very big lack of
need so that the leaders of its countries can occur and undertake themselves.
For that to be realized it will be necessary to go to zero, that is to say to
apply what Lindsay Whitfield had proposed: « will be forced to find
new sources of revenue. It could force a government to do something about
economic transformation: agrarian reform, increased exports, finding
manufacturing opportunities[5]».
Mamadoo: this is clearly a critical view of ODA, but I am left doubting exactly what you are trying to say in the end. That is, can the problems with aid be resolved simply by improving the management of that aid? Please clarify this. Prof. C. Freres
ResponderEliminarDear, teacher, i mean at the end of the article that the management of the aid received by the recipients can be the one of the point that Donors should make a rigourous control about the manner that they used it.Or at leat as they have a controle of the policy made by them , it can be then possible to interact in any moment proposing the inspections on the progress of the activities or projects to be carried out by the leaders of the recipient countries. There are also others factors that the ODA should improve for the efficiency of their aid.I would like to add on this as we know the high rate of corruption present in the recipent countries , it will be then necessary to boost the manner of the utilisation of the funds, use the funds only in need domains.
ResponderEliminar