Rafael Marente Tovar
Aid doesn’t work well
The Aid need a debate,
a current revision on its concept because, nowadays, it doesn’t work well[1].
The nations give aid to other countries that really need it but without
thinking it is necessary. They only do in a way of gain a good opinion from
other states because they don’t know where the money they have given goes.
We only help as an
external act, not because we are convinced in doing the correct thing. The word
aid has lost its content. It seems that, today, few people know correctly its
meaning. Behind every aid, national interests are hiding. That’s why we don’t
take into account what country we are helping and where does the money we gave
goes to. We received our benefit and what the other country does with the cash
is not our problem[2].
Normally, the aid is
set aside to fragile countries[3]
where democracy is not a consolidated value and this reason increase the
possibility of the “disappearance” of the money. Their governors keep the aid
the state received and become richer while its population is becoming poorer
and poorer.
For example, when we
observe the countries that are most help by aid, the majority are in the Middle
East, Africa[4] and Central America. How
many of them have a consolidated democracy? Countries such as Iraq, Yemen, South Sudan, Nicaragua are
ruled by authoritarian regimes or even they are considered failed state, what
makes very difficult to the population to receive the aid that the
International System is trying to send. However, in all of them, there are
different interest that can benefit, in a direct or indirect way, the donor.
So, “aid did more harm than good”[5].
It is a difficult task to join an aid system with countries without democracy. “Spending
more on aid is the way to reduce poverty and improve governance in poor
countries”[6]
said many NGOs and politicans. However, the money the county received would
increase the governor’s pocket, nor benefit the population.
Nevertheless, this is
a concern that worries the International Community because find a solution to
this problem is a hard work. Eliminate the aid is not an option but giving more
in order to let the population reach a small part, either. So, the importance
consists in finding the middle point between these two radical extremes,
because they don’t help any of the parts.
That’s why we must
focus our aid in education and formation[7].
Economic aid must be in this direction. And assure that it is going to work,
avoiding falling in the same stone as the aid.
Maybe it could be the
only way to become aware the importance of the money and the difficulty of make
it. Having qualified governors, qualified doctors and, in general, qualified
professional would be the first step to try to develop the country. With that
sort of professional well qualified, aid would have more possibilities to reach
the needed population than before.
Notwithstanding,
qualified professionals don’t claim that everything is going to run well. In
the West, we are supposed to have competent experts and problems aren’t eradicated.
But, at least, we are in a better position to find the solution.
With education and
formation, everything come after: strong infrastructure, good doctors, adequate
governors, independent mass media, free society. Having this context, other
optimistic view of those countries is possible, and aid could work better.
Finally, we must make
a clear distinction because development is not the same to growth
[8]. The development is more
related to what we have just commented before while growth is focused only in
one or several factors but in an independent way. A country can grow in its
economic aspect but be far away in infrastructure and human rights, for example.
In that sense,
development refers to human rights, development refers to infrastructure,
development refers to qualified professionals, development refers to freedom.
Development is what every country dream to reach. Only few of them are supposed
to be developed.
Behind development is
education and formation. Without these two aspects, it is impossible to reach
any kind of development, at least a complete one. Without education and
formation, maybe you can be rich, such as Venezuela, for example, with petrol.
However, they don’t know how to obtain benefit from it because they don’t have
the enough formation to achieve it.
Without education and
formation, it is impossible to rule a democracy. This type of regime is
characterised by freedom. But, how are you going to know what is freedom
without education and formation? That is what happen in many countries that
claim they live in a democracy. They don’t understand what democracy is, so
what they are living seem to them to be a democracy.
So, as a conclusion,
aid need a debate to rebuild this concept and education and formation must be
in the centre. The new idea of aid needs to be focus in that way, because both,
education and formation, are beyond free and modern societies.
[3] Class reading: Kharas, H. and Rogerson, A. (2017): Global development trends and challenges: Horizon 2025 revisited. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/11873.pdf
[5] Class reading: Hanlon, J. (2013): Solidarity,
sovereignty and Intervention. Open University.
[8] Class reading: Withfield, L. (2009): Reframing
the Aid Debate: Why aid isn’t working and how it should be changed. https://www.diis.dk/files/media/publications/import/wp2009-34_refraiming_the_aid_debate.pdf
Rafael: the first part of this is quite pessimistic with regards to foreign aid. You are probably right in part, but even if your argument is completely valid, I don't see why education and training is the main solution. This costs money and therefore requires economic growth because these important factors cannot be only financed through aid. In my opinion, your solution to the problem you pose is a bit simplistic. What do you think? Prof. C. Freres
ResponderEliminarIt's true that I'm not an enthusiast of Aid because I think that corruption is widespread these countries I mentioned in the blog. Of course an economic growth is fundamental to let them to develop. However, this economic growth must be reflected in every layer of the society and not only in the richest one, that is what I was trying to said in my blog. Unfortunately, I think that it is what happens in these countries, so having well -qualified proffesionals in every field would increase a fair distribution of the aid they receive and a good distribution of the economic growth, which is essential to the poorest coutries but ot the only point.
ResponderEliminarRafael.