Thanks so much Finn again, a lot of wisdom there and good links to look at. ISDI in particular looks like a great initiative and I didn’t know about it!
You might be right that we are talking past each other n the government to government aid thing given that I think it’s a complete disaster and should stop, while you understandably seem to agree with the development norm that government ownership is part of aid best practise. This is definitely off topic a bit, but I wanted to clarify that I am not against govt. to govt. aid for any petty reason that it cuts anyone out, but for a lot of other reasons.
Evidence of failure. (The classic Dambisa Moyo) Govt. to govt. aid has miserably failed for 50 years in Africa. Most development successes have been in either in partnership with govt. or despite governments. Why go against the evidence because it seems right?
Corruption
There is a strong norm that we should give governments the power to prioritise what they want. But the reality is that most low income governments don’t care much about the poorest of the poor (evidenced by both rhetoric and lack of action), so they won’t prioritise them with the money you give them. So why give them money to prioritise other things the aid was not intended for in the first place?
For undemocratic countries specifically, when you give aid to those governments you prop up the stranglehold of dictatorships. This can cause more harm than the good you can potentially do.
I know these are all fairly classic arguments, but I still believe that they stand. Don’t feel you have to reply by the way, just wanted to get it out there ;)
Thanks so much Finn again, a lot of wisdom there and good links to look at. ISDI in particular looks like a great initiative and I didn’t know about it!
You might be right that we are talking past each other n the government to government aid thing given that I think it’s a complete disaster and should stop, while you understandably seem to agree with the development norm that government ownership is part of aid best practise. This is definitely off topic a bit, but I wanted to clarify that I am not against govt. to govt. aid for any petty reason that it cuts anyone out, but for a lot of other reasons.
Evidence of failure. (The classic Dambisa Moyo) Govt. to govt. aid has miserably failed for 50 years in Africa. Most development successes have been in either in partnership with govt. or despite governments. Why go against the evidence because it seems right?
Corruption
There is a strong norm that we should give governments the power to prioritise what they want. But the reality is that most low income governments don’t care much about the poorest of the poor (evidenced by both rhetoric and lack of action), so they won’t prioritise them with the money you give them. So why give them money to prioritise other things the aid was not intended for in the first place?
For undemocratic countries specifically, when you give aid to those governments you prop up the stranglehold of dictatorships. This can cause more harm than the good you can potentially do.
I know these are all fairly classic arguments, but I still believe that they stand. Don’t feel you have to reply by the way, just wanted to get it out there ;)