One is about the annual launch of the Transparency International (TI) league table on the perceived levels of corruption. The corruption perception index (CPI) has been measured for many years, and Transparency International offers some analysis of progress, or the lack of it, over the years, by regions, and by countries.
Also hot from the press is the Democracy Index 2022 issued by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a house known for its liberal views and renowned, according to Wikipedia, for rigorous fact-checking and little reporting bias. Let me know if you have any trouble downloading the report – it is worth a read.
Just to whet your appetite and probably much to the delight of people in Albania: the democracy index calculates the same rating for the USA and Albania in the category functioning government – a score of 6.43 out of 10 possible points. Both countries are classified as a flawed democracy.
At the bottom of the corruption and the democracy listings you find the countries that for decades have been commanding the largest share of UNICEF expenditure. Both TI and EIU observe that the countries’ ranking has only marginally changed.
Of course, the correlation between the amount of aid and corruption and lack of democracy is not straightforward, owing for example to the different countries' size. There are also exceptions to the rule, such as the existence of donor darlings (such as Ghana) or perceived enemies (such as North Korea).
But on a grander scale, it appears that aid agencies are helping to subsidize corrupt and authoritarian regimes. If you find this overstated, we probably can agree that UNICEF and aid agencies take care of the poor, where the corrupt authoritarians don’t.
This may be unavoidable in humanitarian situations. For everything else, development agencies should at least acknowledge that they are aware, and discuss how to go about it.
Having seen donor behaviour in Ghana (donor’s darling as you said), Kurdistan (darling but not as much as Ghana), Yemen and Burma (most hated by donors) there were no relationship between democracy and corruption and donor funding. In Ghana hundreds of millions were channelled through Ministry of Finance (direct budget support) annually, despite known corruption while in Burma not a singly $ passed through government offices; total aid package was channelled through iNGOs. UN(AIDS) had to account for even every single condom distributed to ensure that nothing is handed over to the government. The irony is that it is the government health workers who eventually dealt with the general public including distribution of condoms. Hardening of the attitude of some governments is directly proportionate to the donor behaviour.
ReplyDeleteDear Detlef,
ReplyDeleteYou have touched on a very important subject, which as you imply should not be swept under the carpet by donors. Ways have to be found to place pressure on corrupt governments receiving assistance, such as channeling aid through credible NGOs. What is more important is to ensure that the aid is not being siphoned off by corrupt officials even forwarded to non-government partners. best. baquer
Of course, the most incompetent, corrupt, and abusive governments receive the most aid, it is where the needs are highest and always will be. Incompetence, corruption, and abuse breed poverty, and underdevelopment and causes crises. Aid does nothing to address any of these root causes.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that aid makes it easier for corrupt governments to steal from the coffers. For one, there is more to steal and the theft will be less noticeable. Many corrupt governments even steal directly from aid resources. So-called budget support in particular makes such theft easy. This is barely worth debating, but some aid practitioners may disagree. It would be interesting to hear their arguments.
The next obvious and more important question is: does aid also help keep incompetent, corrupt, and abusive governments in power? If aid facilitates corruption it is not a massive leap to think that aid also helps keep highly undesirable governments that abuse their people in power. That should be on the agenda in Istanbul.
Fair points as always, but two questions.
ReplyDeleteFirst, is UNICEF in a better place on this than some other parts of the UN because it leans more on direct execution/ implementation than national execution/ implementation (the old NEX/DEX NIM/DIM thing)?
Second, is it unkind to say some parts of the UNDS absolutely get this and have as their core business absorbing fiduciary risk for donors and then taking a cut for doing so? Donors have various reasons for wanting to channel money to corrupt countries but it's much more comfortable for them to able to blame the UN when some of it inevitably goes where it shouldn't. It makes sense that they'd be willing to pay us for that, doesn't it?
This has nothing to do with fiduciary risks. If aid (or aid agencies) relieve a corrupt or authoritarian regime from having to finance healthcare, these regimes will use the their own money for things they prefer spending money on. It can go into their own pockets, into a war machinery, a new flashy airport, or into their state secret service. Money is fungible.
ReplyDeleteClick here for UNICEF expenditure by country, in 2022 (as of 3 February 2023)
I'll give an example to illustrate Detlef's point from two countries I've been doing some work on social protection. First Uganda where a number of donors led by the UK and Ireland have been investing in building capacity for cash transfers and have done well yet with a view that after ten years or so - by 2020 and extended due to COVID, the government would increase their contribution from 0.7 per cent of government expenditure to 1 per cent to show willing. Meanwhile the military gets 10 per cent and infrastructure beyond 20 per cent with lots of juicy road contracts going to Ugandan firms with connections at high levels. The senior levels of government have been very reluctant - some say this is because there is no scope for corruption in cash transfers - the money goes straight from the Ministry of Finance into the hands or bank accounts of recipients. The second is Kiribati, highest point two metres above sea level but that is another story - with very little pushing from the development gang they have increased their per cent of government expenditure on cash transfers from circa 10 to 30 per cent over the last five years. As Urban Jonsson used to remind us at every opportunity, political choice has a lot to do with where the money goes and usually the development gang are not particularly good at having an impact on political choice.
ReplyDeleteMay I also welcome Baquer Namazi back to this gang, it is really so good to see you out and active. I worked in UNICEF Kenya from 2001-2008 and a lot of the old national officers still went on about your focus on the pastoralist areas, something we turned back to during my time.
In response to the anonymous above. Yes, perhaps UNICEF is better at navigating around predatory governments. That brings to the fore another issue that needs debating. Are taxpayers in the West more responsible for the welfare of Africans in need than their own governments?
ReplyDeleteOn your second point: of course, the aid industry is abused for political ends. How did Afghanistan become Sweden's biggest recipient of aid?
ReplyDeleteWhile the above may be uncomfortable reminders taking some pomposity out of us, that aid is politically manipulated is not news to anyone pontificating on these pages, nor is the fact that aid can aid corruption. It is little comfort that aid helps keep abusive governments in place only for as long as the real powers so wish.
A Soviet-era intelligence officer might nevertheless have referred to us as useful idiots.
Somewhere between the hard core cynicism of the hard boiled development professional and the OH MY Gosh attitude of a few, the issue is not corruption and the use of influence to obtain resources, it happens, even in OECD countries, follow the money, where there iron, asphalt and concrete happen, lots of action, but we have institutions to police this space. The issue is how the UN system can operate in ways that are fair and in line with financial probity. I will say that over the years, I have been amazed that in systems where the rewards go to the corrupt, the number of government officials, who are NOT corrupt, even though they earned salaries that were far from sufficient for a modestly good life. As a junior to mid level officer, I visited a lot of counterpart homes and can truly attest to this. That said, the dilemma seems to be not putting a penny in through the Govt channels. Many years ago, UNICEF, Nepal received funding from insistent donors to build schools -- something we gave up man years ago..The engineering and admin details were sorted in six months, but the critical links at the community level, to ensure that materiels -- rebar, bricks, roofing, cement were only used for the purpose, the social and political work with initially wary communities took a 18 months. Suffice to say, we had the management team to keep the donors off our backs and so when they were finally built and operating not a foot of rebar was misdirected. But none of it is easy, good allies in the admin, community and even the politicians can help. Sometimes, poachers can became game keepers.
ReplyDelete