The book is available online and can be 🔗downloaded for free, so you can study it during office hours pretending to read the latest management response to the multi-dimensional evaluation of the multi-sectoral corporate medium-term strategy.
The book is about the many things that can – and often do – go wrong in the development business. In easy-to-read prose, the author identifies ten categories of unintended side effects of development aid, most of them negative. They include resistance to the imposition of alien values or a hidden agenda, the fueling of conflicts, forced resettlement or coerced migration, distortion of market prices, further marginalization of vulnerable groups, promotion of undesirable behaviors, compromising governance systems, fostering corruption and a few others.
Some of those side effects are pretty obvious, and as a practicing or former practitioner you may be familiar with them. Others only become apparent at second glance. The author then recommends how to avoid the undesirable consequences when designing and implementing development interventions. Go and read!
Having warmly recommended the book to everyone, I have to express serious reservations as to the author’s conclusions.
First of all, the litany of undesirable consequences is absolutely daunting. Many side effects would easily eclipse any realized benefit. Mr. Koch maintains that development aid is effective in achieving its intended results, and that it is merely the unintended consequences that one has to deal with. He spares us any analysis of the effectiveness or efficiency of any such development efforts, which would be essential for weighing costs and benefits. A closer look at the actual contributions of development aid to the progress made by recipient countries is missing.
Second, the book barely acknowledges that any country’s development trajectory is primarily driven by the will of its own government and its people. Mr. Koch routinely refers to development aid as an ‘external intervention’, whose current practices need to be improved. If it would not be for the lure of the money, any self-respecting people would not tolerate undue influence, interference or foreign intervention.
"Second, the book barely acknowledges that any country’s development trajectory is primarily driven by the will of its own government and its people." So totally true - name ONE example of a country that "graduated" to middle or upper income and this was due to "development aid" and not to the drive of the government and people to improve. Aid alone is a failure.
ReplyDeleteRight on
DeleteReminds me of us going on about UNDAF/DAP/UNSDCF (and our own CPDs) and empowered UNRCs - trying to sober up the UNCT that our 1 or 5 % of the aid budget is making monumental change - rather than some pocket change and a couple trips to international meetings for some government elites.
ReplyDeleteAgain right on. We are clearly starting to sober up and should refrain from that Bloody Mary before lunch.
DeletePerhaps the culprit is "bilateral" aid ? It is a fact that no major donor would provide vast amounts of aid to another country unless it had political, economic or other "vested interests" in the recipient country. There may be exceptions such as for humanitarian or emergency relief, which more often than not are chanelled through the UN Agencies or INGO's. Of course the multi-lateral channel has its own problems, including the excessive bureaucratization that has crept into the system. But even INGO' have similar problems as they grow in size and importance.
ReplyDeletePS. I have NOT read the book, which is my caveat for this comment.
I would much appreciate it if someone could enlighten me about the "vested interests" Sweden has had in giving all this money to Tanzania and Uganda over many decades, more than 60 years in the case of Tanzania and close to 40 years for Uganda. If I knew I could make my article so much more hard-hitting.
ReplyDeleteI am not getting much help on the "vested interest". Perhaps the vested interest was not Swedish. Could it have been the vested interest of the US as in Afghanistan, that became the biggest recipient of Swedish aid through a little bit of persuasion by the US in support of their cause in Afghanistan. I am not sure that I can recall what that cause was or if many in the US can. In any case, it resulted in about 70,000 Afghan refugees coming to Sweden.
ReplyDeleteI was in Uganda when Museveni took over, the whole family was on the floor when his rag-tag soldiers were fighting the government around the house. I recall my eldest son said: "Who is winning papa"? Moseveni's family was still in Sweden at the time. As soon as Museveni was in control the Swedes were the first to show up consulting with him and his government. Why was that? Sweden had really no significant relationships with Uganda before the Museveni area. Could it again be the vested interests of the US? Why would they have an interest in keeping Museveni in power? That Museveni initially stabilized the situation, to a degree, is true, but why keep supporting him for close to 40 years? What is the vested interest of anyone in doing that? Museveni has met more US presidents than probably any other African leader, which may not only be due to Museveni's rather long career. Can anyone help explain this?
As regards Sweden having supported Tanzania for 60 years, I can see know vested interests on anyone's part despite my conspiracy skills having been honed in the Middle East.
Museveni supported SPLA - SPLA was fighting GOS - GOS was an enemy of Israel - ..... - the Swedes were just useful idiots. Pretty much the same as in Aphganistan whatever the cause may have been.
Delete