Overview
Development assistance or foreign aid is usually taken as either too much or merely wasted on corrupt developing countries in spite of good intentions that donor countries have when issuing them. According to Brainard (2006, p. 6), both the quality and quantity of foreign aid has been below the expectation.
Unfortunately, there are very limited cases when donor countries have been made to account for the afrermath of such aids. It is against this backdrop that there has been growing debate over the validity of most foreign aid in spite of the good purpose they are intended to.
Foreign aid is usually remitted to recipient countries using various modes and channels. For instance, these aids may be made available to the needy countries through military assistance, use of humanitarian agencies alongside using government and non-government agencies.
Additionally, foreign aid has been considered as one of the techniques that can help developing countries curb poverty and in particular, achieve the commonly known Millennium Development Goals.
Foreign aid to needy countries is not a recent development. In 1970s, for instance, the world’s richest nations agreed to donate approximately 0.7 percent of their Gross National Income for official development aid to third world countries. This initiative was to be undertaken on a yearly basis in order to cushion lowly performing economies against economic factors such as inflation.
As such, criticism on the fact that governments in developing countries do not use the aid appropriately has quite often been the subject of discussion among opponents of foreign aid. For instance, the aid that was given during this period of time had a worrying outcome. It was found that only less than five percent of donor recipients met their development targets.
Realistically speaking, such failures may not be fully attributed to poor management of foreign aid in developing economies. Indeed, the donor governments also tend to lack proper mechanisms on how to advance funds and which particular projects to target.
For example, a number of donors are believed to have failed to honor their pledges long after they laid down promises. According to Browne (2006, p.111), the United States is rated as one of the major donors of the dollars but also the poorest in meeting 0.7% which is the stated target.
According to some opponents of foreign aid to vulnerable states, there is usually price attached to these dispatches. For instance, Brainard (2006, p. 6), argues that the aids given by donors do not usually reach the poorest countries. Instead, only those countries which are willing to part away with certain returns end up benefiting from the foreign aid initiative.
Hence, those countries that are ready to give something in return to the donors are highly likely to be the sole targets of foreign aid. Needless to say, this results into wastage of resources on the condition that the recipient countries should only use goods and services from the donor nations which are often overpriced.
Moreover, criticism on the aid can be justified on the basis that aid resources are usually dwarfed by rich nation’s protectionism. This is because the poor countries are denied right to access foreign markets. On the other hand, donors make use of foreign aid to gain market accessibility to their products.
Furthermore, notably grand projects or long term strategies on most cases fail to assist the vulnerable populations as a result of embezzlement of foreign aid (Hayter, 1971, p. 87). At this point, we are compelled to agree with the fact that misuse of foreign aid has been a chronic challenge over the years.
For a couple of years now, the International Development Cooperation has been criticized for myriad of reasons. According to Brainard (2006, p. 56), the official development assistance is not only inefficient but also a means through which tax payers money goes to waste. A number of authors have argued that foreign aid can impact negatively on developing countries by hindering development process.
If this is anything to go by, then we are left with no doubt that foreign aid has done more harm than good to young and growing economies bearing in mind that most of them do enter into bilateral and multilateral contracts without thorough scrutiny of hidden clauses that may jeopardize their end of the bargain.
The fact being that the current radical criticism on foreign aid and the impact they have on third world countries has once again cropped up and this makes scholars to reflect on the issue more. This is currently reflected by intellectuals from the donor nations that Africans need more assistance.
But even though the source and the tone of the criticism are changing, the critics are not coming up with new concepts on the impact of aid on developing countries. For instance, from 1960s the impact of development assistance on poor nations has been under criticism from different proponents of schools of thought.
But on the contrary, the terms of the same debate have not changed for the last half-century. Furthermore, in spite of the criticism, development assistance has remained a major policy instrument in nurturing and forging relations between the North and South (Browne, 2006, p.111).
Key criticisms on the aid
For the last half-century, development assistance criticisms have been inspired by three key ideological schools of thought. These ideologies include neo-liberal, neo-Marxist and populist. Currently, vociferous critiques seem to incorporate the three basic schools of thought.
According to the neo-Marxist, aid is only an instrument via which donor countries seek to dominate developing states. Hayter (1971, p. 87), in her book aid as imperialism argues, she argues that aid given by organization for economic co-operation and development and World Bank organization countries only aims at serving and meeting the interest of the donor countries.
Therefore, in support of her views, it can be argued that ODA is an instrument through which leaders of the western countries put their hands and make use of developing nation’s resources. Other critics further adds that aid has contributed towards entrenching on the existing dependence relationship of third world countries on the western nations(Bauer, 1971, p.45).
On the other hand, Traymond Cartier who was one of the pioneers of populist school of thought published an article titled “Beware: France is squandering its money” (Bauer, 1971, p.45), criticized the way France was investing in Africa. He further blamed colonies for France,s economic degradation.
According to the proponents of this school of thought, western nations should devote the tax payers’ money on both national priorities and social development instead of wasting their money in providing for infective and corrupt leaders of developing nations. Presently, populist parties still present such like arguments when they are called upon to contribute towards development assistance budgets.
According to the neo-liberals, ODA has only contributed towards increasing staff of ineffective and myriad administrators in the developing countries. Additionally, aid only serves the purpose of serving and supporting corrupt leaders of the non-democratic nations. Besides, aid is only issued in donation forms and this stifles self employment, destroys the market in addition to creating dependence among the recipients.
Argument justifying the criticisms
In agreement with realists’ views, aid is only a means through which states enhance both their power and wealth. According to Development Assistance Committee (2007, p. 34), aid is an instrument of foreign policy that is motivated by self interest. This is because donors only agree to give aid with an aim of enhancing their sphere of influence.
Based on the neo-realist ideologies, it can be argued that nations only seek to secure their survival and security in the developing countries through the aids (Waltz 1979). Hence, aid such as ODA is only a mechanism through which donor countries promote both their economic and political interests. This is due to the fact that the aid will enable them to punish, influence or reward other nations (Bauer, 1971, p. 37).
Based on these ideologies, aid is selfish and not motivated by consideration of humanitarian and democratic beliefs and values Waltz (1979, p. 67). Additionally, it is not used as a tool for protecting human rights and fighting poverty in developing countries.
To some extent, it is a mechanism through which western nations try to compensate the developing countries for colonial exploitation. Therefore, the idealist view can be discarded on the basis that it is naive. This is because it dissociates aid not only from its political context but also security one.
But despite criticisms labeled at the aid, international community, the developing nations, the donors and even international organizations have insisted on the importance and the need for increasing and maintaining the volume of aid for developing countries (Martens, 2005, p.645).
Conclusion
From the analyzed criticisms, it can be concluded that new financing tool need to be put in place and implemented as well. This will be crucial because any remitted aid will respond positively to the financial need of developing nations in addition to assisting them in dealing with negative effects of climatic change.
Additionally, donors may aptly increase development aid meant for poorer nations largely due to the fact that development assistance occupies a key place in multilateral negotiations in addition to influencing results of a negotiation which in some cases fails when based only on fundamental aspects.
Therefore, based on the validity of some of the criticisms raised by certain schools of thought, it is important to go beyond the school of thoughts’ debates on the international relations as this is the only way through which developing nations will use the aid efficiently and effectively. Additionally, the ineffectiveness of foreign aid can be as a result of corruption and insincerity of donor nations.
Some literature suggests that placing the aid system in a competitive market is the only way through which developing nations can acquire important services and goods from donor nations. Consequently, poor nations will be in position to air their views and select goods and services that suit them best without any pressure from external factors.
References
Bauer, P. 1971. Dissent on development: Studies and debates in development economics. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Brainard, L. 2006. Security by other means: Foreign assistance, global poverty and American leadership. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Browne, S. 2006. Aid and influence: Do donors help or hinder? London: Earthscan Publications.
Development Assistance Committee. 2007. Veiller à ce que les Etats fragiles ne soient pas laissés pour compte. Fiche. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. December.
Foubert, J. 1973. La politique française de coopération: une doctrine à conserver. Tiers- Monde 14 (56): 711-720.
Hayter, T. 1971. Aid as imperialism. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Martens, B. 2005. Why do aid agencies exist? Development Policy Review 23 (6): 643- 663.
Waltz, K. 1979. Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.