3 Voices For Foreign Aid

Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) Co-Chairs David Beckmann, George Ingram and Jim Kolbe have stated the importance that foreign development aid has for the US. These three people have very different backgrounds: Rev. David Beckmann is the president of Bread for the World, George Ingram is co-chairman of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, and Jim Kolbe is a former Republican congressman from Arizona who works as a senior advisor at McLarty and associates. But they agree in how relevant foreign assistance is for the US and the whole world.

The most important thing for them is to transmit to the average American citizen true and valuable info and facts about foreign assistance. For instance, a lot of Americans still believe the US spends up to 25% of the budget on aid when it is currently less than 1%. According to these three experts, development aid is a key component of US foreign policy, together with defense and diplomacy. The modest investment in development pays huge dividends in terms of security, prosperity and global leadership.

In the security area, the numbers could not be clearer: "development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers," Secretary Robert Gates recently outlined. The outcomes in stability, governance and moderation of extremisms are much greater than the costs. For economic prosperity, development aid improves conditions in countries, allowing them to trade with the US, thus opening new business opportunities and political ties. Furthermore, aid is not just exporting dollars. Much of what is spent actually stays in the country in the form of wages of contractors or in payments for US made goods to be sent overseas. Finally, programs like vaccination campaigns that save thousands of lives or investment in agricultural development reinforce the image of the US and its global leadership to the eyes of the World.

It is also recommended that the aid has to be more effective and accountable, better measured and evaluated, and also more responsive and adapted to local initiatives and priorities. The role of private and public investors and donors has to be better shaped too. And with all these facts in hand, a honest debate can begin among the American public.

- David Nebreda

SOURCE: MFAN

New Aid Model: Cash On Delivery

Transparency and efficiency are two major concerns for a lot of tax payers when asked about foreign aid. Corruption and inefficiency are seen as pits where aid money just disappears. This might not be always true, but sadly sometimes it is. That is why development experts from all around the world are always trying to improve current aid modalities. Sometimes they even come up with new brilliant ideas, although experimentation in this field is extremely difficult. "Cash On Delivery" is one of these new brilliant ideas that might improve development aid.

Traditional development aid worked this way: a donor country puts a pile of money on the table and gives it to a recipient country with a goal to fulfill. The donor usually imposes how the money has to be expended and how the goals should be accomplished, often ignoring the particular circumstances of the recipient country. The donor country will also be questioning local strategies and closely monitoring the program, even when this means extra paperwork and methodologies to which recipient country's bureaucracies are not familiar with, and may consequently cause delays and obstructions. Problems do not end here. Once the money is given, it is very difficult to keep track of it, and too many times results are simply impossible to verify. The only penalty that the recipient country might face in case of misuse is a cut of future aid.

Cash On Delivery works differently: it focuses on the outcomes of aid better than the inputs. Both countries would sing a public long term agreement. In this agreement there will be an initial payment and an easily measurable goal (like children finnishing school or vaccines distributed). The recipient country will receive a certain amount of money for each outcome or result up to the goal, and a bonus for every result above the objectives as an incentive. The results will have to be accurately measured by the recipient country, and verified by independent auditors. Technical or material aid can be lent if both countries agree.

This model has several advantages: first of all, the agreement is open and public, so populations of both countries know what to expect and demand from their respective governments. As outcomes are necessary to keep receiving funding, recipient countries are encouraged to accomplish the goals on time, and donor governments can give a much better view of the whereabouts of their taxpayer's money. The hands-off approach means that the recipient country will choose, design, implement, manage and take responsibility of its own strategies and won't be disturbed by external influences. In sum, this will result in more accountability, transparency, efficiency and responsibility with money and at the same time more flexibility and freedom of action.

This model is already being tested by the NGO GAVI in several developing countries, and will be soon put down to practice in big numbers by UK's overseas aid agency. This new approach to foreign aid needs high management skills, well trained personnel and long term commitment, but it can do a lot of good if successful.

- David Nebreda

SOURCE: The New York Times

Fighting Poverty From A Canadian Perspective

In his column "Eliminate Poverty at Home and Abroad," Ron Harpelle discusses the issue of poverty from a range of perspectives. He talks of why Canada (the newspapers from Thunder Bay, Ontario) needs to increase its development assistance around the world, and why ending global poverty can help fight poverty locally at home. Harpelle also addresses the reasons why Canada and other OECD members should continue to give development aid to countries like China and Brazil, who "appear to be wealthy," because ultimately the goal should be to eliminate poverty everywhere, not just in a few select countries. In the end of the column, he argues that governments need to change the way they speak about poverty; instead of poverty "reduction," we need to focus on "elimination," relating it to why slavery was ended, because people talked of "abolition" not just simply reduction.

All in all, Harpelle's piece is another good argument for why development assistance and global poverty elimination efforts should be increased, and are in fact beneficial to us here in the U.S. or Canada, which is always something we like to hear at The Borgen Project.

- Brock McNairy

SOURCE: The Chronicle Journal