[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader exposes some of the lesser known aspects of ODA that leave the fulfilment of HR wanting. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducir/traduire los/les Readers; usar/utiliser deepl.com
Let us start with some seminal questions
1. Can economists* explain to us what development means? Can bureaucrats, those ‘red tape merchants’, do the same? And can sociologists enlighten us on the subject? And/or do the ineffable politicians have an answer? And do the ‘enlightened’ leaders of the three main monotheistic religions have ‘divine’ clarity to pontificate on this human subject? I would further like to know the opinion of a philosopher in relation to the question that summons us in this Reader: What does it mean to be a developed country? Is it good? Is it bad? Is it of no interest? And I add: What does it mean to be a highly developed country?** Is it conveniently good for the rest of humankind? What are the consequences? But first things first: Do we really want to become a highly developed country? (Arturo A. Muñoz) Food for thought.
*: Unsurprisingly, it is often joked that economic theory rationalises actual economic conditions and policies that have already been implemented. (Jomo Sundaram)
**: We define the Global North as a stand-in for the powerful actors, governments, corporations, foundations and other financial and political elites that create and sustain the oppressive world order. The Global South, in turn, we define not geographically, but rather in terms of peoples and places that, historically and contemporaneously, have been made-marginalized via imperialism, capitalism, extractivism, colonialism and violation of human rights wherever they occur. (A-E. Birn et al)
So, what is good for the rest of humankind?
2. Becoming a full-time viewer and ‘café-critic’ of the-sorry-situation-world-development-is-in does not create justice for anyone; it merely drives us mad. (Kelly Hayes) Instead, we must focus our energies on sharing reliable information on and about those left behind and rendered marginalized, on building ties of solidarity and social justice, and on supporting grassroots efforts, because this is ultimately what will make the difference. It will allow more of us to build workable and sustainable alternatives to justice and to co-create the world in which we want to live. (Hesperian) [But beware: Since the problem of economic disparity is at the heat of poverty, we must focus our energies more on sharing reliable information on and about those living in affluence!].
3. As a bad substitute, what we get is more of an ever more meager external development funding where the funders require the reframing of the projects they fund to fit corporate speak without meeting Global South civil or uncivil society partners at eye level. (Christof Heusgen)
Can progress in the Global South be attributed primarily to foreign aid? (Mukesh Kapila)
4. No, that is if we look at the lack-luster journey or even back-tracking by 75 poor, aid-dependent countries. Covid-19 and humanitarian crises have driven recent overseas development assistance (ODA) flows. True. But, these days (before Trump), support to Ukraine rose by over 9 per cent (not talking about Israel). As you know, the top ten philanthropic funders are led by the untransparent Gates Foundation. In any case, official and private aid is small compared to diaspora remittances. So, does foreign aid express solidarity from richer publics towards poorer? Hardly.
5. Aid’s noble aim to create a better, fairer world is crowded-out by self-serving objectives: Aid is justified to gain business opportunities …and a good part of external funding (not literally ‘aid’…) is retained at home. Less than 1/10 of ODA goes directly through organizations of the global south –the rest is channeled via funders’ (not literally ‘donors’…) own agencies (the uncivil society).
6. Among all, the migration-aid nexus is the most contentious. Among other, funders use external funding as an instrument of border control! Also, do not forget anti-migration and defense aid for this purpose is at the expense of ODA…
7. All this instrumentalization*** undermines the moral consensus underpinning ‘aid’. Importantly, ponder that external funding is not a panacea in contexts where solutions lie elsewhere and require political solutions.**** (M. Kapila)
***: Instrumentalizing, occurs when political actors misuse existing legal institutions, procedures, and laws to exert political influence.
****: The debate is further muddied by compensation demands for historic wrongs such as colonialism, slavery, and climate losses-and-damage. External funding budgets are being asked to shoulder these obligations.
Bottom line: Where do we go from here?
8. We can start by recognizing that ‘aid’ is over-hyped and can no longer be all things in all contexts. To recover that trust requires rediscovering its moral and human rights purpose, as well as reorienting it to address the structural determinants of underdevelopment and, last but not least, getting rid of the self-interest in delivering it. (M. Kapila)
9. Otherwise, we must relentlessly seek and draw on the understanding, the resistance, the resilience and the strength found at the community level. The fulfilment of human rights relies on this.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com
Postscript/(not so)Marginalia
—Rich countries only pay lip service to the needs of the countries where their ODA should be channelled. 2023 figures show a disturbing trend of aid allocations increasingly being used to reflect the foreign policy priorities of donors. At the same time, OECD countries failed yet again in 2023 to meet their 1970 commitment to allocate 0.7 percent of Gross National Income (GNI) to ODA, averaging just 0.37 per cent, the same as last year. The ‘aid debt’ now owed by rich countries due to their failure to meet these ODA commitments is in the trillions. Rich countries’ promotion of private finance in development is what is coming in tandem with their failure to meet long-standing commitments on the quantity and quality of ODA. (EURODAD) Furthermore, note that giving by low- and middle-income donors has declined while the ultra-wealthy have come to dominate philanthropy particularly in America. The result has been less money getting to the causes that desperately need it. (Donorevolt)