The Accra high-level forum on aid effectiveness took place last week. The meeting reviewed progress made in regard to the Paris Declaration of 2005.
Before the meeting in Ghana began, Britain’s DFID published its Progress Report on Aid Effectiveness. The ODI summarises the document well:
“The progress report carries two hugely important messages – in appropriately visible script on the very first and last pages of this glossy 21 page document. Firstly, Accra is not just about the technicalities of an international agreement of interest only to aid practitioners. It is about the effectiveness of the international system as a whole. Secondly, the Paris Declaration is not just a technical agreement – it is a political agenda for action. The [DFID report] is intended to be read – and judged”.
It seems that transparency is key to much recent thinking about development. In a Guardian article (hat tip: Owen Barder), Larry Elliot reports that:
“In a plan backed by the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme and the European commission, Britain intends to make it easier for people in poor countries to track how aid budgets are being spent.
The UK wants donor countries to provide full and detailed information of all the financial assistance provided to each country; details of individual projects and their aims; and reliable information on future aid flows so that developing countries can plan ahead.”
To some this kind of rigour may seem like common sense. The new plan is intended to reduce the wastage of aid monies, fight corruption – one of the aid community’s biggest problems – and provide useful feedback to donors. Of course, it is to be hoped that these safeguards can be organised with a minimum of red tape – it is one thing to have an efficient aid system, but flexibility, speed and stability are also crucial.
Meanwhile, in the Financial Times, Adrian Wood suggests that there should be a self-imposed upper limit on what donors can provide to any given country in aid. For Wood – former chief economist at DFID – the limit should be 50% of the tax revenue of the government of the country in question. This would prevent donors becoming a more significant source of income than the domestic population. Professor Wood believes that:
“Governments that are highly dependent on aid pay too much attention to donors and too little to their citizens. This might not matter if the interests of citizens and donors were identical. But all donors have some non-developmental motives and, even when they seek to promote development, they have their own priorities. The result is confused and shifting policies, volatile aid and spending and, as a result, slower growth.”
This concern with the avoidance of aid dependency is critical. It would be good to hear further ideas in this vein; this one has certainly got me thinking.
EDIT: See more on this at the CGD.
0 Responses to “Accra and aid”