The Aid Debate

Currently "good development" usually embraces concepts like "sustainable," "empowerement," "community-based," and "skillsharing." In theory, practices have shifted from charity-like handouts from outsiders, to the empowerement of locals in self-sustaining, life-improving and often income-generating activities. Think: "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish..." With this shift, we have arrived at a point where there is currenlty a fairly heated debate on whether or not Foreign Aid is a good thing or not.

The pro-Aiders argue that developing countries don't stand a chance without foreign assistance, and that the developed world has an obligation to help under developed countries. (A good book to read for this side is "The End of Poverty" by Jeffrey Sachs)
The anti-Aiders, on the other hand, add up the millions and millions of dollars that have been infused into developing countries over the past few decades and compare the sum with the relatively insigficant progress made in their development. They often argue, that in many ways, Aid has done more harm than it has good. (Good books written by Aid skeptics: "The White Man's Burden" by William Easterly or "Dead Aid" by Dambisa Moyo)

Naturally, I'm plopped right in the middle of this.

On the one hand, the organization I work for would not exist without foreign support. It does many good, sustainable, things for a lot of people. It is also pretty close to 'ideal development' (if there is such a thing) in the way it operates: run by locals for locals, working on grassroots, sustainable projects in the community, focused on empowering and enabling...etc.

Furthermore, many aid-funded organizations provide extremely needed services and support to people who often have no other hope for help. Some organizations provide food for people who have no other means of obtaining it, literally preventing death by starvation. There are organizations that enable children who have nothing to go to school- essentially giving them a future. Others provide access to medical treatment and services such as HIV-Aids and TB testing and medication. At the end of the day, foreign aid allows thousands of people to enjoy at least a fraction of the basic rights and necessities they are in desperate need of.

On the other hand, foreign aid can be immensely ineffective. It is extremely frustrating.

I was recently told about an agricultural project here (I believe it was funded by the European Union). Farmers were to be given the seeds, training and tools required to harvest sustainable and profitable crops. On paper, the project is really the epitome of good practice in development: it's sustainable, it empowers locals, and it provides food and profits. One problem: drought combined with a lack of consistent water supply. Swaziland has been struggling with drought for a few years now...and it has the potential of rendering this aid completely useless. The locals here know this, but if they voice concern, the donors will likely find somewhere else to take their money. So, they take what is offered. The most frustrating part of it all, is that Swaziland is such a small country that with a few big donors, building up irrigation and clean water supply nationally would probably be very doable.

Another problem is dependency and expectation. How do you empower people who aren't interested in learning or have no motivation to better their lives or communities? This is obviously oversimplified, but honestly I've encountered many people here who seem to be content to have someone else do it, rather than learn how to do it themselves. This is not really that unnatural - a single mother struggling to take care of 4 children, may be much more attracted to receiving a food hamper every week, than to learning how to grow a garden - but it does cramp the style of many well-intentioned development workers out there!

Good, sustainable development is a nice idea; in reality, however, it's extremely challenging and complex. True sustainability only really holds value in the future; and how many of us really think about tomorrow's problems before we've dealt with today's? How can we expect people who are struggling to meet their basic needs to think about what is better in the long-run?

As for the Aid Debate, I fall somewhere in the middle (shocking, I know ;) Although I definitely do not condone children starving to death, or the sick not having access to medication (etc.), I think most of the problems that plague the developing world require solutions beyond what money can provide.