Cruel Ethiopia

As an avid reader of the New York Review of Books and, equally, having a distinct interest in African politics, I was quite thrilled to read Helen Epstein's piece in the NYRB, "Cruel Ethiopia." In the piece, Epstein addresses the pitfalls of foreign aid as they are manifest in Ethiopia in particular and - I would argue - in Africa, generally:

The Western Renaissance helped to democratize “the word” so that all of us could speak of our own individual struggles, and this added new meaning and urgency to the alleviation of the suffering of others. The problem with foreign aid in Ethiopia is that both the Ethiopian government and its donors see the people of this country not as individuals with distinct needs, talents, and rights but as an undifferentiated mass, to be mobilized, decentralized, vaccinated, given primary education and pit latrines, and freed from the legacy of feudalism, imperialism, and backwardness. It is this rigid focus on the “backward masses,” rather than the unique human person, that typically justifies appalling cruelty in the name of social progress.

Epstien's piece does an apt job highlighting not only the herd mentality which continues to typify foreign assistance strategies, but further emphasizes a point which many fail to, or are otherwise unwilling to, appreciate: more often than not, the domestic policies maintained by the governments of recipient states are the culprits of poverty and oppression, and stand to be exacerbated by inflows of aid money. Ethiopia is, for instance, rapidly becoming among the most repressive and dictatorial countries on the continent, and yet simultaneously remains the subject of an informal experiment to discover whether the "big push" approach to African development will (finally) succeed.

The trouble with aid is precisely this "big push" approach. Programs must become increasingly tailored to the particular contexts for which they are intended, and targeted to achieve very specific aims. The Gates Foundation is seemingly growing cognizant of this fact as it is revamping its 'war on polio' campaign, moving away from its hitherto pursued strategy of vertical health programs towards investments in health systems. For any foreign assistance strategy to fulfill its intended function, an enabling framework must indeed be in place, be it a viable health system or a healthy government. Of course this is a tired argument, having been repeated ad nauseam within the development literature. Nevertheless, Epstein's piece does a wonderful job of highlighting this reality in the context of a country often left out of the development discourse.

Get real, Bob

I have in recent days been preparing myself for the St. Andrew's Economic Forum, which is to take place this weekend - volcanic ash cloud permitting. I've been invited to moderate an exceptional panel on China-Africa relations, which will explore the developmental potential China brings to the continent, as well as other key issues pertaining to environmental sustainability, human rights, trends in Chinese investment and so forth.

In the course of my preparations, I happened to stumble upon a great piece by Richard Dowden - Director of the Royal African Society and one of the panelists - regarding the discovery this past March that millions of dollars in Western aid money which were sent to Ethiopia to aid victims of the 1984-5 famine were used not for purposes of food supplies, but rather to purchase weapons. This news of course set off bells and whistles among the donor community and do-gooder, pseudo-intellectual, save-the-planet types like Bono and - most prominently - 80s rock star Bob Geldof, whose 1985 Live Aid concert was used to fundraise for the cause. Geldof went on something of a rampage against the BBC - who first revealed the news - stating (shouting, in fact!): "Produce me one shred of evidence and I promise you I will professionally investigate it, I will professionally report it, and if there is any money missing I will sue the Ethiopian government for that money back and I will spend it on aid." Yes, good. Good luck with that.

Whilst Geldof's anger may be understandable, it altogether demonstrates a fantastic ignorance of Africa: its issues, needs and complexities. An ignorance which, unfortunately, persists today among celebrities and aid agencies who have placed themselves on a do-or-die mission to "save Africa." With respect to the Ethiopian case, Dowden hits the nail on the head:

The impression was made that nature had caused the great hunger, a terrible Biblical plague, an act of God. All the poor Ethiopians needed was food.

They did need food but they also needed peace. Rebel movements were driving the government and its army out of two mountainous region, Tigray and Eritrea. The government, headed by the military dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam, was backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba and had the biggest army in Africa.

Mengistu ruled with brutal Soviet-style policies of forced migration and starvation. Traditional trade routes and the movement of much-needed food was impossible. The well-organised rebels received almost no help from anyone. They lived off the land, captured weapons from their enemy and taxed the people to buy more guns and ammunition.

Ethiopia's famine, Dowden goes on to aptly note, was ultimately caused not by a localised drought, but by a dictatorship that led to war. War disrupted trade, prevented food being moved in and caused famine. The aid community at the time failed to realize this - or perhaps chose not to. Raising funds for weaponry to support a rebel movement is arguably more difficult and less glamorous than fundraising to feed starving African children, whose pictures flash across TV screens and appear in glossy magazines. Yet the reality of aid politics in Africa is complex, messy and - often - unpleasant. The aid community must finally and fully come around to this realization and, moreover, must cease treating the continent as a helpless child in need of rescue. As the Ethiopian case makes plainly evident, Ethiopia in the 1980s understood what it needed - weapons. Africa today likewise understands what it needs - trade, aid, investment; the rise of a middle class and an educated, skilled population.

It's time to change the nature of the questions we've been posing regarding African development, and get real. And Bob, stop your shouting.

A market for aid?

In his new essay on aid, Owen Barder argues that policies to improve aid have - and continue to - rely too much on a planning paradigm that attempts to ignore, rather than change, the political economy of aid:

It is tempting to conclude that the answer is for donors to defer to the leadership of developing country governments, especially given the commitments to this in the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action. But that assumes away the problem. The balance of power between donors and recipients converges on an equilibrium which balances the various interests of the givers and receivers of aid, and the implementing agents. If we find this equilibrium unsatisfactory, we have to change the determinants of the equilibrium, not simply try to move away from it.

Barder posits a combination of market mechanisms, networked collaboration and collective regulation as more likely to herald the desired results than the hitherto pursued policy approaches. Such coordination, he argues, can improve accountability, reduce information asymmetries, and reduce principal-agent problems currently faced by donor agencies. In so doing, they can help to change the political economy of aid, and so move the political equilibrium.

Arguably Barder's most controversial suggestion is the unbundling of funding from aid management to create more explicit markets for aid delivery. What this means in practice is opening up contracts to competition among a range of aid delivery agencies, both public and private. Such competition could lead to greater specialisation and division of labour, incentives to define and measure results, etc.

The UNDP (among countless such aid agencies, to be sure!) must be reeling. What are your thoughts?

(PS. For more from Owen have a look at his blog, found here)

Noteworthy...

Dear Readers: I will be on the road much of this week, so I'm afraid my blogging will be limited to... well, to be perfectly honest, I doubt I will be blogging at all! I'll be back next week with more news, analysis, and quips about this crazy field of international relations. Until then, today's Noteworthy reads:

Taking Africa beyond Aid. Yet another review of Moyo's book, Dead Aid, and a loud call for the development of African financial markets. As interesting as the piece itself are the comments, which inevitably turn to discussion of the Chinese presence on the continent

How can struggling countries break out of poverty if they're trapped in systems of bad rules? Paul Romer suggests "charter cities" as a possible solution

Something stinks. Must be Scotland's deal with Libya...

Osei Kofi on Africa's lagging contemporary art scene (and what to do about it)

Hugo Restall has an interesting piece in today's WSJ on the threesome that is Latin America (any country will do, really), the U.S. and China. While I tend to disagree with much of his analysis, it is an interesting argument nevertheless

For those among you who believed that China's alleged withdrawal from the deal with the Congo signaled China's retreat from the continent.... I hate to say 'I told you so,' but I told you so: China was never intending to withdraw, it was merely revising its strategy

Have a great week everyone!

The crusade for women's rights

The issue of women's rights is one that doesn't appear frequently here at China in Africa, but rest assured that such a lack is not for want of concern or interest. My undergraduate thesis centered on women's land rights in Africa - particularly Kenya and Botswana - and examined especially the conflict between customary and statutory laws, and the entitlements women enjoy under each. Somewhere between trying to understand Chinese foreign policy, parsing out the do's and don'ts of foreign aid, and attempting to decipher a U.S. policy towards Africa (a recent undertaking, to be sure), however, I seem to have placed the issue on the back burner.

A recent NYTimes article by Kristof and WuDunn has seemingly lead me back to the cause. As the piece aptly notes, focusing on women and girls may well be the most effective way of combating global poverty and extremism. For instance:

A series of studies has found that when women hold assets or gain incomes, family money is more likely to be spent on nutrition, medicine and housing, and consequently children are healthier.

This, as opposed to circumstances under which men control the assets. It has been found that men often engage in unwise spending, with the poorest families in the world spending approximately 20% of their incomes on a combination of alcohol, prostitution, candy (candy!!), sugary drinks and lavish feasts - and only 2% on the education of their children. For this reason among others, we are seeing a growing number of microfinance projects directed specifically at women. Additionally:

It has long been known that a risk factor for turbulence and violence is the share of a country’s population made up of young people. Now it is emerging that male domination of society is also a risk factor; the reasons aren’t fully understood, but it may be that when women are marginalized the nation takes on the testosterone-laden culture of a military camp or a high-school boys’ locker room.

Indeed, some scholars believe that the reason Muslim countries have been disproportionately affected by terrorism has little to do with Islamic teachings about infidels or violence, and more to do with low levels of female education and participation in the labor force. I haven't yet had the chance to gather my thoughts on the matter, but a cursory glance at global terrorist hubs and their corresponding women's rights (to the extent that we can even call them that), seemingly lends much credence to the claim.

Kristof and WuDunn ultimately argue that women's rights must be brought to the forefront of the international development agenda, as it is women who perhaps represent our best hope in the fight against global poverty. Fight on, sister, fight on.

[Image: BBC]

Of rape, video cameras, and Clinton in the Congo. What did I miss?

I forthrightly admit that neither am I an expert in matters pertaining to the Congo, nor do I know much about preventing or otherwise dealing with cases of rape - in the Congo or elsewhere. Having said that, I'm quite certain that I'm not the only one absolutely baffled (floored is more like it, actually) by Hilary Clinton's announcement yesterday of a $17 million plan to combat the abysmal levels of sexual violence in the Congo, part of which entails "supplying rape victims with video cameras to document the violence." Really? Video cameras? To rape victims? Hmm.....

Texas in Africa and the ladies at Wronging Rights have virtually summed up my thoughts on the matter quite well, raising among other matters questions pertaining to who, exactly, will be receiving said camcorders; where the footage will be sent (do bear in mind that both the Congolese government and military hierarchy are quite generally unwilling to prosecute rape perpetrators); and indeed how the camcorders will be charged given that the country lacks a power grid on which to charge portable electronic devices (a most astute observation). Might I also add that it is most, most improbable that a rapist will cease his evil actions upon being confronted with a recording device. Again, while claiming absolutely no expertise on the matter, intuition leads me to believe that he might indeed become more violent in his actions.

Given all of these considerations and quandries, what on earth would lead someone to believe that video cameras are part and parcel of the solution to combatting rape in the Congo? Having brought my initial frustrations over the matter under control, I began to ponder the logic by which one could possibly arrive at such a conclusion. A cursory glance through my Google history is enough to frighten just about anyone, with phrases like "rape victim, video"; "rape, congo"; "rape, video, persecution" floating about - evidence of my feeble attempt at discovering existing cases (in the developing world) where video cameras effectively served as preventative measures or lead to the prosecution of the perpetrators; or otherwise research suggesting that the distribution of such devices may indeed be the way forward. Presumably Clinton's statement is premised on some research that someone must have conducted at some point in time, right?

Maybe I'm not a very diligent Googler (though this is highly doubtful; of the countless skills one acquires whilst writing a Master's dissertation and subsequently tackling a PhD, Googling ranks quite high among them), but the results of my several hours of searching are indeed just as laughable as the proposition in question. Among my findings/musings:

• Video footage of rape acts has in some cases lead to the persecution and conviction of the perpetrators (see here, here, here and here, for instance), but in all such cases the acts were documented by either the perpetrators themselves or their cronies, or otherwise a passerby who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - or indeed the right place at the right time, depending on your perspective. I wasn't able to find a single case in which a rape act was prevented or otherwise persecuted in which the victim was the one pressing the 'record' button. Perhaps Secretary Clinton has a CCTV-style system in mind, but then where would you install the cameras?
• According to a recent Human Rights Watch report, a significant percentage of rapes in the Congo are committed by senior army officials, over whom the government and donors have little leverage. This ties into the earlier point regarding where footage would be sent and how it would be handled upon receipt. It moreover leads one to conclude that the focus should be on combatting the overall culture of corruption, rather than the supplying of video cameras. Alas.
• Suggesting video cameras as a means by which rape victims can "document the violence" operates on the assumption that the victims will bring such videos forward as evidence (though we still haven't established to whom). The problem with this, though, is that rape victims in the Congo - and elsewhere in Africa - are often grossly stigmatized, and in some cases jailed. Given such a reality, documenting the act (especially by the victim) may prove quite counterproductive.
• If the surrounding culture is one laden with corruption and embodying "entrenched notions of gender hierarchy and the sexual entitlement of men" (to quote Prof. Rachel Jewkes of the Medical Research Council speaking on South Africa's culture of sexual violence), video footage isn't going to assist victims in any significant way. Such measures will only be effective if the external environment is one in which such acts are outrightly condemned, of which the Congo isn't (yet) one.

I really could go on, but would nevertheless fail to understand how the camcorder proposition makes sense - or indeed discover any research suggesting its merits in the developing world. The effective use of camcorders for such means in the Western context is a moot point in my opinion, precisely because the surrounding culture is one in which acts of sexual violence are not only regarded with contempt, but are severely punished. While I'm sure Clinton's suggestion is well-intentioned and put forward with all the right motives, I cringe at such cases of "headless hearts" - arguably my favorite of Paul Collier's phrases - who fail to properly understand the realities of the countries they are somehow hoping to save. Inevitably, the law of unintended consequences always prevails. And while I certainly am no expert on the Congo, even I can make out the blatant flaws implicit in such a proposition. One would hope that the U.S. government could, too.

But then again, I'm no expert. Will someone please kindly inform me: what did I miss? ....

Update: For a different perspective on the issue of "Camcorders for the Congo," see Shshank Bengali's post. I'm not sure that it lends any credibility to the proposition, but it does well to suggest that this isn't the craziest U.S. initiative for Africa. I'm sure it ranks up there, though...

Africa does not need more hot air

I must admit that I've been rather disappointed with the present US administration's policies towards Africa. To be perfectly frank, I was much happier with America's African policies under Bush (*gasp* yes, I said it), with few exceptions (AFRICOM, which I have spoken about in the past) is indubitably one of them. What Bush tried to do - and was moderately successful in achieving - was positively engaging with the continent: increasing development assistance where needed, introducing programs to reduce the burden of AIDS and malaria, AGOA, working to secure a peace deal between north and south Sudan in 2005, etc. His policies weren't perfect - many were seriously flawed - but there appeared to be a genuine sense of engagement and interest. Whether that was driven by humanitarian goodwill or geopolitical interests I will leave for you to decide; the point is that the US appeared to be active in creating opportunity for Africans. In short, they not only talked the talk, but walked the walk.

Not only does the Obama administration appear disinterested, but it is seemingly failing to capitalize on opportunities where they exist. I bring this up because Hilary Clinton is presently in Africa. Like many others, I am following the news hoping to discover something - anything - of substance (indeed, something to blog about!), but am seemingly failing in this endeavor (if someone has managed to stumble upon anything worthwhile pertaining to Clinton's time in Africa, do please send it my way). Her rhetoric - much like President Obama's in Ghana earlier this year - is filled with the same empty jargon uttered by Western politicians of yore. Yes, Kenya needs to reform; and yes, we all know that the continent has "enormous potential for progress;" and we all understand the importance of stability in Somalia. Blah, blah, blah. By the by, overemphasizing agricultural policy to the neglect of manufacturing and entrepreneurship does little to foster sustainable development across the continent. And publicly making promises to Somalia's Sheik Sharif is tantamount to wishing death upon his administration. While I do understand that the trip was all quite last minute, there are some things on which a Secretary of State must absolutely be briefed.

While I do further realize that Africa isn't much of a priority for the US government at present (a grave flaw, indeed, given especially China's growing influence across the continent!) and is constrained by the financial crisis and domestic politics, there are things the administration can do besides simply blowing about hot air: increasing diplomacy with leading economies, improving foreign assistance and trade, and being actively involved in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, are foremost among them. Indeed, if the United States seeks genuine relations with African nations, it is in the interest of both parties to move beyond the one-dimensional quality that characterizes them today. One of my favorite bloggers, Texas in Africa, has an absolutely brilliant open letter to Secretary Clinton posted today in which she stresses precisely this point, and goes even further to suggest how the US might actively work to aid the continent. The post is focused primarily on the Congo, but several of the points are indeed quite applicable elsewhere around the continent. Its message even more so.

Where do I sign?

[image: the NYTimes]

On the militarization of foreign assistance, and why it should remain the road less traveled

Further to last week's post on American military bases in Africa, Foreign Policy's William Moseley argues for a halt to the militarization of humanitarian aid across Africa. While Moseley is focused primarily on Mali, where he has been engaged in development work for some 20+ odd years, his line of reasoning may well be applied elsewhere in the continent:

In the West African country of Mali [...] there has been low-grade al Qaeda activity occurring in the northern frontier over the past few years. The marginal desert region between Mali and its neighbors is appealing real estate for would-be terrorists because it is difficult to control and monitor. It provides space for camps and opportunities for terrorist cells to tax cross-border trade and occasionally kidnap foreign nationals for ransom. The U.S. government provides assistance to Mali's military to manage and contain the few, mostly foreign, al Qaeda bands in this small area of the country.

But now the U.S. military is getting involved in development work across Mali and in several other countries in the Sahel region of West Africa -- as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan -- despite the de minimis al Qaeda threat. Now, military personnel repair schools, wells, health centers, roads, and bridges. Army doctors provide basic treatment and vaccinations. In fiscal year 2008, the Defense Department gave the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) mission in Mali $9.5 million to run a counterterrorism program, with close coordination between the two. The program provides curriculum advice to Koranic schools and job training for young men (who are seen as highly susceptible to Islamist rhetoric). USAID has also built 14 community radio stations that broadcast programming on peace and tolerance.

But this reframing of aid to Mali within the fight against terrorism could prove counterproductive. The Pentagon has taken its conceptualization of the fight against al Qaeda in war zones and applied it broadly in a peaceful country. In the past, U.S. involvement in West African countries like Mali has focused intently on humanitarian assistance, not a geopolitical agenda.

Indeed, once you increase military involvement in development work to such an extent, such work comes to be viewed by locals as part of a broader military campaign. And while this is quite justified in conflict situations - as are Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance - it may indeed prove counterproductive in an altogether peaceful country, like Mali. While I have absolutely no problem with the U.S. military - or any other foreign military, for that matter - assisting the Malian army in managing the terrorist threat (even running a counterterrorism program if it feels so inclined and such a program is deemed to be of value), I do agree that military involvement in aspects of humanitarian aid in which other agencies are already active, and in many cases better suited, may elevate tensions rather than effectively assisting communities in their needs. This is not to suggest that all military-operated foreign assistance programs be dismantled, but rather that other existing alternatives exhausted before such a path is pursued. And with so many other alternatives, such a path should very rarely be embarked upon.

Decoupling? No, a new coupling

Over the weekend The NYTimes had a rather cliched though nevertheless worthwhile article on declining foreign investments in Africa. This, as a consequence of the global financial crisis:

When the credit crisis erupted in September, many experts thought that Africa would be spared the financial turmoil of the American and European financial systems, because African banks had almost none of their assets tied up in the global subprime market.

But it has recently become clear that Africa is being hit hard. The World Bank estimates that its economies will grow an average of 3 percent this year, compared with an annual average of 6 percent from 2004 to 2008.

“The crisis could not have come at a worse time,” said Jose Gijon, chief Africa economist at the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, based in Paris. “Before the meltdown, many African countries had made significant progress in attracting foreign investment and private capital, and this could derail those efforts.”

But one must not forget about the Chinese, who show no intention of curtailing their African investments. Quite the contrary, really:

China which has become a major investor and trading partner for Africa, continues to invest. The China-Africa Development Fund, which has invested nearly $400 million in projects in Africa, said it planned to raise an additional $2 billion by November. African groups are also continuing to pump money into projects ranging from telecommunications to new oil fields.

Indeed, many in Africa believe that it is China - and China alone - that will spur and sustain the continent's growth. In the words of Martyn Davies, the relationship between China and the African continent is not decoupling - as is the case now between many emerging economies and America, for instance - but rather a "New Coupling." Africa is still open for business, and the Chinese are the continent's main customers.

Humming a familiar tune

Barack Obama delivererd his speech to Ghana's Parliament this past Saturday (full text of the speech may be found here) in what was his first presidential trip to sub-Saharan Africa. A collection of opinions on the speech may be found at the BBC's fantastic 'Africa Have Your Say' program.

What I have to say is this: While there is little denying the significance of Obama's trip or the importance of his now oft-repeated statement that "Africa's future is up to Africans," the content of his speech was altogether unsurprising and contained nothing that hasn't already been said. Like other Western leaders who have addressed African nations in the past, Obama came touting the need for Africans to embrace democracy and market capitalism; to battle corruption, cease the ongoing violence, work with the West to combat disease and - in short - embrace the 21st century. This is all well and good, but such catch-phrases amount to no more than empty suits when not substantiated with specifics. Even his claim that Africa's future rests with its own people has been made numerous times in the past; most recently by the likes of Bill Easterly, President Kagame of Rwanda, and Dambisa Moyo in her ever-controversial book Dead Aid.

There was a welcomed shift in tone when Obama promised to cut down on funding American consultants and administrators and instead put resources and training into the hands of those who need them (i.e. resident Africans), as well as when he highlighted the economic possibilities implicit in African entrepreneurship (which, again, Kagame has been stressing for some time). But overall the speech diverged little from previous U.S. policy statements on Africa, no less so given Obama's insistence on continuing Bush's terrible idea of Africa Command. As Bill Easterly aptly notes in today's post, "[...] goodwill for U.S. military is nonexistent after a long history of Cold War Africa interventions, post-Cold War fumbles, reinforced by the more recent fiascos of Iraq and Afghanistan. Africans will never see US military (or any other Western force) as a neutral and benevolent force." *Sigh* When will we learn?

Of course the speech was inspirational - as may of President Obama's speeches are - and quite empowering for many Africans (and, apparently, for the UK Times' Libby Purves who sees a fantastic "new start" where those who understand African history and politics see none). Yet it pales in comparison to the speech Obama gave in Cairo when he addressed the Islamic world, and fails to represent much in the way of a novel shift in U.S. policy towards Africa and its people. Yes, Africans must pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they are to make anything of themselves, but didn't we (and they) know that already?

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king

Business Action for Africa recently released a new report on what businesses can do to sustain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGS) in Africa. The report brings together insights from various business leaders and NGOs, as well as from the likes of Paul Collier, Kofi Annan and Lord Malloch-Brown, among others. Many of the contributions seemingly follow the standard protocol of touting transparency, governance, business environment reforms, effective public-private partnerships, investments in the private sector, and other well-known policy prescriptions. As Richard Laing, Chief Executive of CDC aptly notes:

Much has already been said about the impact of the global downturn on Africa, but a great deal of the talk about solutions has been empty rhetoric full of generalisms that regard Africa as one homogenous place. Any simple prognosis for the continent’s economic future ignores the fact that there are 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa with differing economies and at varying stages of development. It is action, not talk, that is required.

That said, there is one particularly worthwhile analysis, written by Dr. Peter Eigen, Chairman of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Eigen writes:

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. When it comes to knowing how the global financial crisis will affect Africa we are all living in the land of the blind. Usually we can rely on the IMF to be the one-eyed man, but the IMF’s growth predictions for 2009 give such a mixture of signals that it is impossible to form a clear overall picture. We do know, however, that 2009 will see a series of difficult social and political changes in Africa: elections, strikes, civil unrest, rising fuel and food prices, and a more challenging environment for exports. Because of Africa’s unique finance and liquidity circumstances, and due to volatile exchange rates and commodities prices, it is safe to assume that the financial crisis will be felt differently in Africa than elsewhere.

Eigen's acknowledgment of the uncertain is quite refreshing; for as much as we think we may know about Africa's future trajectory and development needs, there is indeed that much more than we don't. Eigen is also particularly prudent in his discussions of EITI - the very organization of which he is Chairman: "The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) has long been held up as a shining example of how multi-stakeholder initiatives can address these kinds of challenges. But much of this praise has been premature. The initiative is still young." Such rhetoric comes in stark contrast to others in the development field who proclaim with overwhelming conclusiveness the merits of their formulaic approaches to poverty alleviation/aid/whatever, embryonic though these approaches may still be. Every now and again it's nice to be reminded that there are people in the field who are guided not by grandiose visions but by practical, thought-out solutions to given problems. Thank you, Mr. Eigen

In any event, do read the report; it will surely be worth your while.

Development in dangerous places (aka a symposium on Paul Collier and his policies)

In the July/August issue of Boston Review one can find Paul Collier's essay on development in dangerous places (which appears to be a fantastic cut-and-paste exercise from both The Bottom Billion and Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places), along with a host of commentary from the likes of William Easterly, Nancy Birdsall and Larry Diamond, among others.

Easterly for one is not particularly pleased, neither with Collier's policy prescriptions nor the means by which he arrives at them:

I have been troubled by Paul Collier’s research and policy advocacy for some time. In this essay he goes even further in directions I argued were dangerous in his previous work. Collier wants to de facto recolonize the “bottom billion,” and he justifies his position with research that is based on one logical fallacy, one mistaken assumption, and a multitude of fatally flawed statistical exercises.

[...] Collier’s convoluted stories are made up after the fact to fit whatever random collection of data points he is working with at the moment. So the specious rationalizations keep changing—too bad for those who took the precise recommendations in The Bottom Billion as gospel.

Larry Diamond adopts a more cautionary tone, stressing the salience of governance as a key to development:

None of these endemically poor countries can climb out of misery without better governance. Collier appreciates this, but he does not fully grasp the vital distinction between Asia’s developmental dictatorships and Africa’s dictatorial disasters. The classic authoritarian Asian tigers—Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia—all had near-death experiences with communism that led them to realize it was time to “develop or die. [...] Whatever their other faults, all of these countries’ ruling elites (and later the regimes in China and Vietnam) came to identify their own political interests with generating the public goods necessary for transformative development.

I strongly endorse Collier’s appeal for a much more serious and sustained international commitment to reinforce or guarantee security and peace in the world’s most fragile and miserable states. [...] However, I cannot go along with Collier’s suggestion that we implicitly threaten to tolerate a military coup against a civilian leader who has stolen an election. How would that have made Kenya or Nigeria better off? [...] The answer to any unconstitutional seizure of power—whether by a civilian in a rigged election or a soldier in a coup—is cutting off international aid; targeted sanctions against the overseas personal assets and travel options of the power-usurper, his family, and supporters; and a credible threat of indictment and prosecution by the International Criminal Court for predatory corruption, which should be made a crime against humanity—for that is surely what it is.

Much more commentary, criticism and insights may be found at the Boston Review link.

[HT: Marginal Revolution]

PS. Don't call Collier's policies colonialist...

China extends $950 million loan to Zimbabwe

Well, the post title says it all. Not to be outdone by recent American and U.K. offers of foreign aid, China has today agreed to a huge loan for Zimbabwe. The figure is nearly double what Prime Minister Tsvangirai received on his visits to the US and Europe earlier this month, and is meant to help the country revive its economy.

China has also promised increased investments in Zimbabwe, with more companies moving in to set up shop. While the obvious concerns over propping up rogue regimes persist, few appear interested in articulating them. What's more, where before Western nations were lambasting China for its assistance to questionable regimes, they now appear to be following suit (to an extent, mind you). It would seem that China is perhaps reshaping the international aid architecture after all.

U.S. vs China, as played out in Africa

As President Obama gets ready to make his first trip to Ghana this July, one cannot help but wonder how he will be received. Of course quite warmly, I imagine, especially in light of his Kenyan roots, but it will be quite curious to see how - if at all - China's growing influence on the continent has shifted African perceptions of American assistance. Bear in mind that this trip will be Obama's first to sub-Saharan Africa (and during his 8 years as President, Bush II visited the continent only twice); Chinese President Hu has visited 15 sub-Saharan states since 2004. And I needn't remind you of the litany of recent Chinese investments in the continent, dubious though some of them may be.

The question of U.S. versus Chinese influence in Africa is brought home quite nicely by Ken Maguire. In his article today, Maguire expounds on this battle of authorities, if you will, ultimately concluding that the U.S.-China relationship in Africa can be cooperative. There is no denying that it can't; the question, I feel is much more one of degrees. Obama's upcoming trip may indeed prove quite central in shedding light on this issue, along with countless others.

Noteworthy…. the aid edition

Via Mo'Modernity Mo'problems the newest 'twinning' aid initiative: toilet aid

Broadband has arrived in East Africa. The 2,790 mile East Africa Marine System underwater cable connected Mombassa with Fujairah in the UAE on 12 June and is expected to become fully operational within three months. A great map of the cable (as well as others) can be found here

Education and ... football for all?

Blood and Milk's Alanna has a great post on what aid workers can learn from missionaries (note: this has nothing to do with converting people!)

China's place in the international aid architecture

Deborah Brautigam has a truly great and thought-provoking article on the ways in which China is challenging the international aid architecture (with significant focus on sub-Saharan Africa). According to Brautigam, it's not as doom and gloom as one might be inclined think:

... unlike the West, which buys oil in places like Angola without much caring how the government uses the revenue generated, Beijing buys Angola's oil while ensuring that the purchase price goes to pay its companies to build infrastructure. This is the essence of "win-win," as proposed by the Chinese in their African engagement.

While China's development program is indubitably flawed in many ways, it appears to be quite right in many others. What's more, Chinese foreign aid - largely in the form of oil-for-infrastructure contracts - is an attractive alternative for recipient states which are in dire need of infrastructure (and likewise tired of the Western ways of doing things). As Brautigam aptly observes, China's development aid reflects, among other things, its understanding and assumptions about the road out of poverty. As such, it stands as a challenge to the traditional aid architecture.

Aid for Zimbabwe?

First it was the U.S., with its pledge of $73 million, and today it's the U.K. seemingly following suit with an additional $8 million (£5m), bringing total U.K. aid to Zimbabwe to $98 million (£60m) for this year alone. Now don't get me wrong, I am very much a proponent of assisting countries in need, but I question whether Zimbabwe has reformed itself to such an extent as to warrant such sizable aid packages. Surely the power-sharing government is a step in the right direction, but in my view not enough to merit such generous aid flows. At least not yet.

Indeed, I find myself agreeing with the Guardian's Tom Porteous who aptly observes:

There is much talk of reform in Zimbabwe but, as yet, no concrete action. The process of political change may have started but it is not irreversible. As long as Mugabe's nexus of repression and corruption remains in place, no amount of development assistance will help solve Zimbabwe's huge economic problems. And any economic aid to Harare from the UK or other donors will help to feed the crocodiles, just as surely as the blood-soaked profits of the Marange diamond mines.

Noteworthy….

How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgement

In its 2009 annual report, The State of the World's Human Rights, Amnesty International notes that it now considers poverty a human rights violation. Unfortunately, such a rights based approach is setting up new aid programs for failure.

Arguably the least welcome convert. Ever.

China is up to its old tricks again...

... while intern season has officially begun in Washington D.C. Oh dear.

The easiest, most obvious way to help poor people

Give them money.

No, seriously, give them money. 

Aid Watch's Laura Freschi has a brilliant post on the innovative (though arguably really, truly obvious) aid approach taken by Oxfam GB and Concern WorldWide after the horrible flash floods that swept through the Western Province of Zambia in 2007. People lost their homes, livestock, and crops - in short, their livelihoods. Yet where USAID sent $280,000 worth of seeds and fertilizer, training for farmers, and emergency supplies, Oxfam and Concern Worldwide gave every affected family from $20 to $50 monthly, with absolutely no conditions:

An evaluation found that common fears about cash transfers—that the cash infusion will cause inflation in the market, that the money will be squandered, or that men will take control of the money—were unrealized.

What did people buy with the money? The list includes maize, beans, salt, cooking oil, meat, vegetables, clothes and blankets, paraffin, transport, soap and body lotion, and lots of other mundane household items. They also loaned it to friends, used it to pay back debts, purchased health care, education and transport, and rebuilt their homes. Only a very small fraction of the money (less than .5%) was spent on “unproductive” items, like liquor for the men.

Huh, go figure: poor people are capable of determining the depth and breadth of their particular needs! Shock horror! Who would have thought? And why didn't anyone discover this sooner?! *sigh* 

Of course such cash transfers remain laden with concerns as those noted above and others, among them targeting the right people and equipping individuals with the knowledge to truly capitalize on the funds given to them. Regardless, such cash transfer programs appear to be the logical way to help people who have lost their livelihoods regain control once again. As Freschi writes:

With the cash transfers, the people can decide for themselves how to meet their most urgent needs. This gives people who have lost their livelihoods, belongings or loved ones a new feeling of control over their lives, builds money-management skills, and restores to them their power to make economic decisions. If you were in their shoes, which would you prefer?

From bad to worse in Somalia

There is sufficient reason to believe that things in Somalia are going south. Wayyyy south. Mere months after the inauguration of the Transitional Federal Government, lead by moderate Islamist President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, the opposition party (and by 'opposition party' I mean noted terrorist group) al-Shabab is doing everything in its power to bring the country to the ground. And is doing a pretty good job, at that:

After a week of heavy mortar and rocket attacks that have left at least 135 people dead and sent tens of thousands fleeing, the insurgents have moved to within a half-mile of the hilltop presidential palace in Mogadishu, the Somali capital, which is being guarded by African Union peacekeepers with tanks and armored vehicles.

The Islamists, reportedly joined by hundreds of foreign fighters, didn't move on the palace Friday and almost certainly would lose a ground confrontation with the better-armed, 4,300-man peacekeeping force. Still, Aweys, a veteran hard-liner who US officials charge is linked to Al Qaeda, vowed to topple the government and institute "the Islamic state of Somalia."

This is among the worst violence Mogadishu has seen this year, and what's more, it appears that there is little that outside forces can do about it save but sit and watch. Any peacekeeping mission will likely end in disaster,  tantamount to or perhaps even surpassing that caused by the African Union's mission to the country. And, as Elizabeth Dickinson aptly notes, throwing money at the problem won't fix it either; in fact, it may well exacerbate it.

With little prospect for intervention or monetary aid, the international community is seemingly at a loss. This is horrible news for both Somalia and Western interests alike (obviously more so for the former than the latter). I'd venture to guess that life under a militant Islamist regime is not all that rosy, nor is its existence particularly promising for the ongoing war on terror. Hopefully the current state of affairs will not end in such an arrangement, though the present outlook is quite grim. Quite grim, indeed.

Update: Oh! I forgot to mention another somewhat disparaging factor implicated in all of this: the UNDP seems to think that Somalia's plight makes for a brilliant comic strip. A comic strip!! The alleged intent is "educational," but it all sounds a bit demeaning to me....