EU Development Aid and the EP elections

EU development aid is a subject that I am interested in both professionally and personally, and that I, in all due modesty, know a lot about. The European Parliament will, when the Lisbon treaty is ratified, have a increasing role to play in European development policy, and I therefore have found it interesting to study what Danish candidates think about this problem. The subject has not had much attention, although it is now interesting that the Danish NGO, MS, has had a poll made by the pollster Capacent, in which 55 percent of the respondents agree to the statement that a it is important for their choice of candidate that he/she is worried about EU's role in relation to poor countries ("Det er afgørende for mit valg af kandidat til Europaparlamentsvalget, at vedkommende bekymrer sig om EU's rolle i forhold til fattige udviklingslande"). Looking at the questions this is hardly surprising, and I am quite certain that if they ask any candidate "Are you worried about EU's relation to poor developing countries?", they would all reply "yes". It is thus interesting that MS has also proceeded to ask many (not all!) candidates 17 specific quesitons as what aspects they will work for in the European Parliament. Here, what causes most attention is the relatively small discrepancies in the replies: except for a couple of candidates from Dansk Folkeparti, and a few dissenters in Venstre, there is clearly a general agreement that EU should work towards the MDG's, that EU aid should be transparent and aimed at poverty reduction, that gender is important, and that fair trade with developing countries should be at the core of development assistance (nearly every candidate answered positively to tear down eksport subsidies on agricultural products and work for a dismantling of the CAP). The main discrepancies appear in more controversial themes such as what is considered development assistance (such as debt-relief), but in particular in areas of climate change, what environmental support should be considered to be aid, and biofuels. However, interestingly, there was also general agreement on creating a fund to aid aigainst negeative effects from climate change in developing countries. The question on whether the candidates would work to realize the goal to give 0,7 percent of GDP in aid by 2015 was only answered negatively by candidates from Dansk Folkeparti and Liberal Alliance, as well as Torkil Sohn from Folkebevægelsen mod EU and Jan Winther from Venstre. In fact, it is notable how much candidates from Liberal Alliance and Dansk Folkeparti were in agreement in most questions, with the exception of Morten Messerschmidt from Dansk Folkeparti, who largely followed the general replies. Besides the publication of this commendable report, MS is not engaging in any further debate, besides telling us through a video of ActionAid that it is important to vote for a candidate who cares about the poor. It is a pity that with this MS does not seem to want to engage in a debate of where they want EU to go with its development assistance (should it completely supplant member state development aid, as suggested by Sofie Carsten Nielsen?) and more broadly what should be the EU's role in the world? It is clear that this is the core of the disagreement between many of the candidates who otherwise gave such similar answers in the poll; the EU-sceptic Søren Søndergaard has given exactly the same replies as the super pro-EU candidates Sofie Carsten Nielsen from Radikale Venstre or Dan Jørgensen from the Social Democrats. In fact, except for one question, Jens Rohde from Venstre has followed Søren Søndergaard's answers. Many candidates I have considered have answered a list of questions I sent. One of these questions was about development aid. Added to interviews the top candidates of eight parties (except Benjamin Dickow from Liberal Alliance, who I assume is just going to say that EU should not bother with this) in the Danish development journal Udvikling , I have an idea of what the priorities are for a small number of the candidates, who are surely also the ones with a position on the subject:

• Some candidates don't think EU should give aid at all: Torkil Sohn from Folkebevægelsen mod EU is the most clear. Ditte Staun from the same party thinks Danish aid should be channeled via multilateral institutions. Kenneth Kristensen from Dansk Folkeparti is against EU aid in principle, but thinks that if it must exist it should focus on supporting countries with good governance and democracy.

• Democracy and good governance is also central to a number of candidates. Morten Messerschmidt from Dansk Folkeparti wants to fight corruption, while Karsten Skawbo from Conservative also mentions good governance and respect for human rights as foci of aid. Democracy and rights are also part of the SF candidates Emilie Turunen and Margrethe Auken, while Klaus Larsen Jensen from the Social Democracy also values democracy support.

• Microloans and jobs are quite central to the candidates from the Conservative party and Venstre: Jens Rohde and Bendt Bendsten both mention it, while Christian Wedell-Neergaard and Karsten Skawbo from the Conservatives call it "help for self-help". Emilie Turunen from SF also mention support for micro-loan schemes and jobs, while Klaus Larsen Jensen mentions that aid should focus on job-creation

• Trade for development is central to nearly all candidates albeit from different perspectives. Kasper Elbjørn and Charlotte Antonsen from Venstre both believe that the core is to tear down trade barriers. Jens Rohde, Bendt Bendtsen, Sofie Carsten Nielsen and Ditte Staun from Folkebevægelsen all echo this quite explicitly, while Emilie Turunen specifically says that export-subsidies and reform and CAP is at the core of free trade (although they do not say it, I believe the other candidates agree on this nevertheless), and is in agreement with Søren Søndergaard, who nevertheless also says that there should be justice in trade-agreements (specifically with ACP countries). Hanne Dahl from Junibevægelsen and Johannes Lebech from Radikale Venstre also mention the importance of fair trade agreements between the EU and developing countries.

• Climate is also an issue that is at the core of much of the debate in general, but also specifically in regard to development aid. Dan Jørgensen, Jens Rohde and Sofie Carsten Nielsen all seem to prioritise climate change in questions of development aid, with the latter specifically mentioning new technologies. Margrethe Auken and Bendt Bendtsen both say there should be more integration between environmental questions and development aid.

• Health is not mentioned by many: Jens Rohde mentions the fight against malaria and HIV/AIDS, just as Karsten Skawbo from the Conservative. Lasse Grønning from Radikale Venstre direktly links health and poverty as the core areas of development aid.

• Interestingly, Johannes Lebech from Radikale Venstre is the only one who links development aid to one of the core issues in Europes' borders, namely immigration policy.

I think that if anyone is going to decide his or her vote solely on the issue of development cooperation (which I personally won't, but it does nevertheless play a role for me), they should consider one of the candidates I have mentioned above. The rest, in my view, have a too limited opinion on the issue (at least in what has come out and what I have been able to find).

Piedritas en mi ventana

Today, one of the greatest poets, not only of Latin America, but of the entire world, Mr. Mario Benedetti passed away, 88 years old, in his home in Montevideo, Uruguay. I have for many years carried his poem "El Sur También Existe" with me in a notebook, and one particular poem that I have always loved:

"De vez en cuando la alegría tira piedritas contra mi ventana quiere avisarme que esta ahí esperando pero me siento calmo casi diría ecuánime voy a guardar la angustia en un escondite y luego a tenderme la cara al techo que es una posición gallarda y cómoda para filtrar noticias y creerlas quien sabe donde quedan mis próximas huellas ni cuando mi historia va a ser computada quien sabe que consejos voy a inventar aun y que atajo hallare para no seguirlos esta bien no jugare al desahucio no tatuare el recuerdo con olvidos mucho queda por decir y callar y también quedan uvas para llenar la boca esta bien me doy por persuadido que la alegría no tire mas piedras abriré la ventana."

R.I.P.

Dead Aid

Not long ago I went to a presentation of the book "Dead Aid: How Aid is Not Working and How there is Another Way for Africa", by Dambisa Moyo, at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), and I have subsequently read the book.
If I had not been at the presentation, I would probably have rated the book lower; at the start of her presentation, Ms. Moyo said that the book was not an academic analysis, but was rather intended to create debate. With this in mind, the book is surely worth reading, since the debate on aid to poor countries is in much need of reflection and new ideas.
That said, this is not such a great book, and its message is not new. In fact, the best thing about the book is its quite provocative premise that Ms. Moyo largely views aid as the cause of all of Africa's problems.

The first part of the book is a fine albeit superficial summary of the history of aid, and its problems in relation to Africa, where she argues that aid to Africa since the end of colonial times has been the major cause for increased poverty, lack of growth, corruption and bad governance, even conflict! This of course leads to the more or less explicit premise that aid should just be done away with (something that the book has been widely quoted for), but in selected parts of the book, you can see that she is not necessarily as extreme as she gives the impression of in that first part: "However worthwhile the goal to reduce and even eliminate aid is, it would not be practical or realistic to see aid immediately drop to zero. Nor, in the interim, it might be desireable." (page 76).
The main problem with the first part of the book is her lack of differetiating between different kinds of aid; she does a simplistic differentiation in the start of the book between humanitarian and NGO aid (regarding the latter, Ms. Moyo said at DIIS that she would write another book, where I would nevertheless expect the overall message to be the same), and there is a big problem in this if a person knows more about aid: issues like how it is provided and to whom, as well as the timeframe (a huge problem she rightly points out), are only implicitly treated, and these are quite relevant discussions in the aid debate, where the discussion between budget-support or project-aid is widely discussed. Also here, it is a pity that while she (competently) talks about the ECONOMY of aid, she barely talks about the POLITICS of aid, which I would argue is the main cause of many of the problems of aid: let us not be naïve to think that Western donors provide aid largely for altruistic reasons!

The second part of the book has Ms. Moyo's recommendations about what should be done to develop Africa, and is quite relevant, but very poor in the sense that there is nothing really new in it; in fact, Ms. Moyo largely repeats a market-oriented liberal approach to economic development: development of SME's, capital markets for investment, free trade and fair and just laws on property and banking. I think many existing development economists will have difficulty not agreeing with her.
Knowing this now, I find it disappointing that at the debate at DIIS there was no more discussion when one of the panelists, Erik S. Reinert, implicitly criticised Ms. Moyo's neo-liberal approach by arguing that Africa needed to develop like the west had done: by nurturing its infant industries through state protectionism and investment.
Although well-informed, and Ms. Moyo clearly being a good intellectual, the book is a disappointment for anyone wanting a more in-depth analysis (and may I add here how annoyed I was that some of her endnotes referred to Wikipedia). Although Ms. Moyo refers to some of the development thinkers that have said similar things such as William Easterly or Paul Collier, she uses them only selectively, when in fact William Easterly has already said much of what she says (and more eloquently) and Paul Collier has given a criticism of many of the weaknesses she mentions about aid, but argues that the main problem is that aid DOES WORK when provided under specific conditions.
One can only have the feeling that Ms. Moyo generalizes as much as any European about a continent of 54 countries and one billion people.

While I would say that this book is very good for reflection and discussion, it should NEVER BE READ ALONE, but should be supplemented by some of the more in-depth books on the subject, as for instance William Easterly's White Man's Burden, for someone who largely agrees with Ms. Moyo, or Jeffrey Sachs' The End of Poverty, for someone who argues that aid can solve all problems, as well as Paul Collier's The Bottom Billion, which has a much more balanced view on aid than any of these, including Ms. Moyo herself.