14 February 2005
ODA Highlights Institutional Paralysis
In his article in the February 13, 2005, NYT Magazine, “Freedom, From Want,” James Traub characterizes the term, “Official Development Assistance,” as a “studiously neutral” replacement for “foreign aid.” In fact, it is an old name for government-to-government handouts that were popular during the Cold War, and have led precisely to the institutional paralysis that made foreign aid the source of overbearing debt and the font of personal corruption in the developing world. One of the few laudable goals of the Bush administration is to change the measurement of development aid effectiveness from the amount of aid given to the channels through which it is administered.
The lead U.S. government agency for distribution of foreign aid, U.S.AI.D., prefers to deal with Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) rather than with developing country governments for the administration of its tax-policy reduced budget. They can be controlled under U.S. law, and in many cases share the ethical culture of the Bush administration. However, some NGOs are now ambivalent about collaborating with U.S.A.I.D. While they revel in the freedom the umbrella of U.S. force gives them to act in defiance of corrupt or repressive local regimes, they realize, particularly after 9/11/01, that they are easily perceived as being mere tools of U.S. political and cultural invasion.
This may be a challenge for many NGOs. Their very existence may depend on contracts with the U.S. government, if their charitable financial resources are limited. Fortunately, some NGOs, like Medecins sans Frontieres and CARE, have sufficient contributions in money and personal volunteerism, to afford them the freedom to opt out of playing this ambiguous role.
In his article in the February 13, 2005, NYT Magazine, “Freedom, From Want,” James Traub characterizes the term, “Official Development Assistance,” as a “studiously neutral” replacement for “foreign aid.” In fact, it is an old name for government-to-government handouts that were popular during the Cold War, and have led precisely to the institutional paralysis that made foreign aid the source of overbearing debt and the font of personal corruption in the developing world. One of the few laudable goals of the Bush administration is to change the measurement of development aid effectiveness from the amount of aid given to the channels through which it is administered.
The lead U.S. government agency for distribution of foreign aid, U.S.AI.D., prefers to deal with Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) rather than with developing country governments for the administration of its tax-policy reduced budget. They can be controlled under U.S. law, and in many cases share the ethical culture of the Bush administration. However, some NGOs are now ambivalent about collaborating with U.S.A.I.D. While they revel in the freedom the umbrella of U.S. force gives them to act in defiance of corrupt or repressive local regimes, they realize, particularly after 9/11/01, that they are easily perceived as being mere tools of U.S. political and cultural invasion.
This may be a challenge for many NGOs. Their very existence may depend on contracts with the U.S. government, if their charitable financial resources are limited. Fortunately, some NGOs, like Medecins sans Frontieres and CARE, have sufficient contributions in money and personal volunteerism, to afford them the freedom to opt out of playing this ambiguous role.
Comments:
Post a Comment
