Yet another example of why the development first theory is wrong:
Take Inderaw Mohammed Siraj, a 60-year-old Ethiopian opposition candidate who lost a finger after being beaten by ruling-party cadres in 2008. Last year, he says, he was kicked out of a food-aid program funded by the U.S., the World Bank, and the European Union when a local official from his village in a remote corner of northeast Ethiopia told him: “We will not feed opposition members.”
With virtually no opposition representation in Parliament, the independent press and local human-rights groups now closed or under attack, and the prospect of his children begging for food, he has realized life would be easier if he gave up politics.
I have no doubt that the development firsters will go away anytime soon, but it’s good to have examples of why they are wrong – especially from Ethiopia because this country is often one of their main examples.
none
It is a bit ironic for the branch of government that makes the bureaucracy to criticize its own creation. If Congress doesn’t like the excessive bureaucracy in the executive branch, it could, you know, do something about it. I guess its just easier (and more fun!) to complain.
PS: It’s not all our fault.
none
Aid Watchers is unimpressed with the World Ban’s defense of lending money to the Government of Ethiopia:
…any horrible tyrant can be supported under the assumption that this tyrant is merely a temporary stage in a country “in transition to democracy,” part of an “innate tendency” towards “building institutions.”
Ha! Nice take down!
none
Today is the 2nd day of the Parliamentary Staff Institute, focusing on the development and strengthening of parliamentary research services. The Institute’s meeting is part of the Commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Frost-Solomon Task Force, which provided assistance from the U.S. Congress to new parliaments in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union from 1990 to 1996. The events started on June 7. NDI has more info.
none
While this will probably lead to higher budgets, it also will make clear that US foreign aid is not a tool of US foreign policy, but national security. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan are the new normal.
none
Bill Easterly comes out against social engineering:
…rigorous skepticism is a creative force because most of the damage is done by overconfident [aid industry folks] who thought they knew the answer when they didn’t. And such skepticism doesn’t leave us empty-handed: it forces us back on what are our core values: democracy, human rights, individual liberties, that we follow for moral rather than pragmatic reasons. Autocratic “pragmatic” claims to deliver development if you will just give up your rights don’t survive skeptical scrutiny.
I agree with Easterly whole-heatedly. Aid projects often do more harm than good because the people who implement them do not understand the social and political context in which the projects exist. Social engineering is not easy and if we are going to attempt it, we need to spend a lot more time thinking about context because one-size-fits-all, externally imposed projects are a recipe for disaster. Also, I love the dig that aid workers often act like autocrats (even while preaching democracy!). Too true, too true!
none
Someone working on foreign aid projects who can’t answer why donors fund unsustainable projects probably should not be working on foreign aid. If you are working in the aid industry and can’t answer this question, you are in luck! You can find the answer here, here, here…
H/T Mikocheni Report (twice in one day!)
one
