Aid Conditionality
Aid Recipients per capita. Image by Volunteer Marek, courtesy Wikimedia commons. Data from World Bank world Development Indicators.
Aid Recipients per capita. Image by Volunteer Marek, courtesy Wikimedia commons. Data from World Bank world Development Indicators.
The pluses and minuses of a checks and balances approach on National Development Strategies and governmental accountability.
National Development Strategy, when properly managed creates positive human resource development, and when applying RBA governance that is growth and sustainable based, aid donors should be happy, lending should flow, the declaration of the Rights to Development, which calls for the right to policies that are based on meaningful sharing of equitable division of returns, should be satisfied.
From a governmental and citizen’s look at long-term change and immediate transitional help, a poor person living on 2$ per day earned in a developing country, who as Ackerman says “ should own their development”, i.e. be at the center of the design, have control over it and have evaluation of their development “, would in this case have confidence and self esteem to claim all his HR’s and to demand accountability of his community and of his government/democracy. (1) C Ferguson and J Hausermann are quoted in Ackerman’s article,”that the right to participation should be seen as the foundational base of the rights approach –it is prerequisite to claiming all the rest of the human rights. (2)
In the checks and balances approach to governmental accountability , in terms of aid ,are there similarities in the terms social accountability and conditionality?
Looking first at the right to development , this is not only an economic right but also a declaration of human rights as obligations to eliminate obstacles to development. Participatory democracy embodies Art 1 of the RTD to take part in government, using the right to give authorization of political power , to extend a citizen’s control over this power, and thereby giving equal political influence to the citizen and to the politician .
To also bestow, as in ‘The Justice for the Poor ‘ program in Indonesia, judiciary accountability which is necessary and is exemplified in this program showing that for justice reform to work, participation, mobilization of the civil society for resolving issues is most important . Power and empowerment of participation are critical for accountability and the Right to fair trials.
Is the conditionality control of aid by the rich developed countries imposed on the poor perhaps, one, an influence over the poor to demand for more accountability? Demands for good governance and good democratic principles allow the educated and ‘respected by the law’ citizen to be a population in human resource development. This is an integral part of financing of development: the population is a means of development, a proper view of human resources. If resources in aid are denied an educated and accountable population, that is wrong.
Social accountability is a RBA, to monitor aid with intervention and conditionality . Good governance social accountability is a consequence bearing enforceable way to monitor aid but often only if controlled by a potentially accountable democracy and not one in crisis conditions .
In the short term of development , and realistically , the PRSP’s that guide MDG 1 and 2, that eradicate extreme poverty and hunger and achieve universal primary education , as supported by Article 25 / UDHR and Art 11, 13,14 / ICESCR are probably more so the accountable goal of the OHCHR who wishes to ” rid poverty” . The poor want simply their immediate rights as stated in Article 25 : food, clean water, a home, right to work, etc. If, in the short term , the goal is to reduce poverty, if aid brings that they want the aid with what ever the conditionality is.
There is a middle of the road approach to conditionality thru social accountabilities of the demands of the poor and a more educated human resource public who can ask for their government to behave “well” to merit aid.
Peter Uvin’s comments on conditionality “Stop giving aid to those governments that don’t behave well”. He says it is a “dream” and “a bad one” to believe that our money can bring about change, to believe that aid conditionality will work to bring about desired change is akin to believing that one can “buy “buy human rights”. This indicates bad governance, corrupt governments, and therefore abusive of human rights, but the government is at fault not the poor citizen, so why cut aid. (3) Pogge believes that fledgling democracies may have set backs along the way in governance, and need help by a global reform, an institutional reform and foreign policy support from “all “ governments, especially rich democracies to help them to transition in strength, not with conditionality’s that break them, but with social accountability, that builds their ownership of their future, and lifts the fledgling on to the road to development.(4)
Some examples of aid conditionality :
In Sweden, the DFID, is the hero of Pogge’s global reform for order, and manages a “holistic “ accountability for the poor and governments that are aided by the DFID. Conditionality here, I would surmise, could be viewed as usable, “ an analytical tool, to access society’s goals, power, and the power tools for cooperation and eradication of poverty thru HRBA development. Here in a Democratic panel type country and type organization that Pogge refers to, that would , with a Democracy Fund, neutralize the risks in aid or loans.
Counter wise, Nepal fails miserably with aid conditionality, and development is thwarted, aid for roads and hydropower is stopped, due to the government that is corrupt and a non- accountable government. HR abuse is non-stop. Here conditionality is necessary for accountability to occur, there is no middle of the road approach: The US investors from whom Nepal hopes to attract much-needed investment have shown keen interest in key sectors like hydropower, financial and health sectors, among others. But , the US also made it clear that Nepal would need to straighten its policies, particularly those related to labor and power, end political instability and improve the security situation for bringing in US investments. Maintaining Human Rights here is key, in the US partner country’s demands , and that will require help from government agencies, development partners, and civil society .
Thus , finally , social accountability ,is a form of good conditionality , allowing aid in , but only by good civil intervention to regulate its use. Democracy and participation can’t be seen only in economic terms, HR must be considered and supported from the start of change.The WB now looks at the HRF of loans , and as Professor Stephen Marks points out ” Legal norms, processes, institutions, ( covenants : ICESCR, ICCPR and HR treaties : CRC, CERD,CEDAW, and agreements like the 2008 AACRA Agenda for Actions, which accelerates the Paris Declaration and the UN Millennium Declaration ) influenced by public reasoning and social mobilization are the elements of HR being a part of social reality.”
(2) Ferguson, Clare (1999) Global Social Policy Principles: Human Rights & Social Justice, London: DFID.Hausermann, Julia (1998) A Human Rights Approach to Development, London
(3) Peter Uvin, Human Rights and Development, PG 77
(4)Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights, PG 153.
Examples:
http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=23618
http://www.nhrcnepal.org/publication/doc/reports/UPR_Report-2010.pdf
© 2011, Tamara Saltzman. All rights reserved.
Join the forum discussion on this post