Zambia has featured in the global spotlight lately when our very own Dambisa Moyo launched her new book 'Dead Aid' and Zambia beat Ivory Coast three nil in the African Nations Cup competition.
Zambia later faded out as the competition progressed but 'Dead Aid' lingers on as book that incites critics and other commentators on economics to put forward their views on the question of development Aid in Africa.
Some years ago one very rich man from Seattle USA who heads the world's most successful IT software company remarked to an audience of eminent scholars, that the chances of transforming those same scholars from academics to cutting edge entrepreneurs was extremely slim, because formal education had biased them and fashioned them into compromised material that may not be able to think out of the box.
In many ways the analysis is as true today as it was back then. Facts and figures, anecdotes and references are sometimes chains that tie our thinking to some ideologies and philosophies that are only hypothesis that hold within a prescribed framework.
The questions on the value of development Aid, what Aid has done to developing economies, and what can be done about Aid, are all hinged on context and the investment of the various players in the Aid Trading regime.
Too often the basic facts are ignored in favour of a romantic expectation of what development Aid is supposed to produce and how the roll out ought to take place. The very fact that a specific development engagement between two countries is referred to as Aid tends to hypnotize the recipient party into sitting back and receiving what is put on the table without so much as a question. It also gives the Aid giver arrogance and authority to dictate the Aid relationship. This phenomenon is much the same as that generated by the over used 'Donor' word that parallels the scenario whereby a strong and healthy person is lying on a bed proudly donating blood to the national blood bank. There is a feeling of benevolence, achievement and authority by the ‘donor’ and a corresponding 'anti-feeling' of gratitude, humility, and servitude by the recipient. This partnership of authority and irresponsibility between two countries is usually a recipe for disaster.
It may be useful to consider some basic established relationships between two countries to appreciate the naivety and realities of life. A foreign Embassy or High Commission established in Zambia serves one main critical purpose – To serve the interests of the nationals of the country represented by the mission. We have noted over the last four decades that if a foreign national who is driving in Zambia and is involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident, the first thing that person will do is run to his/her Embassy or High Commission for protection from the Zambian law. This also applies to any criminal activity that a foreign national may be engaged in and the Zambian law is on his/her trail. We have noted that foreign Ambassadors and High Commissioners will protect and support their nationals in business activities even when the host Government disapproves of some activities perpetrated by the foreign companies. Typical examples are the flouting of labour laws, ignoring safety and health standards, and racist behaviour. In war torn countries, local babies and children are abandoned at airports to die at the hands of gunmen while foreign healthy and wealthy people who can take care of themselves are immediately evacuated by their Embassies and High Commissions by specially chartered helicopters. This is as it should be. Embassies and High Commissions are paid for by their tax payers back home and are expected to look out for their own nationals irrespective of whether the actions are morally right or wrong.
The above scenarios illustrate the foundation of Aid. Aid is not free. Aid is traded in a subtle and manipulative way so that at the end of it all, the ‘donor’ gets a return on the investment just like any other business venture.
Many analysts and economists can write about Aid in very different ways as they analyze the impact of Aid in different countries, unpick the various case studies around the world, and brain storm some innovative thinking on new mechanisms for making development Aid work better than before.
The fundamental question that we must ask ourselves is ‘Are we being realistic to expect a ‘Donor’ country to consciously assist us to develop our country today so that tomorrow we can compete with the very same ‘Donors’?’ This may be asking too much of the ‘Donors’. This is almost as naïve as expecting an Embassy or High Commission to hand over one of their own nationals to face charges in the Zambian courts of law.
If the design of Aid is not to seriously support and facilitate development in our economies then we can spend sleepless nights planning and redrawing implementation plans for as long as we like without ever reaching the goals that the idea of Aid is supposed to achieve. A case in point is the World Bank’s Doing Business Report that ranks Zambia around 100 out of 178 countries. The nature of the criteria for assessing Zambia’s performance is based on questions that only show our weaknesses and not our strengths. For example, which investor whether local or foreign really worries about how long it takes to register a business in Zambia? If it takes three days or three months is neither here nor there in the scheme of things. A more compelling issue is whether a particular business investment will make a profit, and if so, how much? This is not part of the World Bank’s assessment criteria for determining whether Zambia is a good investment destination. No serious investor ever considered licensing time a higher priority than profit margins, cheap labour, and access to land as opposed to ownership of land.
Zambia and other developing countries must re-create their vocabulary when engaging with countries from the developed world. Words and phrases such as ‘Aid’, ‘Donor’, ‘Grant’, ‘Assist’, ‘Facilitate’, ‘Enhance’, ‘Capacity Building’, ‘Diagnostic’ and many others should be struck out and replaced with more definitive and domestically owned replacements that firmly indicate that Zambia and Zambians are responsible for their own development with ‘Collaboration’ and sometimes ‘Co-operation’ from the developed nations. Zambia and Zambians must always be in the driving seat of any engagement such that the goals and outcomes are realistic and predictable.
Zambia will not benefit from throwing English text back and forth to explain why the economy is not developing as we use references and precedents that emanate from the very countries that appear to undermine our development.
Aid may not be dead, it probably does not work for us because it is owned and employed by our competitors. Our challenge is how to effectively Trade in the Aid business.
Zambia later faded out as the competition progressed but 'Dead Aid' lingers on as book that incites critics and other commentators on economics to put forward their views on the question of development Aid in Africa.
Some years ago one very rich man from Seattle USA who heads the world's most successful IT software company remarked to an audience of eminent scholars, that the chances of transforming those same scholars from academics to cutting edge entrepreneurs was extremely slim, because formal education had biased them and fashioned them into compromised material that may not be able to think out of the box.
In many ways the analysis is as true today as it was back then. Facts and figures, anecdotes and references are sometimes chains that tie our thinking to some ideologies and philosophies that are only hypothesis that hold within a prescribed framework.
The questions on the value of development Aid, what Aid has done to developing economies, and what can be done about Aid, are all hinged on context and the investment of the various players in the Aid Trading regime.
Too often the basic facts are ignored in favour of a romantic expectation of what development Aid is supposed to produce and how the roll out ought to take place. The very fact that a specific development engagement between two countries is referred to as Aid tends to hypnotize the recipient party into sitting back and receiving what is put on the table without so much as a question. It also gives the Aid giver arrogance and authority to dictate the Aid relationship. This phenomenon is much the same as that generated by the over used 'Donor' word that parallels the scenario whereby a strong and healthy person is lying on a bed proudly donating blood to the national blood bank. There is a feeling of benevolence, achievement and authority by the ‘donor’ and a corresponding 'anti-feeling' of gratitude, humility, and servitude by the recipient. This partnership of authority and irresponsibility between two countries is usually a recipe for disaster.
It may be useful to consider some basic established relationships between two countries to appreciate the naivety and realities of life. A foreign Embassy or High Commission established in Zambia serves one main critical purpose – To serve the interests of the nationals of the country represented by the mission. We have noted over the last four decades that if a foreign national who is driving in Zambia and is involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident, the first thing that person will do is run to his/her Embassy or High Commission for protection from the Zambian law. This also applies to any criminal activity that a foreign national may be engaged in and the Zambian law is on his/her trail. We have noted that foreign Ambassadors and High Commissioners will protect and support their nationals in business activities even when the host Government disapproves of some activities perpetrated by the foreign companies. Typical examples are the flouting of labour laws, ignoring safety and health standards, and racist behaviour. In war torn countries, local babies and children are abandoned at airports to die at the hands of gunmen while foreign healthy and wealthy people who can take care of themselves are immediately evacuated by their Embassies and High Commissions by specially chartered helicopters. This is as it should be. Embassies and High Commissions are paid for by their tax payers back home and are expected to look out for their own nationals irrespective of whether the actions are morally right or wrong.
The above scenarios illustrate the foundation of Aid. Aid is not free. Aid is traded in a subtle and manipulative way so that at the end of it all, the ‘donor’ gets a return on the investment just like any other business venture.
Many analysts and economists can write about Aid in very different ways as they analyze the impact of Aid in different countries, unpick the various case studies around the world, and brain storm some innovative thinking on new mechanisms for making development Aid work better than before.
The fundamental question that we must ask ourselves is ‘Are we being realistic to expect a ‘Donor’ country to consciously assist us to develop our country today so that tomorrow we can compete with the very same ‘Donors’?’ This may be asking too much of the ‘Donors’. This is almost as naïve as expecting an Embassy or High Commission to hand over one of their own nationals to face charges in the Zambian courts of law.
If the design of Aid is not to seriously support and facilitate development in our economies then we can spend sleepless nights planning and redrawing implementation plans for as long as we like without ever reaching the goals that the idea of Aid is supposed to achieve. A case in point is the World Bank’s Doing Business Report that ranks Zambia around 100 out of 178 countries. The nature of the criteria for assessing Zambia’s performance is based on questions that only show our weaknesses and not our strengths. For example, which investor whether local or foreign really worries about how long it takes to register a business in Zambia? If it takes three days or three months is neither here nor there in the scheme of things. A more compelling issue is whether a particular business investment will make a profit, and if so, how much? This is not part of the World Bank’s assessment criteria for determining whether Zambia is a good investment destination. No serious investor ever considered licensing time a higher priority than profit margins, cheap labour, and access to land as opposed to ownership of land.
Zambia and other developing countries must re-create their vocabulary when engaging with countries from the developed world. Words and phrases such as ‘Aid’, ‘Donor’, ‘Grant’, ‘Assist’, ‘Facilitate’, ‘Enhance’, ‘Capacity Building’, ‘Diagnostic’ and many others should be struck out and replaced with more definitive and domestically owned replacements that firmly indicate that Zambia and Zambians are responsible for their own development with ‘Collaboration’ and sometimes ‘Co-operation’ from the developed nations. Zambia and Zambians must always be in the driving seat of any engagement such that the goals and outcomes are realistic and predictable.
Zambia will not benefit from throwing English text back and forth to explain why the economy is not developing as we use references and precedents that emanate from the very countries that appear to undermine our development.
Aid may not be dead, it probably does not work for us because it is owned and employed by our competitors. Our challenge is how to effectively Trade in the Aid business.
Published 10th March, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment