No Aid Effectiveness in Afghanistan

The current debate on aid effectiveness makes one think that donors are prioritizing the quality of spending. However, a recent report by ACBAR (Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief) lists many examples of where billions of dollars promised for the reconstruction of Afghanistan has been wasted, ineffective or not transferred at all. Aid constitutes around 90% of all public expenditure in Afghanistan, making aid effectiveness a crucial issue for the development of the country.

Of the aproximately $25.41 billion of aid that has been committed up to 2008; only 40% been disbursed to date. The ACBAR report also gives many examples of the inefficiencies of donor spending: one example being the reconstruction of a maternity hospital in Kabul. In this project the Italian government contracted the UN Population Fund who then sub-contracted to the UN Office for Project Services, who then sub-contracted to an Italian organization who in turn sub-contracted an Afghan construction company.

The Kabul Press reported that less than half of the total budget allocated for this project was spent on the actual reconstruction and that the end product was so poor it needed further reconstruction. In 2006 the then director of the World Bank in Kabul estimated that 40% of aid was ‘badly spent’.

Much of the aid that has been spent has also been driven by donor priorities instead of being responsive to the needs of Afghanistan. For example, most aid is centralized in Kabul or other urban areas of strategic interest to donors. As a result many of the rural areas have experienced minimal social and economic benefit.

Download the  ACBAR report here.

: : :

 

 

Getting Collier’s Bottom Billion to the Top

The latest issue of the Institute of Development Studies’ publication, In Focus, explores the strengths and weaknesses of the policies advocated in Paul Collier’s book ‘The Bottom Billion’.

 The 13 four-page policy briefs discuss the key issues raised by Collier, including aid, trade, military intervention and international conventions. Read them here.The briefs were written by a group of development experts, with financial support from DFID.

They welcome how Collier has advanced the debate, but also highlight his reliance on cross-country regressions, and significant omissions, including climate change and poverty in China and India.

Mick Moore (IDS) argues, for example, that Collier doesn’t explain why governance in poor
countries is likely to be corroded and corrupted through interactions with the international system. Or why these countries need protection through international laws and charters  when rich countries developed successfully in a much less regulated international  environment.

 James Fairhead (University of Sussex) argues that Collier neglects the negative interaction between natural resources and national debt in poor countries, and the role of local politics.

If you haven’t read the book, have a look at the IBP’s summary & review here. Or have a look at Collier’s homepage.

If you aren’t up to more reading, watch two Collier clips on Youtube by clicking here and here.

: : : : : : : : : : :