| |
Editorial
|
|
Paths to poverty reduction
It is not the Gross National Product of its people that the Bhutan government aims to increase, but Gross National Happiness. That is an unusual objective, which appears to deserve all praise. Away with the fetishism of economic growth. But how to do it? Dieter Brauer describes 20 years of Bhutanese development policy – priority for education and healthcare, protection of the environment and traditional culture. 90 per cent of the population has access to healthcare, 72 per cent of the children attend primary school. The country pays for a large part of its development efforts out of its own revenue. But its economic base is completely one-sided. Its overabundance of potential hydropower is for Bhutan what oil is for the Gulf states. Construction of power stations and roads is the only thing for which large numbers of workers are needed. But that is done by Indian immigrant workers; local school-leavers do not like the hard work, they want white-collar jobs. The government has neglected to promote local trade and industry. This phenomenon was called "Dutch Disease" when it was first described during the Netherlands' natural gas boom in the 1960s, and later "Arabian Disease". If Bhutan in the future can fund its entire public budget from hydropower revenue but there are no jobs for local people – will that promote Gross National Happiness?
Jobs are also the problem in Bolivia. The country has a poverty reduction strategy (PRS) praised on all sides, but the government has in the meantime come to the conclusion, as Wolfram Klein reports, that even given significant economic growth the strategy's goal cannot be achieved: economic growth benefits the poor to only a limited extent. All hopes are now pinned on the country's vast natural gas reserves, to be developed from 2006. When the government has the gas revenue at its disposal it can finance public projects which are to be labour-intensive and thus will create jobs. But it has not thought about jobs in the productive sector, whose tax revenue could later replace the natural gas income. So the concept is merely another variety of the "Dutch Disease"; it is not sustainable in the long run. That Bolivia is now drafting sectoral policy concepts for these public works (such as drinking water and irrigation) is laudable, but it changes nothing about the dilemma.
Poverty reduction strategies are also the basis of development cooperation in the East African countries. Here, a model is emerging for future work in other regions as well: coordination with other donors, networking of concrete programme activities, budget assistance and intensive integration of the national governments in responsibility for their own development are its features, and advance in this direction is farther ahead than in other partner countries. Thus, the most important developmental insight of recent years, that functioning institutions are the main prerequisite for development, is taken into account. In future, writes Thomas Albert, Technical Cooperation should change over even more strongly from providing direct services to financing capacity-building, and Financial Cooperation should be called in for the same purpose. The evolving networking of the various German government aid agencies is well advanced, but there are still separate offices for the GTZ and KfW and the Cooperation Desk Officers at the German embassies. The reform of the external structures must push ahead. – And what is the situation here with regard to jobs? If the insight exists, as Albert writes, that it is only by economic growth and the resulting tax revenue that the countries can attain a position to finance their development themselves, then while the promotion of agriculture is an important point, promotion of productive trade and industry would be even more so – but it does not belong to the German working areas.
While German development cooperation joins forces with other donor countries in order to achieve greater efficiency through common sectoral programmes (including the UK and the Netherlands, see the articles in our March issue), France is now hoisting its national flag again. The development programme tabled by the Raffarin government emphasises expressly a preference for bilateral aid and a reinforcing of French competence. On the other hand, the programme also calls, as Nathalie Gillet writes, for a "transition from assistance policy to partnership", which means stronger ownership by the local partner. And it is also positive that for some years now the relationship between official development cooperation and civil society has improved, mainly due to the founding of a common High Council. It is not quite a novelty that the French cooperation programme is now drafted in the Foreign Ministry, in which the Technical Cooperation was integrated at the time of the Jospin government. This process, however, had a different hue than the demand for fusion by the Foreign Office in Germany. In France, the old Ministry for Cooperation was the bastion of post-colonialism, of the emphatically nationalist forces. So with the transition to the Foreign Ministry with its wider horizon a neutralisation occurred – while in Germany the Foreign Office represents more the national interests, and the BMZ those of the developing countries. And now in France the about-face: President Jacques Chirac personally proclaimed last year "a new partnership between France and Africa", and committed the French clientele countries to the role of supporting the French position at international conferences – France is reverting to the policy of Francophony. And one other point manifests the perseverance of France's policy of yesterday: Financial Cooperation continues to remain separated from Technical Cooperation – Germany and France in mutually bad company.
Reinold E. Thiel
|
