Development and Cooperation


	Contributions from the Column Focus Ownership and donor harmonisation: a brief introduction Harmonisation: Donor pledges are steps in the right direction How KfW Entwicklungsbank assesses budget support Bangladesh’s PRSP and civil society African opposition to neoliberalism Political instability and programme-based approaches 07/2006		“Our priority is just to survive” Neoliberal reforms are neither what Africans need, nor what Africans want, argue activists from civil society. According to Aminata Traoré, a former minister of Mali, donor agencies are imposing their agenda on developing countries. [ Interview with Aminata Traoré ] In recent development discourse, there has been much emphasis on »ownership«. To what extent would you say are the governments of sub-Saharan countries really in the driver’s seat? The concept of ownership belies the fact that development, at least in current North-South relations, is an imported product that has to be adapted by the beneficiary countries. The international community has been insisting on ownership in order to remedy one of the congenital defects of the development process: its inherent lack of coordination. Africa has totally lost its initiative and control of the major issues that will determine its fate. Far from being independent drivers of an economic, social and political change with obvious effects on local populations, African governments have yet to graduate from the tutelage of rich nations and international financing institutions. There is an English saying according to which »He who pays the piper calls the tune«. We have an almost identical saying in German. Is it conceivable that these sayings do not apply to development cooperation, in which donor countries provide the funds? In Bamanan, we say, »The hand that gives is above the one that receives.« Development cooperation is no exception to this rule. When it comes to terms and conditions, donor countries have the leeway to make decisions and judgments and to reward and sanction. When they do so, they distort the spirit of democracy, which is about power of the people, by the people, and for the people. Development aid respectful of our rights would respond to clearly formulated African requests based on the needs of the population, rather than to the business interests of donor countries and African elites. Voters should wield real control over the use of resources. This demand has nothing to do with the nebulous concept of »good governance«, which aims more to calm fears of potential foreign investors than to protect our economic, social and cultural rights. Good governance has been stressed by donors for almost a decade now. Has that not had some positive results? The entities that distribute funds call for good governance and draw attention to the morality of recipient governments in order to hide the fact that their economic policies are unsuitable. Common people are not involved in macroeconomic decision-making, but donor institutions expect them to act as watchdogs to ensure that business runs smoothly. Of course, rigorous management of financial resources is an urgent necessity. But citizens of democracies should demanding that state of affairs, not donors, who are actually part of the problem. The goal should be to promote justice in order to ensure human rights, not to assuage the concerns of potential investors. World Bank staff sometimes say, off the record, that 80 % of what they are doing is »the same as structural adjustment«. What is your view? Relations between the Bretton Woods institutions and lending countries are anything but democratic. Our governments are not dealing with partners who listen to them and respect them, but with institutions who judge them and protect their own interests. The notion of “good” and “bad” pupils reflects this situation perfectly. The worst thing about it all is that it does not cost the IMF and the World Bank anything when their diagnoses and solutions prove to be wrong. Whenever they do recognise that they have made a mistake, they simply see it as a hiccup, not a reason to call neoliberal dogma into question. Most of the time, the people of Africa, who may not even be aware that these institutions exist, are the ones to pay for erroneous advice in addition to the burden of debt. This situation is profoundly unjust. For failed and fragile states, the idea of the domestic government being in charge is obviously problematic. But perhaps there are some good performers that, in your view, have found an independent and successful course of action and managed to gain support from donors for those programmes. I reject the notion of weak states, preferring to speak of states »weakened« as part of a process. At the same time, I refuse to subscribe to the criteria of donors, who in turn refuse to admit that the true weakness stems from the dominant economic model in our countries – and indeed in the West as well. All African countries that pursue neoliberal reforms are trapped. If they succeed, the success is superficial – without any anchoring in the social and economic fabric, but under the control of foreign financers who reward their »good pupils«. Donors argue that by pooling their resources, they can have a greater impact in the target countries. Does that mean that the recipient governments have less, rather than more policy leeway? Donor diagnoses of aid failure tend to be wrong – and, accordingly, so are their therapy proposals. Aid has not failed the common people because too much money was spent – remember, donors are not paying the 0.7 % of GDP they have promised. Failures are due to the conditions imposed and bad management. Moreover, we constantly find that Western interests predominate, and Westerners want something in return. Quid pro quo is a reality in aid relations. And with neoliberal globalisation going on, rich countries want to use their »aid« to Africa to promote business, even if this business would be to our disadvantage. In your experience, are the various working groups of donors in the capitals of recipient countries helpful? I had to turn down a grant of less than ¤2000 offered by a European embassy in my country because one of the conditions for that aid was that signs be put up in the streets of a poor neighbourhood indicating the source of this funding. Imagine an environment in which even small sums of foreign aid would have to be made public in this fashion. It would make the streets unattractive and be a bit humiliating for the recipients. The rich forget that there are a thousand ways of saying thanks and that it is not necessary to force those who receive to provide material signs of recognition. Unfortunately, we live in an age in which the psychology of the beneficiaries does not matter much to most donors. In some countries, donors are supporting the national budget. Some experts warn that this practice may lead to an embedded culture of dependency, with the recipient government no longer interested in raising domestic revenues. These experts are right as long as the goal is to pursue the vicious logic of growth for the sake of growth without concern for the well-being of common people. In Mali, we were proud to have five percent growth a few years ago due to the direct effects of the devaluation of the CFA franc and the rising price of cotton. At the moment, we have reached an impasse caused by the subsidies in the USA and the EU for their producers of cotton. At the moment, our priority is just to survive and not have to go into exile – in other words, not emigrate and face humiliation and racism during the entire journey. By »staying alive«, I mean receiving proper compensation for our commodities, enjoying the freedom to decide how to trade and choose the pace at which we open our markets, having the latitude to limit local reforms to only part of our natural resources, and generating enough income to allow us to feed ourselves, educate our children and provide health care. And yet, these legitimate rights are incessantly flouted in the context of development aid. It forces Africa to open up to the world market here and now. Questions by Hans Dembowski. Dr. Aminata Traoré is a civil society activist. She coordinates the Forum pour l’autre Mali, and is Associate Coordinator of the International Network for Cultural Diversity as well as a board member of the International Press Service. From 1997 to 2000, she served as Mali’s minister of culture and tourism. djenneart@afribonemali.net