NZ Aid
Various Aid NGOs have set up a campaign website, to lobby against possible changed to NZ Aid mooted by Foreign Minister Murray McCully.
Their website and campaign is called “Don’t corrupt Aid”. That is (in my opinion) a tactical blunder to use such inflammatory language. If they think that will help convince key Ministers.
But regardless of their silly title, what are the issues. There appear to be three:
- Should the aim of NZ Aid be “poverty elimination” to “economic development”?
- Should aid policy be independent of foreign policy?
- Should NZ Aid remain a semi-autonomous body or be fully reintegrated back into MFAT?
Now the NGOs lobbying for their point of view are all massive recepients of funding from NZ Aid, so there is a certain amount of vested interests at work. And not all aid NGOs are supporting the campaign – I note the Red Cross is not a participant. Anyway to the issues:
Poverty Elimination vs Economic Development
I think this issue is much ado about nothing. Both are about the same thing – helping citizens of less developed countries having a higher standard of living. You eliminate poverty through economic development. No one has ever found any other way to do it.
Murray McCully has said you could throw dollar notes out of a helicopter and call that poverty elimination. Now he never said this is what NZ Aid is doing (his critics who claim this are being dishonest) – he said the goal is too wide, as it would allow that.
So really I just see it as saying we want poverty elimination through economic development.
Some of the NGOs claim economic development will mean the money goes to wealthy elites, instead of the poor. They seem to be caught up in socialist rhetoric.
Aid Policy vs Foreign Policy
Let me let you into a secret. No matter what the Government says publicly, aid policy is always tied into a country’s foreign policy. Look at what AusAid says:
The aim of the program is to assist developing countries reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, in line with Australia’s national interest.
Why is most of our aid money spent in the Pacific? Because that is where it most serves our national interest. If were not worried about NZ’s national interest, we would then pick the country most in need, and give them 100% of our aid budget. There is a reason we spread it around various countries and regions.
So when the campaign says aid policy should not be “corrupted” by foreign policy, it is nonsense. Every government on Earth “corrupts” their aid that way. Some may not admit it, but they all do. And frankly it is bizarre to suggest we should give money out in a way where we ignore NZ’s interests.
Should NZ Aid remain semi-autonomous?
Here is where I largely agree with the NGOs. I am open to persuasion, but it seems to me you can achive what you want (in terms of new focus) without doing a full merger back into MFAT. I suspect the costs will be significant, it will mean many staff spend all their time on structural and systems changes instead of actual Aid delivery, and may dilute focus.
NZ Aid is not fully autonomous. It’s Director is appointed by the MFAT Chief Executive, and if there are concerns about whether NZ Aid is taking into account foreign policy goals sufficiently – then that can be dealt with by way of instruction and delegations to the Director of NZ Aid.
Having said that, I am open to persuasion, and look forward to seeing what the SSC reviews say are the costs and benefits.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
What about option 4 DPF?
4. No bloody aid to tin pot pacific islands until we as a country can afford it again.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
4.1 We can afford it, and it serves our national interest that tin pot pacific nations lose their tin-pottedness.
The great thing about the goal of economic development is that there are a number of other, very good things, that are can happen alongside. Things such as protections for private property, democracy, and freedom of speech.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Anyone considered that the first, most important and sometimes only consideration of New Zealanders tax money is New Zealanders?
We can be all cuddly and care for our fellow man when we have our shit sorted. Not this week in other words.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I’ve made a few comments on this topic recently, and attracted plenty of negative responses. At the risk of incurring more, I still think McCully is screwing this up. Talking to old contacts in the aid game, there is a real feeling McCully has already made up his mind. No one has seen the terms of reference of the SSC review, the time frames, or even what the problems are with the current arrangements. (If anyone can post any helpful links, I would be grateful).
I worked in the Pacific on aid projects back when the aid programme was run directly by Foreign Affairs, and it was a nightmare. All the management positions in Wellington were filled with diplomats rotating between postings. This meant they knew nothing about the country in question and even less about how to deliver aid in an effective manner. By the time they had come up to speed, they were posted off to Brussels, and replaced with an expert on Antarctic Treaty negotiations. Or something similarly irrelevant. The constant turnover of Head Office staff meant there was no institutional memory – the same stupid mistakes were made over and over again, often only a few years apart. Talking to the Aussies in the field working under a specialist aid agency (AusAid), it was clear they spend far less time than us trying to head off screw-ups from head office. And consequently got more done.
I got out of the business around the time NZ Aid was set up, so I don’t have direct experience working for them. But they would have to be bloody hopeless not to be an improvement on what went before. If the government wants to point them in a different direction – or give them a kick in the arse – winning the election gives them that right.
But giving aid back to Foreign Affairs – that’s just stupid. Unless there are some really compelling cost savings or service gains to be made, restructuring them out of existence will be a waste of taxpayer money. Especially since no one even knows what the problem is that McCully is supposedly fixing.
Take it away, fellow righties, rain down that bad karma! Or alternatively, a convincing explanation of why I am wrong.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“Some of the NGOs claim economic development will mean the money goes to wealthy elites, instead of the poor. They seem to be caught up in socialist rhetoric.”
I’m not sure that’s socialist rhetoric – seems a common complaint from all sides.
On a related point, the Spectator review of Dead Aid, a new book by Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian economist, says, “Writing with tangible exasperation, she argues that aid is the worst thing to happen to her continent in the last 60 years and the biggest favour the West can now do Africa is to turn off the taps. A warning phone call, followed by five years to allow for adjustment, should just about do it, she reckons.”
The whole thing is at http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/3345651/killing-with-kindness.thtml
March 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Trouble is, it seems to me, is that most foreign aid is just like any other welfare payment. You get dependence, not development.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
How wealthy do we have to be before we feel an obligation to prevent someone from watching their children starve to death through lack of food or shit themselves to death through lack of clean drinking water?
If we could agree on a minimum percentage of NZers who own iPods, for example, we could know what we have to achieve before putting our hard-earned money into foreign aid.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
One problem I have with aid, especially aid to Africa, is that every dollar that gets given is a dollar that the local ruler does not have to spend himself. That means his wife can have a bit extra in her purse for her monthly shopping trip to Harrods.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
That is why there is pretty much a consensus in the development community (last time I checked) on the need for tariffs to be lifted in the developed world. For now, we’ll have to make do with cleaning up their water supplies so they don’t have to cope with Guinea Worm, which is pretty essential if you want to be able to drive some of those shiny new tractors that other countries say they’ll give you…
March 9th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“You get dependence, not development.”
Brian – you also get a warm feeling from knowing that several human beings did not starve or shit themselves to death, and that was only because of your actions to help them.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
It’s not as if the two are mutually exclusive. You don’t have to choose between helping now and helping in the long term.
Well, depending on priorities and resources. There’s presumably a certain amount of triaging that goes on. When people are starving to death, the first step is hand-outs to keep them alive. Then you can move on to community building, infrastructure and education, which are the long-term constructive development stuff that Brian’s talking about.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
But you have not helped them to avoid shitting themselves to death tomorrow, or for their kid’s kids to have a future. They just sit waiting for the next handout, while their leaders rape the wealth of their countries. Let Africa develop it’s resources, industrialise, grow. A pump that some poor sap has to treadle for ten hours a day may be green and give you a warm feeling, but it does nothign to lift those people out of poverty. Only economic growth will.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Which means you would agree with the outcome of the 2001 Ministerial Review that concluded keeping aid delivery within MFAT was a Bad Idea!
[DPF: Thinks may have moved on since then. My default position is that NZ Aid should remain where it is, unless there is a compelling case for change]
March 9th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
That is why aid from country to country is often heavily tied to performance in corruption and other issues – even so far as government macro-economic policies.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
It’s a lot easier to get economic growth when your workforce doesn’t have dysentery.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Yes and it’s a lot easier to have economic growth when your workforce is alive!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
That’s true, though I would add – let Africans own their resources as well as developing them. But not starving to death today is a prerequisite of economic growth tomorrow, just as economic growth tomorrow is a prerequisite of not starving to death next week.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Perhaps. But I don’t think the core mission of either has changed, so in my otherwise un-educated opinion this should not even be an issue.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Sorry Brian, obviously i was feeling a little bold at 1-20 – not sure why it came out like that, was supposed to be a bit less.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
My impression is that moving NZ’s aid away from other developing countries and into the Pacific in greater concentration is likely to be counterproductive, even if only narrowly construed foreign policy goals are our criteria.
For a start, there is already resistance to NZ’s overt attempts at directing the policies of Pacific nations. NZ has stepped away from this to a large extent (excepting Fiji’s regime – and that’s another day’s debate), but is still viewed with some wariness. If McCully’s comments about using aid to direct other countries become policy, this is likely to drive these countries closer to China which is settling in comfortably in the Pacific and giving large amounts of aid in ways that Pacific leaders are often very comfortable with.
Additionally, NZ gains foreign policy influence cheaply in the large developing countries it does help out in, such as Indonesia and Vietnam. While these programs are aimed at reducing poverty and suffering, they also help ties with these countries which are large and developing in influence and economic terms. Aid is noticed and forms a crucial part of ‘soft power’. The Bush administration retained very healthy relations with most of Africa due in large part to their aid towards HIV/AIDs and malaria.
It seems like an obvious idea – use aid as a carrot and stick for foreign policy objectives. But NZ’s position in the Pacific comes not from being a regional hegemon and hard power, but from social and cultural links, aid and economics. Pacific countries already feel a little patronised, increasing this isn’t likely to further NZ’s power.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
RYAN…….While they are starving they are still breeding tomorrows starving. sustenance for sterilisation in many cases would be the most effective aid.
BRIAN”One problem I have with aid, especially aid to Africa, is that every dollar that gets given is a dollar that the local ruler does not have to spend himself. That means his wife can have a bit extra in her purse for her monthly shopping trip to Harrods.”
BRIAN………Africa?? or Tonga.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
How poor do we have to be before we stop caring for others while our own die on waiting lists, kill their own children for sport and can’t feed themselves Ryan?
Our country is in some deep shit and you want to piss away our resources on others at the expense of New Zealanders so you can fell good while smugly feeling superior with you latte and sticky bun.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Well, that’s what I’m asking. 60% iPod ownership? 20%?
And who in our country doesn’t have the option of getting fed?
I think it’s safe to say we should feel inferior if we do nothing.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Ryan
If you want to feel inferior then go right ahead, feel as inferior as you like.
But please, don’t tell me that my life will be enhanced if I continue to have money stolen from me (tax) and given away by faceless government officials to people in other countries.
I could tell you that the money would be better off staying in NZ, I could say that we have our own charities that need the money more but the reality is that I simply do not give a shit about the starving kids in Africa or the poor in the pacific.
It is my bloody money and I will choose who gets my charity.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
So you don’t buy the arguments articulated above that it can be an effective tool of New Zealand’s foreign policy then?
March 9th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I don’t own an ipod, give me aid!
I find it hard to believe you are actually that stupid, yet this is the only evidence I have.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
the reality is that I simply do not give a shit about the starving kids in Africa or the poor in the pacific.
The reality is that most NZers do give a shit.
The other reality is that Governments that give very little or no aid tend to lose a lot of influence in international affairs.
Ergo, Governments give aid.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Thanks for the good karma.
Stephen Stratford
I’m looking forward to reading ‘Dead Aid’. But if aid is inherently bad, how do we explain the rise of the Asian economies? They received plenty.
Brain Smaller (12.51)
NZ used to give aid to Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia. They don’t seem to have become dependent, and are all considered rich enough to sort their own problems. My guess is that aid helps good governments do useful things, and provides stuff for bad governments to steal. The trick is to give it in ways that are readily monitored, and (as far as possible) involve the local population in the monitoring. No one likes being stolen from, and even unelected rulers need to watch their back.
georgedarroch
Interesting points – I will have to give that some thought.
big bruv
Feel free to get the political party of your choice to campaign on stopping aid. I suspect you will find that it is one of the more popular areas of government spending. Good luck with that.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Bill Easterly’s books “The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics” and “The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good” (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bill+easterly)
are pretty damming indictments, by a former senior World Bank staffer, of what is wrong with the theory and reality of most large-scale development assistance. In a nutshell, it doesn’t do what it was intended to do (reduce poverty) and has probably made things worse in some cases, by financing despots.
I like the example that granting Chinese farmers the right to sell the product of their labours lifted 150 million people out of poverty almost overnight, and the World Bank had nothing to do with it. Respecting property rights and encouraging trade makes people wealthy!! Who knew?
So I would certainly argue that New Zealand should be looking very carefully at the utility of its official development assistance.
I would, however, favour increased efforts by private bodies that give humanitarian assistance and are involved in local development projects. Simple things like micro-finance, where locals are given small loans, and are required to pay commercial rates of interest to honest lenders seem to work extremely well.
New Zealand’s official efforts should be spent on removing the barriers to trade that keep people poor.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
New Zealand’s official efforts should be spent on removing the barriers to trade that keep people poor.
Now I disagree partially with the premise, but putting that aside;
MFAT officials already dedicate a very large proportion of their efforts to removing trade barriers. Particularly on primary produce, as NZ has the economic profile of a developing country in many ways with such a large dependence on agriculture. NZ and the rest of the Cairns Group side with the G77 of developing nations often on such matters.
What’s being suggested is that NZAID’s human development work be subsumed to trade work. There are obvious overlaps, but the two aren’t equivalent.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
That is a perfectly consistent position to take.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
if it’s wrong to be inflamatory, what do you call this?
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/in_ponsonby_yesterday.html
March 10th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Storm in a tea cup stuff.
Murray McCully is just trying to deliver more bang for the Aid buck.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Murray McCully is just trying to deliver more bang for the Aid buck.
That’s a good goal. However, McCully seems to be the only one that thinks he can do it by merging NZAid back into MFAT. As I detailed above, it didn’t work in the past. So far McCully hasn’t even attempted to explain why it will work better this time.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:03 am
We have something similair to foreign aid right in our own back yard. It’s called WFF. Didn’t Helen tell us that WFF has substantially eliminated poverty such that an underclass no longer exists. Utter shit. All it has done is provide the underclass with more disposable income and an incentive to breed. WFF, like foreign aid will only create improvement and reduce poverty if it is spent effectively and that spending is monitored and accounted for.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:46 am
New Zealand is lucky to man of Murray McCully’s top class caliber serving as it’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. He knows his stuff and will deliver top results for New Zealand.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:50 am
Murray says on March 10th, 2009 at 10:03 am:
To true. If New Zealand is every to get itself out of Welfare dependency then Bludging for Families must be scrapped. The sooner the better.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:55 am
Talking of Welfare Dependency, when is that fat fuck Russell Brown going to get the sack from his taxpayer funded job at TVNZ?
That’s one bludger New Zealand definitely does not need.