Development Aid_Reflection Memo

In class, before starting the discussion, we tried to give a definition of development aid and I would like to start my reflection recalling it. The development aid can be defined as the financial aid given by governments, international organizations and other international (or not) agencies to foster and support the economic, political and social development in some countries, especially the ones who are still developing economically speaking. I think it is quite important, even if it’s not easy, trying to define what do we mean for development aid, in order to firstly being able to look at the phenomenon in exam and secondly because is a field of the international cooperation that is continuously under changes. The development aid may assume different forms and so it can consist in the value of official development assistance (ODA), official aid or also the form of private loans. Therefore, when we are looking to one project, one essential thing to do is to understand where the money come from and for what they are conceived to be used by the NGOs, the local associations, the governments or the giving institutions. Acting in this way, one can see if the aid received it’s using in a proper way and what are the achievements reached since that moment. Surely is not the only way to examine the relevance of a project but is undoubtedly one of the indicators to look to.

After having understood what we mean for development aid, is also interesting see when in the international debate started the discourse around the international aid. The origin of the modern development aid can be traced back to the adoption of the US Marshall Plan in 1947. It was designed (officially) for the reconstruction of Europe (as also Japan and other countries in Asia) after the end of the Second World War and with the aim of increase the resilience of the EU countries against the spreading of the communism. One question arose during the debate in class was why the United States should have done something like this and so donate millions of dollar to other countries? Behind the two main “officially” stated interests recalled above, there are some other motives also beyond the humanitarianism and morality willingness to help, and these are the possibility to create connections, benefits and “special relationships”, or like the share of knowledge and skills among different countries and players. Thus, can be seen as a confirmation that nothing, especially when important State’s interests are in stake, is done freely or without constraints. As well as the United States, also the former Soviet Union, in the aftermath of the Second World War, tried to exercised influence in countries under its control through different methods and, giving aid for development in the form of financial aid or military-logistic support, was one of them. Therefore, it can be said that both the so-called superpowers have knowledge and experience in this field. Both have claimed, for the last 50 years since 1990s, to be the right and only model of State, economy, society and way to follow. Given that we are speaking about an issue that involved both of them, one so should ask: did it worked the way through which they give money and aid for the development? If yes, what are the achievements reached, and in which fields? If not, what went wrong and why?

 Answering to these questions is not simple at all. Firstly, maybe they are too vague so in order to give a fair view of this phenomenon one should look at one case study and look at its history and dynamics, because each States has its own characteristics and for that differs from another. Secondly, the US and the former Soviet Union were and are not the only actors who played a role in the international cooperation in the last 60 years. Indeed, a relevant role was, and still now is, played by the former motherlands and so by Great Britain, France and Italy, which mainly lay their action in this field on moral obligations towards their former colonies. Other important actors are the medium powers like Canada, Japan (until 1973 when it finished paying back the US for the debts caused during the Second World War and started its economic grow) and the Nordic countries like Sweden, Norway or Denmark. The behaviour of these States differs quite a lot from the US’ one in example, because of the differences in the values on which the societies are structured and relay on and for the motives who lead their involvement and action in giving aid and money. Hence, the Nordic States in giving development aid are referring on humanitarian and moral obligations so on the belief that rich countries have the duty to help the poor. At the same time among those countries was also developed the idea of Nordic welfare state thought with the aim of helping poor people and group with no or weak access to resources. Thus, it seems they are following a pattern towards the issue of the development aid, which in a sense is as an “extension” or a lengthening of what they are doing with their own citizens. One question that one should ask now is: does the pattern followed by the Nordic countries contribute in a positive way to the development of the recipients countries of aid? Can be traced some useful guidelines in their behaviour towards the development aid that can be used in a combination with others?

One thing that I have noticed during the discussion in class is that, after having identified the main actors who played an important role in the issue at stake, someone said that the majority, if not all, the patterns of development followed since now have failed because there are still countries in need and still same problems of yesterday. I do not agree with this opinion because I think that it is too simplistic saying something like this and it does not fit well the reality of the things. Certainly, is true that often the money and aid received from ODA’s countries was misused or ended to be spent by the authorities inappropriately, and this is especially true in some African States were the level of corruption is really high and tangled with the society. Therefore, it happened that the target of some projects was not reached due to a range of different motives but despite that, this is just a side of a medal. Indeed, looking at the situation worldwide we can say that a lot of improvements and achievements were obtained also because of the constant work of the local communities and actors who believed in what they were doing and have faced problems and difficulties at their best, maybe sometimes even failing but then picking up again.

In addition, seeing how capital is invested and how money is used it is quite a difficult issue because the effect of capital investments depends on each so-called recipient countries, and so on the conditions of countries who are receiving money and aid. There are many areas or sectors involved in the development aid; the most important in term of amount of money donated is the social sector who entailed different kind of projects from water supply and health to education or good governance and civil society. These projects are mainly based on moral or humanitarian values and in my opinion, especially the social projects, but not only, should be conceived to be a springboard for the later development of the local communities. At the centre of the action of NGOs, local agencies or organizations that work in the field of the cooperation should be the individual. For that, every steps undertaken should be conceived putting the basic needs of individuals at first, with the aim of granting equal fundamental rights to everyone.

In this context, we can refer also to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of United Nation in which, among the goals to reach are listed also the fight to HIV/AIDS, malaria and other disease, reduce child mortality, eradicate extreme poverty and achieve universal primary education. A lot has been done since now but we cannot say that these problems are not anymore. In order to being able to try to solve, or reduce these problems, I think that what is required is a strong and good faith cooperation among the numerous actors at the international level and the willingness not to exploit situations to their own advantages. A not easy task again.

I would like to end my comment saying that I still have hope in people. I believe that if we want to see the change in something or riot against a model or a way to behave that we see as not sufficient to solve the problem, we should star first start changing the thing by ourselves. We can be the change that we want to see in the world, but always respecting other ideas and believes because we are all the same, with the same desire of happiness and joy.