Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Underdevelopment and aid: search for a right balance - Part I

By Gustav Ranis - posted Friday, 14 November 2008


For one, it should be acknowledged that policy-based program lending remains the best instrument for achieving “growth with poverty alleviation” objectives in the developing world. Given the well-known fungibility of resources, the country is still the only sensible “project”, and the default position of some critics such as Easterly and Rodrik, to return to a “projects-only” approach, continues to make little sense.

Second, the donor community should permit such new windows to act like banks, or to be more passive, letting would-be borrowers take the initiative but ready to respond, if and when a would-be recipient presents a reform package deemed politically and economically viable. While admittedly large uncertainties attach to what is precisely the right reform package for a particular country at a particular time, such a package has a better chance if genuinely cobbled together by various domestic stakeholders.

Third, an applicant country needing help in formulating such a reform package should look to independent third parties, not the major donors who will find it difficult to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. For the same reason, such help should preferably be financed by foundations or NGOs.

Advertisement

Fourth, the would-be borrowing country would present a “self-conditionality” list. Given the difficulty of any government to do everything at once on a number of policy fronts, realism calls for restricting this number to a few critical bottleneck areas over any three- to five-year period.

The donors, acting like banks, would not simply sign on the dotted line, but negotiate contents and conditions of the proposed reform package. In the final analysis, agreement may or may not be reached in every instance. There should be absolutely no compulsion to lend, and some countries may not be interested in or able to use the new windows over some periods of time. Consequently, prolonged fallow years should be viewed as normal, not failure.

The credibility of this new plan requires the ability to commit funds for successful applicants over a three- to five-year period, long enough to match domestic adjustment requirements occasioned by the reforms. The availability of several new windows would also reduce the current plethora of competitive spigots while avoiding donor monopoly.

The critical element of restored aid credibility also requires that if self-conditionality terms are not met, disbursements are indeed cut.

Admittedly, the obstacles to adopting such an initiative are formidable. It requires a change in the culture in both aid-giving and aid-receiving countries deeply embedded over five decades: OECD parliamentarians must be willing to give up some favourite physical demonstration projects; executive branches must be willing to give up using such flows as an instrument to enhance short-term foreign-policy objectives; and recipients must accept the notion that such aid is meant to reduce the inevitable adjustment pains caused by real reforms, not to take the pressure off.

The stakes are high, but if the current opportunity for change is missed, the sceptics will have had their way.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

Reprinted with permission from YaleGlobal Online - www.yaleglobal.yale.edu - (c) 2008 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Gustav Ranis is the Frank Altschul Professor Emeritus of International Economics at Yale University. He was assistant administrator for Programs and Policy at the Agency for International Development, 1965-67, and has written extensively on aid and development.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy