African Debt Relief

[Orwell]

But we are talking aobut what needs to be done to reduce poverty in the region. Who did what to whom is irrelevant, it is about where these countries see the problems at hand.

Blaming history and those nasty colonisers, or western financial institutions or lack of foreign aid etc. is an excuse from taking responsibility and accountability for your own role in the perpetuation of the problem. To that end, it is and always has been, up to Africa leaders to prod each other to do the best thing, rather than the most self serving thing.

You say african leaders have to take responsibility for their actions. Right-o! Who can argue with that? But they are not the only ones who have to take responsibility for their actions. The ex-colonising powers have to take responsibility for their past actions. The institutions and countries that loaned money to irresponsible african leaders also have to take responsibility for their actions. Why should african nations trying to scrape by have to pay interests on debts contracted by irresponsible leaders? The countries that armed african nations and african rebel groups in the name of anti-communism or anti-imperialism (but the old USSR doesn't exist anymore, and what,s left of it is now too poor to do anything) also have to take responsibility for their actions. The companies who have made deals with repressive governments so that they can continue to exploit african resources also need to take responsibility for their actions. Hell, the IMF and Wordl Bank, with their counterproductive one size fits all economic policies that often have caused more arm than good also have to take responsibility for their actions!

In so far as trying to reach a solution, we in the west are just observers, trying to assuage our collective social consciences (despite a complete absence of personal or individual culpability) by throwing money or wringing our hand while making statements that comfort our own emotions on the issue.

Read above.

An interesting anecdote on that guilt issue. Did you know that U2 were one of the first acts booked to play at Live Aid and they pulled out the night before (like 2am)? The reason was because the logistics of the event meant they couldn't do a sound check before their slot. Now Bono flies around the world as an extremely wealthy man living in a tax haven telling everyone they have to cough up billions and billions of tax payers' money as a solution to poverty in Africa. Bollocks to him, his guilt, hypocracy and the soft headed thinking that makes a popular movement of a extremely flawed and potentially destructive policy.

Personally, I'm in favour of aid for concrete immediate problems (education, basic hygiene and disease control, some basic infrastructure, etc.), the kind of aid that is immediately useful and relatively easy to track. Doing nothing would, I think, be worse in the long run, from an humanitarian, political and security standpoint. As for the rest, I agree that debt relief is not enough (specially if it comes with conditions like totally opening recipient African countries to trade) and I agree with the author of the column that opened this thread:

Africa is asked to open its markets to the massively subsidized goods of the rich, thus destroying their own agriculture and attempts at export. “Trade is the root of the problem,” the Make Poverty History campaign has told the BBC. But trade is not mentioned.

I cannot rate corruption as Africa's second-biggest problem, lacking the space to explain the ironies, given the corruption of U.S. corporations and the amusing fact that the G8 nations have refused to sign the UN convention against corruption. They'd rather pay the bribes. And the most corrupt nations are IMF pets.

 

[Drooper]

It is not a good example of a country that will get its debts forgiven. Your argument makes no distinction between different countries. It's like saying that because Mexico doesn't have a very good government, Canada can't be trusted because it is on the same continent.

Africa is a big continent, you know. It has many different countries, so you shouldn't generalise all those countries by looking only at the worst.How many of those will get their debts forgiven? That's right: only one.

Only countries that fulfill certain criteria, one of which is good governance, will get their debts forgiven. Since Uganda will, you'll have to present evidence that it's government is so horribly bad that it shouldn't.The Soviet Union under Stalin is also. But similarly has nothing to do with the topic.To me that doesn't sound so different from what most other countries do. It's called 'diplomacy'.

First, most of your facts are wrong. Under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative, most of the countries have or are progressing throw debt forgiveness from official sources. This includes Congo, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Cote D'Ivoire, Sudan of the coutries I mentioned (a few more than one note!!) plus at least 20-25 others in Africa. Go and check the HIPC and get the facts.

Secondly, we are now dealing with an expanded agenda to write off all debt of all "poor" countries countries no strings attached. This is what will be on the table at the upcoming G8 conference:

For poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa which need it, the objective must be 100 per cent debt cancellation as soon as possible. This must be part of a financing package for these countries – including those excluded from current debt schemes

COmmission for Africa

Thirdly, the "criteria" employed under the HIPC have been and are poor and not particuarly onerous. You brought up Uganda. Well, did you see the head of the Ugandan tax office claim in an interview that the amount of foreign aid flowing into the country meant that the government were not reforming the tax system. This means that around 50% of tax revenues go uncollected. This is symptomatic of the problems. Massive aid and debt forgiveness just produces the wrong incentives.


So basically you are wrong from beginning to end.

So when are you going to stump up some evidence that shows how foreign debt and insufficient sums of foreign aid are the source of poverty in African countries?

 

[Drooper]

You say african leaders have to take responsibility for their actions. Right-o! Who can argue with that? But they are not the only ones who have to take responsibility for their actions. The ex-colonising powers have to take responsibility for their past actions. The institutions and countries that loaned money to irresponsible african leaders also have to take responsibility for their actions. Why should african nations trying to scrape by have to pay interests on debts contracted by irresponsible leaders? The countries that armed african nations and african rebel groups in the name of anti-communism or anti-imperialism also have to take responsibility for their actions. The companies who have made deals with repressive governments so that they can continue to exploit african resources also need to take responsibility for their actions. Hell, the IMF and Wordl Bank, with their counterproductive one size fits all economic policies that cause more arm than good also have to take responsibility for their actions!

I return to the issue at hand.

Foreign debt and a shortage of foreign aid are not the causes or obstacle to eradicating poverty in Africa. Can you give evidence to the contrary?

At the very least you will need to justify (again emotive) claims such as:

Why should african nations trying to scrape by have to pay interests on debts contracted by irresponsible leaders?

When very little interest is paid on these debts, and where they are, official aid is increased specifically to pick up the tab. So there isn't a lot of scraping going on.

As for past despots and so on. Well, the despots you will be raging at tomorrow are the very government officials you are claiming are good and worthy of bucket loads of additional aid today. And you really need to do beetter than simply wave you hand and claim "it was all the fault of those nasty guys in times gone by and nothing to do with us". Governments rest on populations, regardless of how depotic they are. Mugabe, Taylor, Amin etc. need as much of the electorate behind them as George Bush has in the US. Do you think the next generation of American can cry off an obligation to debt run up by that nasty George W.? After all, fewer than 40% pf the electorate wanted him and certainly not me or my ancestors."

Read above.


Personally, I'm in favour of aid for concrete immediate problems (education, basic hygiene and disease control, some basic infrastructure, the kinds of things that are immediately useful and relatively easy to track. The kinds of things that are necessary to get a country working. Doing nothing would, I think, be worse in the long run, from an humanitarian, political and security standpoint. As for the rest, I agree with the author of the column that opened this thread:

I'm not against aid or debt foregiveness, but neither of these things are at the source of Africa's problems and nethier will they be at the heart of a solution. None of those important initiatives you mention are absent in Africa for lack of an ability to resource. As I mentioned in a post above, one example is Uganda, supposedly one of those countries with better governance, where almost half the tax revenue available to the government is not collected, because there is so much free cash coming in. It is that level of inefficiency and waste that is screwing Africa

However, the present Live 8 drive, more the product of celebrity endorsement and emotional appeal is driving policy down that very route.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Orwell:
You say african leaders have to take responsibility for their actions. Right-o! Who can argue with that? But they are not the only ones who have to take responsibility for their actions. The ex-colonising powers have to take responsibility for their past actions. The institutions and countries that loaned money to irresponsible african leaders also have to take responsibility for their actions. Why should african nations trying to scrape by have to pay interests on debts contracted by irresponsible leaders? The countries that armed african nations and african rebel groups in the name of anti-communism or anti-imperialism also have to take responsibility for their actions. The companies who have made deals with repressive governments so that they can continue to exploit african resources also need to take responsibility for their actions. Hell, the IMF and Wordl Bank, with their counterproductive one size fits all economic policies that often have caused more arm than good also have to take responsibility for their actions!

How exactly do these myriad interests take responsibility for their actions?

Take the ex-colonising powers, for instance. Are they obliged to remove the despots they've supported for so long by force, even if these same despots and their patrons block any such moves at the UN? Ought reparations be paid to African countries, even if most of the money is likely to end up in a Swiss bank account if current conditions remain?

Which companies have been exploiting African resources in an immoral manner? From what little I've read it's the lack of foreign investment, and the official impediments to it that's the problem.

 

[Orwell]

I return to the issue at hand.

Foreign debt and a shortage of foreign aid are not the causes or obstacle to eradicating poverty in Africa. Can you give evidence to the contrary?

I think that foreign debt is an obstacle to the eradication of poverty in Africa.

Much of the debt accumulated by African countries was built up during the 1970s, a time of reckless lending by banks and international agencies, and was agreed to by undemocratic governments. In many cases, the population of the borrowing country realized little benefit from the loans as the money disappeared in failed infrastructure projects, corrupt schemes, or unwise investments. The debt has continued to grow since then as governments take out new loans to pay off old ones.

In 1996, sub-Saharan Africa (minus South Africa) paid $2.5 billion more in debt servicing than it got in new long-term loans and credits. The IMF alone has transferred over $3 billion out of Africa since the mid-1980s.

It is the poor people of the indebted countries, those who benefited least, who end up paying the bills through scarce resources diverted to debt servicing, and through the effects of the IMF/World Bank austerity programs. These "structural adjustment programs," which have been imposed repeatedly on almost every country in the region since the early 1980s, mandate massive lay-offs, sharp reductions in credit, increased taxes and higher interest rates, cuts in spending on health and education, and currency devaluation Average real wages decreased in 26 out of 28 African countries surveyed during the 1980s. Cuts in health spending have led to an increase in infant mortality; African children are expected to account for about 40% of infant deaths worldwide by the year 2000. Millions of small farmers, especially women, have been devastated by IMF-induced cuts in credit and agricultural services. Some 40% of the population suffers from some degree of malnutrition.

http://www.50years.org/factsheets/africa.html

At the very least you will need to justify (again emotive) claims such as:

It was not an emotive claim. The quote above backs that claim up.

When very little interest is paid on these debts, and where they are, official aid is increased specifically to pick up the tab. So there isn't a lot of scraping going on.

Many people claim (including Gordon Brown) that it's debt interest payments that prevent many poor countries from investing in health and education.

There are some countries who have had partial debt relief:

In Benin, 54% of the money saved through debt relief has been spent on health, including on rural primary health care and HIV programmes.
In Tanzania, debt relief enabled the government to abolish primary school fees, leading to a 66% increase in attendance.
After Mozambique was granted debt relief, it was able to offer all children free immunisation.
In Uganda, debt relief led to 2.2 million people gaining access to clean water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_relief

Things are often not black & white. You have to put up the potential good things that come out of debt relief and aid against the potential bad things that these actions may cause. Overall, I think that debt relief and aid will do more good than bad.

As for past despots and so on. Well, the despots you will be raging at tomorrow are the very government officials you are claiming are good and worthy of bucket loads of additional aid today. And you really need to do beetter than simply wave you hand and claim "it was all the fault of those nasty guys in times gone by and nothing to do with us". Governments rest on populations, regardless of how depotic they are. Mugabe, Taylor, Amin etc. need as much of the electorate behind them as George Bush has in the US. Do you think the next generation of American can cry off an obligation to debt run up by that nasty George W.? After all, fewer than 40% pf the electorate wanted him and certainly not me or my ancestors."

You can't make that claim for many african countries. Generally, the base of power of most African dictators has been tribal or military (or both) i.e. they use a small section of the population (which they shower with gifts to insure loyalty) to control the rest of the population. Saddam worked in a similar way. You are also not considering the fact that loans to these dictators were often facilitated so that these dcitators would side with western interests.

I'm not against aid or debt foregiveness, but neither of these things are at the source of Africa's problems and nethier will they be at the heart of a solution. None of those important initiatives you mention are absent in Africa for lack of an ability to resource. As I mentioned in a post above, one example is Uganda, supposedly one of those countries with better governance, where almost half the tax revenue available to the government is not collected, because there is so much free cash coming in. It is that level of inefficiency and waste that is screwing Africa

However, the present Live 8 drive, more the product of celebrity endorsement and emotional appeal is driving policy down that very route.

I don't think that debt relief and aid will be the solution to African problems. I think that aid money should be spent in specific aid projects which actually help the poor. I do believe that debt relief (without counterproductive conditions attached) and aid are necessary to get these countries up and running. I also believe that, in the medium to long term, the best way to help these countries is trade. But not any kind of trade! Fair trade, where these countries actually have the chance to compete in equal terms with, for instance, western agriculture (which is now massively subsidised)!

 

[Orwell]

How exactly do these myriad interests take responsibility for their actions?

Take the ex-colonising powers, for instance. Are they obliged to remove the despots they've supported for so long by force, even if these same despots and their patrons block any such moves at the UN? Ought reparations be paid to African countries, even if most of the money is likely to end up in a Swiss bank account if current conditions remain?

Which companies have been exploiting African resources in an immoral manner? From what little I've read it's the lack of foreign investment, and the official impediments to it that's the problem.

Here's how to take responsibility: by providing responsible foreign aid geared towards specific problems that actually helps the poor, accompanied by fair trade practices. Debt reduction is also a good idea, most of these debts are irrecoverable anyway. For instance, opening up schools and hospitals, along with providing clean water, doesn't give as many opportunities for abuse as, I don't know, just giving money away. In the long run, improved and cheap education is one of the things than could contribute the most towards poverty reduction.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Orwell:
Here's how to take responsibility: by providing responsible foreign aid geared towards specific problems that actually helps the poor, accompanied by fair trade practices. Debt reduction is also a good idea, most of these debts are irrecoverable anyway. For instance, opening up schools and hospitals, along with providing clean water, doesn't give as many opportunities for abuse as, I don't know, just giving money away. In the long run, improved and cheap education is one of the things than could contribute the most towards poverty reduction.

Who exactly would build these hospitals and schools? Would contractors, labour and materials be sourced in the developed world, so as to prevent resources falling into the hands of corrupt Africans? When built these schools and hospitals would still be subject to the whims of a corrupt state apparatus. How would you suggest reforming corrupt governments so that aid could be directed and spent properly?

How would you implement fair trade practices over the objections of lobby groups and vested interests in the developed world. It's hard enough to implement fair trade practices within the EU, never mind between Europe and Africa.

 

[Earthborn]

This includes Congo, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Cote D'Ivoire, Sudan of the coutries I mentioned (a few more than one note!!) plus at least 20-25 others in Africa.

Are the governments of those 20-25 others so horribly bad, or do you just assume that they are because they are in Africa?

Go and check the HIPC and get the facts.

Sure.

Copy and paste this url in two parts and remove a %20 somewhere. The forum sofware can't make it a working link
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTDEBTDEPT/0,,contentMDK:20260049~menuPK:528655~pagePK:64166689~piPK:64166646~theSitePK:469043,00.html

You'll see that only of the countries you mentioned, only Uganda has reached 'completion point'. The others are either in 'decision point' or 'pre-decision point'. I assume that means the decision whether they will get debt relief is not yet made.

So when are you going to stump up some evidence that shows how foreign debt and insufficient sums of foreign aid are the source of poverty in African countries?

When I make such a claim, which is not terribly likely. I feel no need to provide evidence for things I have never claimed.

 

[Orwell]

Who exactly would build these hospitals and schools? Would contractors, labour and materials be sourced in the developed world, so as to prevent resources falling into the hands of corrupt Africans? When built these schools and hospitals would still be subject to the whims of a corrupt state apparatus. How would you suggest reforming corrupt governments so that aid could be directed and spent properly?

These things are already presently being done by many NGOs, often using local contractors. I think that, considering past practices in these countries, a certain level of corruption is to be expected. But I believe it can be minimised by strict accounting and on site management and supervision.

One thing that must be clear is that these have to be temporary arrangements. The responsibility for education, water, health, whatever, can't be permanently handed over to NGOs. Eventually, Africans will have to be the ones that take over and run things.

How would you implement fair trade practices over the objections of lobby groups and vested interests in the developed world. It's hard enough to implement fair trade practices within the EU, never mind between Europe and Africa.

Actually, I agree with you on the difficulty of properly doing this! This is why I'm sceptical about the long term prospects of these debt relief schemes. I think they are necessary, but I also think they are not enough. But what am I suppose to do? Oppose the debt relief efforts because the other things that I think are needed are not implemented? Better something than nothing...

 

[Darat]

From what we can observe I can't reach that conclusion. Correlation is not causality for example, compare the experience of colonised countries outside Africa - contrary evidence there.

Another thing I would consider is comparison with areas not colonised, but that is a bit difficult in Africa.

This is when I think we have to be careful about the level of detail we use in our generalisation. Each ex-colonised country has to be looked at quite separately, and if we want to talk about the consequences of colonisation there is another unique history behind each country. (There were many different colonial powers each that colonised in very different ways and even between two countries colonised by the same power there could be immense differences at a local level.)

And even then, there were some positive side effects from colonisation (increasing trade routes, improving general infrastructure), where in many cases this legacy has been destroyed (good old Bob Mugabe again for exmaple)

Unfortunately this is one of those cases were we simply just do not know what would have happened if we (the European colonial powers) had not colonised many of the African countries, it could be that the "positive side effects" you identify would have happened or even been superseded without colonisation. (Of course the truth could be as you state it.)

 

[a_unique_person]

Is that what the said? He is so lame. Yeah, it's all down to those nasty colonist. Australia, Canada, India, USA, Ireland, New Zealand etc.etc.

Colonisation is clearly the root of the problem of povery in Africa.

You put up a challenge, I am trying to run with it. My apologies if I have offended you.

 

[demon]

Pilger cutting through the BS....


quote:
THE G8 SUMMIT: A FRAUD AND A CIRCUS

The front page of the London Observer on 12 June announced, "55 billion Africa debt deal 'a victory for millions'." The "victory for millions" is a quotation of Bob Geldof, who said, "Tomorrow 280 million Africans will wake up for the first time in their lives without owing you or me a penny...". The nonsense of this would be breathtaking if the reader's breath had not already been extracted by the unrelenting sophistry of Geldof, Bono, Blair, the Observer et al.

Edited by Darat: 

Edited for breach of Rule 4.

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133469

 

[Jon_in_london]

Ah... Pilger! The well known Daily Mirror hack!

 

[Drooper]

Are the governments of those 20-25 others so horribly bad, or do you just assume that they are because they are in Africa?Sure.

Copy and paste this url in two parts and remove a %20 somewhere. The forum sofware can't make it a working link
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTDEBTDEPT/0,,contentMDK:20260049~menuPK:528655~pagePK:64166689~piPK:64166646~theSitePK:469043,00.html

You'll see that only of the countries you mentioned, only Uganda has reached 'completion point'. The others are either in 'decision point' or 'pre-decision point'. I assume that means the decision whether they will get debt relief is not yet made.When I make such a claim, which is not terribly likely. I feel no need to provide evidence for things I have never claimed.

As you now reveal, most are either in the program, enterng the program, or temporarily unable to enter the program due to internal conflict. So we can now agree on that. But that is a complete red herring.


I find I have to keep going back to the central issue. Is wholesale debt relief and/or massive increases in foreign aid the solution to poverty in Africa.

I say that case hasn't been made and, if anything, these things are not even required and are potentially detrimental. Looking at history and around the world, charity giving in the form of foreign aid played no role in creating the conditions that allowed countries that grow successfully from poor to developing and then wealthy.


You talk about "bad governments". It has nothing to do with "good" or "bad", but about how these countries are governed (as in how competently). Larger and larger sums of foreign aid (and that is what we are talking about here - a commitment to double aid) and debt write-off only help to support incompetency and intransigence in the areas that really matter - governing and administering the country better.

 

[Drooper]

Bite sized chunks

I think that foreign debt is an obstacle to the eradication of poverty in Africa.

How so?

Did you know that interest isn't paid on most of this debt?

Did you know that foreign aid is specifically increased to cover the remainder?

Imagine I lent you $1 million, then said don't worry about half the interest payments and then Darat and Jon said, don't worry about the rest we'll give you some money to cover that.

That is why the debt issue is falsely presented. That is why it is not a cause of poverty and that is why it is not an obstacle to the eradication of poverty.

Try a test of logic. These country didn't always have this debt, but they plummeted into poverty, or remained poor as they accumulated it. SO it didn't cause the poverty in the first place did it? It was a symptom of poor governance and policy. It still is a symptom of poor governance and policy and a cause of nothing.

 

[Darat]

As you now reveal, most are either in the program, enterng the program, or temporarily unable to enter the program due to internal conflict. So we can now agree on that. But that is a complete red herring.


I find I have to keep going back to the central issue. Is wholesale debt relief and/or massive increases in foreign aid the solution to poverty in Africa.

Are people saying it is "the" solution or just a “part” of the solution?

I say that case hasn't been made and, if anything, these things are not even required and are potentially detrimental. Looking at history and around the world, charity giving in the form of foreign aid played no role in creating the conditions that allowed countries that grow successfully from poor to developing and then wealthy.

Should we not separate out "aid" and the "debt relief/eradication" when we are discussing this issue? They can of course be linked and you can describe "debt relief" as a form of "aid", but I think in this discussion it would be good to keep them distinct.

Can you make the case for why "these things are not even required"? (I'm assuming you are talking about aid with "these things"?)

You talk about "bad governments". It has nothing to do with "good" or "bad", but about how these countries are governed (as in how competently). Larger and larger sums of foreign aid (and that is what we are talking about here - a commitment to double aid) and debt write-off only help to support incompetency and intransigence in the areas that really matter - governing and administering the country better.

We have a point of disagreement in that I believe it does matter whether the governments are "good" or "bad". To me the fundamentals of this issue is that this is about people, not countries and "bad" government no matter how competently it handles its finances is by definition not concerned with the fate of the people of that country. Therefore it is right that we try to determine (if we are to give aid) that our money goes to good and competent governments, that way the aim of the aid (to help people) will be achieved. And if the dangling of money is a way of getting some improvement for the majority of people then I think it is a tool we should use.

 

[Drooper]

I don't think that debt relief and aid will be the solution to African problems.

Well, it seems in some areas we are not poles apart.

I do believe that debt relief (without counterproductive conditions attached) and aid are necessary to get these countries up and running.

Debt relief doesn't matter (see post above).
Not sure what you mean about "counter productive conditions". It leaves me wary, because I claim that many of these countries have no incentive to reform governance and even more money(remember proposal at hand is to double aid) will do nothing to change that, only makes things worse. If debt relief or the promise of additional aid has any role it is as leverage to promote reform.

And another point on aid that is never acknowledged is the adverse macroeconomic effect that large sums of foreign money have on these countries, by pushing demand for a wide range of goods and services in the local market that pushes up inflation. Again, this is an economic point that is important, but tends to get ignored.

I also believe that, in the medium to long term, the best way to help these countries is trade. But not any kind of trade! Fair trade, where these countries actually have the chance to compete in equal terms with, for instance, western agriculture (which is now massively subsidised)!

At this point I hear alarm bells. "Fair trade" is a clear red flag.
I agree with complete abolition of subsidies, tariff and non-tariff trade barriers (but this includes those African countries as well).


But in the end it will all come back to the way these countries are run. And I suspect it means doing things that you see as being "counter productive".

 

[Drooper]

Are people saying it is "the" solution or just a “part” of the solution?

In the populace, I would claim the former. Look at the Live 8 blurb.

And unfortunately, politicians get infected by popular culture and thinking and dazzled by celebrity photo opportunities. Hence Gordon Brown's enthousiasm - he is making his global political mark.

Should we not separate out "aid" and the "debt relief/eradication" when we are discussing this issue? They can of course be linked and you can describe "debt relief" as a form of "aid", but I think in this discussion it would be good to keep them distinct.

Well, to a large extent thaey are linked. When debt intetest payments started to increase, foreign aid was increased to cover them.

But, as I state in many other places, debt relief is a complete red herring. I see this as just another campaign (Jubilee 2000, Drop the Debt, Bono etc.) diverting attention from the real issues.

Can you make the case for why "these things are not even required"? (I'm assuming you are talking about aid with "these things"?)

You will have to trawl back to an earlier post. Foreign aid has not be a necessary condition for countries around the world to rise out of poverty. I give a simple list off the top of my head in that post, but I am sure you can think of plenty yourself.

We have a point of disagreement in that I believe it does matter whether the governments are "good" or "bad". To me the fundamentals of this issue is that this is about people, not countries and "bad" government no matter how competently it handles its finances is by definition not concerned with the fate of the people of that country. Therefore it is right that we try to determine (if we are to give aid) that our money goes to good and competent governments, that way the aim of the aid (to help people) will be achieved. And if the dangling of money is a way of getting some improvement for the majority of people then I think it is a tool we should use.

Unfortunely, there is a moral conundrum here, especially for people in the west and in one sense it highlight my central point.

If you are truly interested in eradicating poverty as your primary goal, then it is all about governance (or competence), not morality.

A "bad" government, if run competently, could be solution to poverty in a country. A "good" government run poorly definitely is not. And there is ample evidence that shows that to be true.

As an aside on that point. You often hear politicians and other waffling about democracy being an important condition to improving economic welfare. Actually, all the economic research indicates that democracy or not makes no difference, it is all in the competence, or governance.

No, I am not advocating oppressive regimes, but trying to draw attention to what are the true causes of poverty and hence what we really need to try and change (not just throw more money that would perpetuate the inderlying causes)

 

[Jon_in_london]

erm..

how can a "good" government be incompetent and a "bad" government be competent? Surely one defines the other?

 

[Drooper]

erm..

how can a "good" government be incompetent and a "bad" government be competent? Surely one defines the other?

This concept of "bad" as opposed to "good" was introduced by earthborn amd I interpeted it to mean in a moral sense - as in despotic vs. benign.

SO, one might describe the Chinese government as "bad" given attitude to human rights, but they are generally competent and good governance is in evidence in many areas that count.

Some people would include the US in this category???