Development aid and poverty

Many players are involved in official development assistance, from multilateral donors (the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the United Nations and regional development banks, which account for 30% of official aid) to bi-lateral aid.
In addition to these state donors are non-governmental organizations or humanitarian NGOs, which do not form a homogeneous whole, ranging from multinational quasi-companies (Oxfam, Care) to small local associations.
Yet no coordination exists, or is even envisaged (if such coordination were possible) between these different players, who either pursue personal, national or regional interests, or put aid at the service of different political ideologies: between social democracy, as in French-speaking Africa, or primary economic liberalism, as in Zambia, where most public schools are fee-paying, because Sub-Saharan Africa is the place where currents of thought from other parts of the world clash. It's a mirror-place.
During my various missions over the last 13 years in sub-Saharan Africa, whether on behalf of NGOs or the European Commission, I've been able to observe, right from my first contact with this continent, the extent to which these struggles for influence, whether economic or political, by external operators all acting officially for the country's development, have led to growing poverty among the population, and just as great enrichment for most of the local political leaders.
Historically, official development assistance has gone through four phases, and we are now at the dawn of a fifth. Yet, after 60 years of development aid, we can only conclude that poverty is still with us, albeit in slight decline. There are still more than three billion poor people on the planet. Finally, these observations date from 2005, ie before the international crises of 2008, which have had dramatic consequences for the world's poorest populations.
This raises questions about the effectiveness of official development assistance in combating poverty and reducing inequality over the past 60 years. It has to be said that international aid has been – and remains – a tool available to donor countries to serve certain political, strategic or commercial interests. But the cards are changing hands and the world is evolving. On the ground, we are witnessing the emergence of an East-West axis of cooperation, which is slowly replacing the North-South axis. Traditionally, since the 1950s, official development assistance has been channeled from the developed countries in the north of the planet to the south, where the developing countries are grouped. The distribution of aid was decided by the Bretton Woods institutions (World Bank, IMF, etc.) and thus by the five most influential post-war countries (the United States, Japan, Germany, France and the United Kingdom) on the basis of their political and economic ideology. This is still true, but their omnipotence is being silently challenged.
Another axis is emerging, as yet barely visible: an East-West axis from China to Brazil, via Africa. This axis is essentially economic, but effective because it treats developing countries as equals; their relations are not tainted by the rampant neo-colonialism that continues to mar North-South relations. With them come new rules of the game, although these new rules do not replace the old ones, but are superimposed on them. The objective remains the same, namely the pursuit of economic or political advantages for nations.
In the case of African countries with resources, we are witnessing a bidding war by their governments to “sell” themselves to the highest bidders. International aid is then diverted from its intended purpose, and becomes a vehicle for corruption. Proof of this is the fact that social indicators (including education and health) have been observed in many countries over the past decade.
But economic and social inequalities between countries continue to grow. Although the number of poor people worldwide is said to have decreased (source: World Bank) between 1981 and 2001, the poverty rate in sub-Saharan Africa has not fallen over the past twenty-five years (50%). The number of very poor people (an average daily income of less than $0.70) has practically doubled, from 200 to 380 million. By 2015, a third of the world's one billion poor will live in sub-Saharan Africa. Regional inequalities are therefore increasing, above all at the expense of Black Africa.
The difficulties are numerous but identified. They include national interests, a lack of experience on the part of some donors leading to unnecessary additional costs (as in the case of the European Union), and a lack of coordination, often deliberate. However, there are also assets that have recently emerged, such as the digital revolution, the multiplication of exchanges (globalization), and the willingness and know-how of certain operators in the field, including NGOs.
In view of this observation, there are several avenues to be explored. I would like to highlight three of them: raising awareness, integration and coordination.
Raising awareness in terms of time and space
Official development aid should have humanist objectives: poverty reduction through the redistribution of wealth in the broadest sense (monetary transfer, knowledge, etc.). But this is wishful thinking, and the level of global awareness does not yet allow us to approach the problem of redistribution from this angle. It is more realistic to talk about the political and economic objective that can be achieved through the quest for greater equality, ie greater political, economic and social balance.
Indeed, if nothing is done in this direction, social tensions can only increase, leading to explosions that can only slow down global economic growth. It is then possible that nation-states may agree to relinquish some of their power in order to “buy” social peace, in addition to buying access to markets.
The nation-state is also perhaps not the right level of intervention. Below nations, there are regions, and beyond them international organizations. These are the two levels on which it would be possible to act to go beyond national interests, which are a source of corruption and war, particularly in Africa, where borders do not correspond to any historical or human reality.
Greater integration
At international level, it is important for emerging countries to be more integrated and recognized in international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). To achieve this, these institutions need to be reformed to make them more democratic, transparent and simpler in terms of their operation and the number of institutions involved, and to set up arbitration systems for political decisions. It is possible that multilateral aid will gradually replace bilateral aid.
At grassroots level, a balance still needs to be struck between the sensitivities of political leaders and the fact that aid reaches the population directly. In some countries, digital participation or e-governance systems are beginning to emerge (Tunisia, Burkina-Faso, Benin). These systems enable needs to be brought to the forefront, resulting in more targeted aid and, in the best cases, the participation of the population in local political decisions.
These two avenues of reflection point in the direction of greater transparency at both international and local levels.
Coordination
Greater coordination between all development players is a major challenge for several reasons. Firstly, it would reduce costs by consolidating aid distribution systems at the level of international organizations, as these become more democratic and truly independent of the nation-states of which they are composed.
Secondly, it is important to include NGOs in these coordination mechanisms, as they act in line with European principles and as close as possible to local populations. Indeed, some of them possess genuine know-how in terms of development aid and always act as close as possible to the needs of populations, unlike international governmental organizations (UN, World Bank…)
However, a system for monitoring and evaluating development aid needs to be put in place. Audits and evaluations could be carried out by independent bodies.
The world is not more complex, because it has always been the bearer of ignored wealth, but it is more open; individuals are more informed; they can access more knowledge; they can multiply links. Hence the feeling of greater complexity, as powers and potentialities that were once muzzled find expression, for better or worse. Alliances are easier and more numerous. Out of this apparent chaos, a world with new rules is emerging. It's up to us to shape it.