Development aid and poverty

There are many actors involved in official development assistance, from multilateral donors (World Bank, International Monetary Fund, European Union, United Nations, and regional development banks, representing 30% of official aid) to bilateral aid.
In addition to these state donors, there are non-governmental organizations or humanitarian NGOs which do not form a homogeneous group, ranging from quasi-multinational companies (Oxfam, Care) to small local associations.
However, no coordination exists or is even envisaged (if it were possible) between these different actors who pursue either personal, national or regional interests, or put aid at the service of different political ideologies: between social democracy as in French-speaking Africa or basic economic liberalism as in Zambia where most public schools are fee-paying because sub-Saharan Africa is the place of all the clashes of schools of thought coming from other parts of the world. It is a mirror place.
During my various missions over the past 13 years in sub-Saharan Africa, whether on behalf of NGOs or the European Commission, I have been able to observe, from my first contact with this continent, to what extent these struggles for influence, economic or political, of external operators all acting officially for the development of the country had led to growing poverty among the population and an equally significant enrichment of most 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 observe that poverty is still present, albeit slightly declining. There were more than three billion poor people, more than half the planet. Finally, these observations date from 2005, that is, before the international crises of 2008, which had dramatic consequences for the world's poorest populations.
We can then ask questions about the effectiveness of official development assistance in combating poverty and reducing inequality over the past 60 years. It is clear 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. Indeed, we are witnessing the emergence on the ground of an East-West axis of cooperation that is slowly replacing a North-South axis. Traditionally, since the 1950s, official development assistance has flowed from developed countries located in the North of the planet to the South, where developing countries are grouped. The terms of aid distribution were decided by the Bretton Woods institutions (World Bank, IMF, etc.) and therefore by the five most influential post-war countries (the United States, Japan, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom) based on their political and economic ideology. This remains true, but their omnipotence is being quietly challenged.
Another axis is emerging, still barely visible; an east-west axis from China to Brazil via Africa, essentially economic but effective because it treats developing countries as equals; their relations are not marked by the creeping neo-colonialism that continues to taint North-South relations. With them, new rules of the game exist, although these new rules do not replace the old ones but are superimposed on them. The objective remains the same: the search for economic or political advantages for nations.
As for African countries with resources, we are witnessing a bidding war between their governments to "sell themselves" to the highest bidder. International aid is thus diverted from its intended purpose and becomes a vehicle for corruption. This is evidenced by the fact that social indicators (including education and health) have been collapsing for the past ten years in many countries.
But economic and social inequalities continue to grow between countries. Even though the overall number of poor people worldwide decreased (source: World Bank) between 1981 and 2001, the poverty rate in sub-Saharan Africa has not decreased for twenty-five years (50% of the world's population). The number of very poor people (on average, less than $0.70 a day) has practically doubled, rising from 200 to 380 million people. In 2015, one-third of the world's billion poor will live in sub-Saharan Africa. Regional inequalities are therefore increasing, especially at the expense of sub-Saharan Africa.
The challenges are numerous but well-identified. Three of these stand out: national interests, the 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 intentional. But there are also recent advantages, such as the digital revolution, the proliferation of trade (globalization), and the will and expertise of certain operators on the ground, including NGOs.
Given this observation, several avenues of reflection can be pursued. I will highlight three: raising the level of consciousness, integration, and coordination.
An awareness in terms of time and space
Official development assistance should have humanistic objectives: poverty reduction through the redistribution of wealth in the broad sense (monetary transfers, 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 discuss the political-economic objective that can be achieved through the search for greater equality, namely greater political, economic, and social balance.
Indeed, if nothing is done in this direction, social tensions can only increase, leading to explosions that will only slow down global economic growth. It is then possible that nation states may agree to relinquish some of their power to "buy" social peace in addition to buying access to markets.
The nation-state may also not be the right level of intervention. Beyond nations, there are regions, and beyond them, international organizations. These are the two levels at which action could be taken to overcome national interests, which breed corruption and war, particularly in Africa, where borders do not correspond to any historical or human reality.
Greater integration
At the international level, it is important that emerging countries be more integrated and recognized in international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the IMF. To achieve this, these institutions must be reformed towards greater democracy, transparency, and simplification in terms of their functioning and number of institutions, as well as the establishment of arbitration systems at the political decision-making level. In this way, multilateral aid may gradually replace bilateral aid.
At the grassroots level, a balance remains to be struck between the sensitivities of political leaders and ensuring that aid reaches populations directly. In some countries, digital participation systems, or e-governance, are beginning to emerge (Tunisia, Burkina Faso, Benin). These systems make it possible to identify needs and therefore provide more targeted aid and, in the best cases, to involve the population in local political decisions.
These two lines of thought point towards greater transparency, whether at the international or local level.
Coordination
Strengthening coordination among all development actors is a major challenge for several reasons. First, it would reduce costs by consolidating aid distribution systems within international organizations, as these organizations become more democratic and truly independent of the nation states that comprise them.
Secondly, it is important to integrate NGOs into these coordination mechanisms to the extent that they act in accordance with European principles and as closely as possible to the populations. Indeed, some of them have real know-how in terms of development aid and always act as closely as possible to the needs of the populations, unlike international governmental organizations (UN, World Bank, etc.).
However, a system for monitoring and evaluating development aid needs to be established. Audits and evaluations could be carried out by independent bodies.
The world is not more complex because it has always been a source of unknown riches, but it is more open; individuals are more informed; they can access more knowledge; they can multiply connections. Hence the feeling of greater complexity because powers and potentialities that were once muzzled are being expressed, for good or for ill. Alliances are easier and more numerous. From this appearance of chaos, a world with new rules is emerging. It is up to us to shape it.