AID, TRADE, CHARADE?
DISCUSSION PAPER #14: Rethinking the aid-centric approach to development.
Download the briefing note here.
PRESS RELEASE
The discourse on foreign aid is still haunted by colonial era issues of guilt, greed, and good intentions. Little wonder that the topic has been steeped in controversy and misunderstanding, which often overshadows the importance that aid can play in improving the lives of many poor people around the world. A recent review of the Australian aid programme in Papua New Guinea has thrown open a raft of new questions.
In the search for answers, the Pacific Institute of Public Policy (PiPP) has released a discussion paper suggesting that it may be time to rethink some of the language and underlying assumptions of the aid-centric approach to development in the Pacific islands.
Derek Brien, Executive Director of PiPP, notes 'most people equate aid with charity, but the reality is far more complex than that. The aid industry now spans so many disciplines, that it is impossible to determine its overall success or failure without delving further into the humanitarian, political, economic and social dimensions. Some countries, for example, use aid money to influence solidarity or security; these are rational foreign policy objectives, but it is not aid. Let's call it for what it is'.
The discussion paper points to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and Cairns Compact as examples of efforts to re-think aid, but questions whether these and other pronouncements have really advanced our understanding of what aid is and how it should best be delivered.
The PiPP discussion paper focuses on the Australian aid programme, being the largest in most Melanesian and Polynesian countries. Mr Brien says 'the 2008 Port Moresby Declaration was a welcome start by the Australian Government in reshaping the aid relationship in the Pacific. The recent Review of the PNG-Australia Treaty on Development Cooperation, a joint initiative of Prime Ministers Somare and Rudd, is another welcome step for embodying a partnership approach as well as for its transparency. Beyond the main messages, this latest review has a number of specific recommendations directed to both governments in relation to the aid program. The Pacific will be watching eagerly to see how these are implemented'.
Mr Brien adds 'in order to bring aid programmes into line with new political, social and economic realities, it is timely to have a frank Pacific discussion on the topic with the aim of shifting the relationship between donors and recipients to something more befitting a true development partnership'.
The PiPP paper is released as a means of sparking such a discussion.
One suggestion is for Australia to reconsider its migration policy to embrace Pacific islanders as part of the broader Australia community. Another is to use aid to invest in arts and kastom to break the perception that donors only see the islands through the prism of governance and economic issues, something which means nothing for the 80 per cent of islanders living away from towns.
Well-directed aid, development support and foreign policy has the ability to transform lives – and relations between nations - for the better.