Aid, trade, charade?

In recent years, there has been much re-thinking on what aid is and how it should be delivered. This paper addresses these questions and related issues from a Pacific perspective.

The paper argues that many aid programs are more about political and economic self-interest. In this context, it shows that China does not even attempt to say politics and aid are separate. Australia, in turn, is acting as the “big brother”, yet its aid is viewed as a substitute for the deeper engagement that can only come with a more mature relationship as development partners.

The document elaborates the state and also draws on the findings of concerned publications to introduce the following points:

• there is increasing dissatisfaction with aid programs in both donor and recipient countries, and a growing body of evidence suggests the need for substantial change
• in this sense, intangible aid is a good example to prove that aid is not only ineffective, but even counter-productive and should be totally scrapped
• moreover, there is little to suggest that the aid relationship has truly adapted to the shifting economic, political and technology landscapes

Likewise, the author presents the following conclusions:

• changing the language of aid may help shift the relationship between donors and recipients to something closer to a real partnership
• it may also help with more transparent delivery and better ways of measuring the effectiveness of development support
• absorptive capacity constraints are real, but should not be seen as an immutable barrier to growth, and development support should always be seen in human terms
• identically, it is time to have a frank Pacific discussion on the general concerns relating to aid effectiveness, and understand the region’s landscape and recognise what works in that local context