Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irelands 2012 budget: How much for Overseas AID?
Options
Comments
-
shadowninty wrote: »That said, Ireland should be proud of its aid budget - we give far, far more capita then the US does, and gave more per capita then the UK or France, who once ruled half the world between them.
Is it some sort of competition, is that it? "Oh look, we give more to the poor Africans than you, haha."
Proud of what? Shipping billions of euro over the past few years out of Ireland and into Africa. Why should we be proud? Maybe if it fixed the problem then I could see your point, but years and years and years later we are still being fed the same freaking story, and we are being told it's getting worse. Proud? Are you for real.
Here's an idea: Instead of being proud for shipping billions of our money to Africa, and not really solving anything, maybe we could simply lobby the U.K and France and the U.S, and India and China to sort it? Get them to increase the aid delivery, or, is being proud of throwing more money at Africa than them something not worth risking?0 -
Send the money to countries we can build a relationship with
We used to sell beef to Iraq and Libya and Egypt
If it's not to be them anymore then somewhere else
Here's some aid
Now how about a beef contract with Ireland? 0 -
You want India to provide net development aid? How out of touch can you be...?Is it some sort of competition, is that it? "Oh look, we give more to the poor Africans than you, haha."
Proud of what? Shipping billions of euro over the past few years out of Ireland and into Africa. Why should we be proud? Maybe if it fixed the problem then I could see your point, but years and years and years later we are still being fed the same freaking story, and we are being told it's getting worse. Proud? Are you for real.
Here's an idea: Instead of being proud for shipping billions of our money to Africa, and not really solving anything, maybe we could simply lobby the U.K and France and the U.S, and India and China to sort it? Get them to increase the aid delivery, or, is being proud of throwing more money at Africa than them something not worth risking?0 -
shadowninty wrote: »You want India to provide net development aid? How out of touch can you be...?
As opposed to them spending billions annually of this type of thing, for instance?
http://www.isro.org/0 -
shadowninty wrote: »You want India to provide net development aid? How out of touch can you be...?
And you want us? Are you in touch?0 -
Advertisement
-
Aid like charity is a worthwhile cause but in these times should be cut to near eough zero without pause or delay. Some money set aside to render help to people in natural disasters should be retained but hard though it is we need to stop sending money to countries like Africa.
The western world has been feeding africa for the best part of 40+ years. There is little doubt that we could keep feeding them for another 40 years and nothing would change.
When our own people cannot receive basic medical care, our elderly freeze to death in their own homes or lie on trolleys waiting to die it is immoral that we send such huge sums to support others.
This is a tough decision but it is one that needs to be made by our politicians. There are very few of us in our households that would give so generously to strangers and make our own children go hungry or without. Running a country is in principle similar to that of a home, your own family are looked after first. When there is surplus we can donate.
In the long run Africa will be better for it as they are forced to stop their warmongering and corruption and begin the process of developing sustainable policies that will allow them to be fed and live in peace. Tough love.0 -
I figured someone would bring up the defence issue (lets face it for countries like India space research is very much defence linked). India has been in three serious wars with a military dominated Pakistan - over Kashmir who's leader plumped for India at independence. Meanwhile China, who India have also been attacked by, have been building scaled replicas or their border and expanding their military aggressively. I'm not saying India is competely right however, I'm just saying that is no argument for them to give net aid with their economic situation. It should be remembered developing home grown talent is hugely important for a country to develop, as China has shown.As opposed to them spending billions annually of this type of thing, for instance?
http://www.isro.org/And you want us? Are you in touch?
I am in touch. Last time I checked our GDP per Capita was around 30 times India's. $45K vs $1.5K.0 -
shadowninty wrote: »I figured someone would bring up the defence issue (lets face it for countries like India space research is very much defence linked). India has been in three serious wars with a military dominated Pakistan - over Kashmir who's leader plumped for India at independence. Meanwhile China, ......
They have nukes, wtf is going to attack a nuclear power?....anyway, if you look at the ISRO site, you'll find their main aim is put astronauts into space and eventually get them on the moon. Hardly a military ambition (one hopes) but it defies logic that they'd let their own people starve while playing these games.
In any case, why the "I figured someone might bring this up" line?
It's a legitimate question to ask why Ireland (and indeed many other European countries) are being asked to house, feed and provide clean water to millions of ordinary Indians while their government spends billions of euro/dollars on space research and its' military capacity.
You mention Pakistan and China, previous wars and border disputes. When was the last war? As I mentioned they now have nuclear capacity, the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is hardly lost on any of those Asian powers, so all-out war is not really going to break out even if there are skirmishes now and then in Kashmir.
On top of its massive space, IT, industrialization and military programmes, India is aiming to become the third most powerful economic power (ahead of the entire EU) on the planet by 2050.
How can it be logical for a nation already boasting of its prowess in so many fields to still seek foreign aid for its' own citizens from virtually bankrupt nations like our one?0 -
shadowninty wrote: »I figured someone would bring up the defence issue (lets face it for countries like India space research is very much defence linked). India has been in three serious wars with a military dominated Pakistan - over Kashmir who's leader plumped for India at independence. Meanwhile China, who India have also been attacked by, have been building scaled replicas or their border and expanding their military aggressively. I'm not saying India is competely right however, I'm just saying that is no argument for them to give net aid with their economic situation. It should be remembered developing home grown talent is hugely important for a country to develop, as China has shown.
I am in touch. Last time I checked our GDP per Capita was around 30 times India's. $45K vs $1.5K.
So India wants to spend billions on weapons and technology, yet you excuse this, and then expect us to contribute more? They spend billions on themselves, and we spend billions on others, and that to you is something to be proud of? That to me is something to be damn well ashamed of.
Also, India has a population of 1 billion people. A colossally powerful and mighty nation. Many many millionaires and billionaires. So freaking what if the average wage is less than ours. So what. Many many of them could easily part with many millions; so let's lobby them to do so. Because looking at us, it's a case of throwing bad money after bad.0 -
India’s foreign ministry has recently announced plans to set up a formal foreign aid agency, the India Agency for Partnership in Development. The agency is expected to lend out approximately $11 billion over the next five to seven years, thus putting India on par with other major donors such as Australia and Belgium. India was the largest recipient of foreign aid in the mid-1980s and its aid to Africa has grown at an annual compounded rate of 22% in the past 10 years.
India is responding to the growing Chinese aid programme where by the end of Sept 2009 its aid to Africa hit 11.15 billion USD. Donating aid to Africa has the attraction for those with needs on the vast resource and energy riches of that continent and so aid is loaded towards the infrastructure for exploitation and extraction.
Brazil is another emerging aid giving nation which with a 4 billion USD spend will soon match Canada and Sweden.
Aid has always been political as much as humanitarian and India, Brazil and China are very strategically embracing foreign aid as an instrument of “soft power” as the United States and other aid givers have unashamedly done in the past. NGOs go where the money is as much as where the need is and many are little more than extensions of their countries foreign policy. Of course for NGO public fundraising purposes, denial of this assertion would be expected.
So why should Ireland compete with emerging countries in the increasingly global aid table? If other countries are stepping up then why compete for “soft power” influence as in Uganda?.
Ireland should step back and after rebuilding its own economy into a more accountable and sustainable model and grow its youth skill base then we can go out and offer assistance to others from a position of strength.
It is difficult in any case to offer advice and support for sustainable development abroad when the systems at home have proven unreliable and unworthy and when poverty is increasing rather than reducing.
Obviously aid can not be shut off in a day as there are commitments which would otherwise leave people vulnerable but it must be agreed that the countries themselves have the ultimate responsibilty.0 -
Advertisement
-
India’s foreign ministry has recently announced plans to set up a formal foreign aid agency, the India Agency for Partnership in Development. The agency is expected to lend out approximately $11 billion over the next five to seven years, thus putting India on par with other major donors such as Australia and Belgium. India was the largest recipient of foreign aid in the mid-1980s and its aid to Africa has grown at an annual compounded rate of 22% in the past 10 years.
India is responding to the growing Chinese aid programme where by the end of Sept 2009 its aid to Africa hit 11.15 billion USD. Donating aid to Africa has the attraction for those with needs on the vast resource and energy riches of that continent and so aid is loaded towards the infrastructure for exploitation and extraction.
Brazil is another emerging aid giving nation which with a 4 billion USD spend will soon match Canada and Sweden.
Aid has always been political as much as humanitarian and India, Brazil and China are very strategically embracing foreign aid as an instrument of “soft power” as the United States and other aid givers have unashamedly done in the past. NGOs go where the money is as much as where the need is and many are little more than extensions of their countries foreign policy. Of course for NGO public fundraising purposes, denial of this assertion would be expected.
So why should Ireland compete with emerging countries in the increasingly global aid table? If other countries are stepping up then why compete for “soft power” influence as in Uganda?.
Ireland should step back and after rebuilding its own economy into a more accountable and sustainable model and grow its youth skill base then we can go out and offer assistance to others from a position of strength.
It is difficult in any case to offer advice and support for sustainable development abroad when the systems at home have proven unreliable and unworthy and when poverty is increasing rather than reducing.
Obviously aid can not be shut off in a day as there are commitments which would otherwise leave people vulnerable but it must be agreed that the countries themselves have the ultimate responsibilty.
Been saying it a long time now, foreign aid and NGOs and Africa and the "poorest of the poor" are big freaking business. They don't fool me one bit. Lot of good people in the world doing a lot of good for those less fortunate. I need not look to the NGO crusaders in Africa to find these good people. Plenty here, and in other countries, working tirelessly on injustices and projects in their own localities.
Africa has what, 1 billion people? Can they not set up their own NGOs? Are they so backward that they need teams and teams of Irish sticking their beaks in? I certainly do not think they are backward. But, to listen to the NGOs, you would think the African people were downright stupid and incapable of helping themselves.0 -
shadowninty wrote: »I figured someone would bring up the defence issue (lets face it for countries like India space research is very much defence linked). India has been in three serious wars with a military dominated Pakistan - over Kashmir who's leader plumped for India at independence. Meanwhile China, who India have also been attacked by, have been building scaled replicas or their border and expanding their military aggressively. I'm not saying India is competely right however, I'm just saying that is no argument for them to give net aid with their economic situation. It should be remembered developing home grown talent is hugely important for a country to develop, as China has shown.
I am in touch. Last time I checked our GDP per Capita was around 30 times India's. $45K vs $1.5K.
Yes but their total GDP is $1.843 trillion. One could say that it is the ninth richest country in the world (as listed by the IMF index based on absolute GDPs).
Would you support sending aid to the USA? There are many poor people in the USA and their social welfare net isn't nearly as good as Ireland's.0 -
Apart from the continent's history of colonisation and decolonisation which destroyed African countries' capacity to govern and develop themselves, we as citizens of developed countries still (mostly unwittingly) play a role in keeping those countries down to support our comfortable lifestyles.Been saying it a long time now, foreign aid and NGOs and Africa and the "poorest of the poor" are big freaking business. They don't fool me one bit. Lot of good people in the world doing a lot of good for those less fortunate. I need not look to the NGO crusaders in Africa to find these good people. Plenty here, and in other countries, working tirelessly on injustices and projects in their own localities.
Africa has what, 1 billion people? Can they not set up their own NGOs? Are they so backward that they need teams and teams of Irish sticking their beaks in? I certainly do not think they are backward. But, to listen to the NGOs, you would think the African people were downright stupid and incapable of helping themselves.
We wouldn't need to spend aid if we allowed developing countries to direct their own development. Many in developed countries are lobbying governments to change how our governments and businesses treat developing countries - hold corporations to account for bribery, let developing countries set import duties to encourage domestic enterprise, let developing countries require foreign investors to use a certain proportion of local service providers to produce their goods, prosecute corporations for fiddling their taxes, end trade distorting subsidies to e.g. US cotton farmers, stop destabilising countries for geopolitical ends, stop starting wars ... the list goes on.
Japan, South Korea, China, India ... these countries are developing because they did things their own way, ignoring World Bank, IMF, US, UK 'advice'.
Aid is only meant to fill gaps in developing countries' budgets, infrastructure, social service provision. The answer is that they be afforded the same freedom rich countries had to develop themselves. Until then, we have a moral obligation to balance the books.
My two cents.
It's a question of whether a country has sufficient domestic resources or access to resources and, of not, Aid (the OECD definition) is justified. Clearly, the USA does not qualify. The US has more-than-sufficient own resources to fix its social problems - what the US has is a social justice problem: were resources more equally distributed, US poverty could be overcome. India is now at the cusp of no longer qualifying for Aid due to its high per capita national income but the majority of the population is poor with inequality among the highest in the world. With a much higher population, India continues to have a resource problem and a social justice problem but campaigners in India and globally have pointed out that massive amounts of misspent resources could be redirected to ends that would reduce Indians' poverty.RandomName2 wrote:Yes but their total GDP is $1.843 trillion. One could say that it is the ninth richest country in the world (as listed by the IMF index based on absolute GDPs).
Would you support sending aid to the USA? There are many poor people in the USA and their social welfare net isn't nearly as good as Ireland's.
I found it very weird that countries offered aid to the US after New Orleans was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. I felt slightly less weird about so much aid being offered to Tsunami-stricken countries in Asia. Japan took out loans, as it should have.0 -
You do know that we need to borrow billions to keep the country going?
And that there is going to be a lot of hardship across the board with difficult budgets and cuts affecting families across the country?
Ah sure, we're not all starving, we'll be grand.
Again, if people want to donate themselves then go for it.
But F*ck off giving away my Tax, and borrowed money to some corrupt Sh!thole in Africa.
Many many posts on the therad, but this one really nails the problem. Thanks, again!0 -
-
[/HTML][HTML]Apart from the continent's history of colonisation and decolonisation which destroyed African countries' capacity to govern and develop themselves, we as citizens of developed countries still (mostly unwittingly) play a role in keeping those countries down to support our comfortable lifestyles.[/HTML]
How do we keep these countries down? Its been 60 years since independence and they have gone their own way long ago. Its this Irish need for guilt which has kept us enslaved to the chrurch etc for decades. Have we no problems of our own to solve and why be so patronising to think that we have the power to keep anyone down.
[HTML]We wouldn't need to spend aid if we allowed developing countries to direct their own development.[/HTML]
Nobody is babysitting here - its a big hard grown-up world out there and there are no free rides for anyone. The powerful will always try it on as here the banks and their cronie friends in government will make us pay for their mistakes. Its no point crying in our milk - its up to us to challenge the status quo or shut up..
[HTML]Many in developed countries are lobbying governments to change how our governments and businesses treat developing countries - hold corporations to account for bribery, let developing countries set import duties to encourage domestic enterprise[/HTML]
Who is bothered -look at my post on Masstock or check out how many are challenging the likes of Irish Red Cross and GOAL to be accountable and you will see - not many people are bothered.
[HTML]
, let developing countries require foreign investors to use a certain proportion of local service providers to produce their goods, prosecute corporations for fiddling their taxes, end trade distorting subsidies to e.g. US cotton farmers, stop destabilising countries for geopolitical ends, stop starting wars ... the list goes on.[/HTML]
Its easy to get away with corruption in most countries in Africa and Asis because its a way of life and as for politics, business or the aid industry - anything goes because of vested interests. The Common Agricultural Policy helped Irish farmers while penalising those of Africa but who was bothered here so long as the easy subsidies kept coming?
[HTML]
Japan, South Korea, China, India ... these countries are developing because they did things their own way, ignoring World Bank, IMF, US, UK 'advice'.
[/HTML]
Just goes to prove that its possible and the responsibilty rests with the developing countries so forget the guilt trip - a waste of time!
[HTML]
Aid is only meant to fill gaps in developing countries' budgets, infrastructure, social service provision. The answer is that they be afforded the same freedom rich countries had to develop themselves. Until then, we have a moral obligation to balance the books.
[/HTML]
So long as the old excuses of colonialism, unfair world or lack of aid are used; developing countries will have a way out from their obligations and responsibilities to their own populace. Time is now when they have to face reality as we have if we are to get out of this mess.
My two cents.
[HTML]
campaigners in India and globally have pointed out that massive amounts of misspent resources could be redirected to ends that would reduce Indians' poverty.
[/HTML]
What about countries like Nigeria or Uganda with their own resources of oil, minerals, good land and climate and stable governments - why do they qualify aid when internal corruption is the clear problem?
[HTML]
I found it very weird that countries offered aid to the US after New Orleans was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. I felt slightly less weird about so much aid being offered to Tsunami-stricken countries in Asia. Japan took out loans, as it should have.
We shoud all help each other out irrespective in emergency or disaster situations - that is what humanitarism is about. It does no good supporting and propping up corrupt government, NGOs or businesses that exploit the poor and do not offer value for money.0 -
You're very welcome!
What gets me is how wise and generous some people seem to be when it comes to dishing out other people's money!
This point I have made several times, spot on. "We're great, we are rich, sure can't we afford it." **** off and speak for yourself.
IMF-Troika, state assets, bail out, banks bust, and on and on and on. Ah, sure we can afford it. The poor Africans have no food. Plenty of them do, so maybe they can afford it?0 -
The western world has been feeding africa for the best part of 40+ years. There is little doubt that we could keep feeding them for another 40 years and nothing would change.
The Western world continues to exploit many African countries. Is this OK in your eyes? We should continue to exploit but cut off aid?When our own people cannot receive basic medical care, our elderly freeze to death in their own homes or lie on trolleys waiting to die it is immoral that we send such huge sums to support others.
Our problems simply do not compare to those of developing countries. A euro in a developing countries goes a lot further than it would here. Put things in perspective, 0.5% or 0.6% of our GDP is very little in relative terms.In the long run Africa will be better for it as they are forced to stop their warmongering and corruption and begin the process of developing sustainable policies that will allow them to be fed and live in peace. Tough love.
This is just wrong on many levels. Just like the West has certain countries involved in armed conflict, so too does Africa. But most are not. And you would be naive to assume that Western powers have no role in these conflicts. The same goes for corruption.
And don't pretent it's about love. You're asking for apathy.0 -
ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »The Western world continues to exploit many African countries. Is this OK in your eyes? We should continue to exploit but cut off aid?
- Problem is that aid effectively does not work with some noteable exceptions such as immunisation programmes and disaster relief. Take any development aid programme and you will find that most of the money is spent on administration (UK / expat salaries, offices, assessments?) or the means of delivery (transport, more salaries, corruption costs ) while the poor at the end of the line receive little or nothing.
Our problems simply do not compare to those of developing countries. A euro in a developing countries goes a lot further than it would here. Put things in perspective, 0.5% or 0.6% of our GDP is very little in relative terms.
- Correct but the gap between rich and poor is even wider than here though and you dont know what wealth is until you check out those with wealth in Africa. Not an argument for aid unless you can prove it works.
This is just wrong on many levels. Just like the West has certain countries involved in armed conflict, so too does Africa. But most are not. And you would be naive to assume that Western powers have no role in these conflicts. The same goes for corruption.
- Westeners to their shame are into the arms trade and corruption but its not for African to fix corruption in Ireland or for Ireland to fix corruption in Africa.
And don't pretent you feel love. You're asking for apathy.
- on the contrary those who question aid are anything but apathetic. Why waste money if its a waste of money?0 -
- Problem is that aid effectively does not work with some noteable exceptions such as immunisation programmes and disaster relief. Take any development aid programme and you will find that most of the money is spent on administration (UK / expat salaries, offices, assessments?) or the means of delivery (transport, more salaries, corruption costs ) while the poor at the end of the line receive little or nothing.
I'm not going to argue that development projects couldn't be carried out more effectively. There's a great book by Banerjee and Duflo who show how such projects should be approached, based on randomised control trials.
But rather than cutting aid off we should be thinking about whether there is enough going to the right places.
I'm not sure what your argument is here.
- Correct but the gap between rich and poor is even wider than here though and you dont know what wealth is until you check out those with wealth in Africa. Not an argument for aid unless you can prove it works.- Westeners to their shame are into the arms trade and corruption but its not for African to fix corruption in Ireland or for Ireland to fix corruption in Africa.
Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that African countries are completely independent. The entire world is integrated in a globalised economic system. The problem is that power relations are uneven, and African countries have little bargaining power when it comes to large corporations or WTO negotiations etc. It goes way beyond arms trade and corruption into a system of pure exploitation perpetuated by Western (and increasingly Chinese, Brazilian etc.) interests.
African countries certainly need to recognise and assume their role in changing this system, but it's external powers that make this difficult. Even we, as consumers, are complicit.And don't pretent you feel love. You're asking for apathy.- on the contrary those who question aid are anything but apathetic. Why waste money if its a waste of money?
I think it's clear that this is not what I'm referring to. I'm taking about the idea of aid as some kind of luxury.0 -
Advertisement
-
ScissorPaperRoc wrote: ». There's a great book by Banerjee and Duflo who show how such projects should be approached, based on randomised control trials.
But rather than cutting aid off we should be thinking about whether there is enough going to the right places.
The problem is that power relations are uneven, and African countries have little bargaining power when it comes to large corporations or WTO negotiations etc. It goes way beyond arms trade and corruption into a system of pure exploitation perpetuated by Western (and increasingly Chinese, Brazilian etc.) interests.
African countries certainly need to recognise and assume their role in changing this system, but it's external powers that make this difficult. Even we, as consumers, are complicit.
You will find that randomized evaluations will be agreed to done independently in the rare occasion where there is competence and a willingness to implement projects as planned. This is usually only for small pilot projects where more funding is needed through evidence based research of some kind.
If randomized evaluations can only be carried out in very specific locations or with specific partners, precisely because they are randomized and not every partner agrees to the randomization, replication in many sites does not get rid of this problem.
Also programmes found to be working small-scale often fail when scaled-up or run in a different locations where the expertise is not available or the degrees of poverty, education etc are different. For the most part there is little to be gained by those in the aid business from evaluations which cannot be controlled. Programmes of large scale are invariably politically sensitive or have been corrupted so an independent evaluation would not be acceptable. Anyone who has been involved using differing methodologies (including for example cost benefit analysis) are only reemployed if they provide a “good” evaluation report.
On your other point re power relations - totally agree they are uneven and unfair. Problem is the world is unfair and that is for another discussion as aid will not change the status quo. Would argue that in fact aid almost invariably re-inforces the status quo.0 -
ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »The Western world continues to exploit many African countries.
A bit of elaboration would be niceScissorPaperRoc wrote: »Just like the West has certain countries involved in armed conflict, so too does Africa. But most are not.
Most African countries? Although few African countries are at war - how many are secure and stable? How many Western countries are currently engaged in civil war, sectarian tension, the breakaway of provinces, the rise of terrorist organisations or local warlords? The inflated military spending in many African nations is an issue in itself sure, but it is only a small fraction of the general problem that armed conflict poses to any attempts to provide aid.ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »And you would be naive to assume that Western powers have no role in these conflicts. The same goes for corruption.
Again some elaboration would go a long wayScissorPaperRoc wrote: »And don't pretent it's about love. You're asking for apathy.
Or possibly objectivity0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »A bit of elaboration would be nice
Conflict minerals in the Congo that end up in our phones and other technologies that perpetuate the conflict and sexual violence, European plundering of African fish stocks, EU and American subsidisation of domestic industries that flood African economies with cheap goods that their industries cannot compete with (e.g. cotton, poultry, cereal-based foods), tariff structures that encourage the export of primary goods as opposed to processing and capture of the value that tends to be generated further up the production chain elsewhere, etc etc etc.RandomName2 wrote: »Most African countries? Although few African countries are at war - how many are secure and stable? How many Western countries are currently engaged in civil war, sectarian tension, the breakaway of provinces, the rise of terrorist organisations or local warlords? The inflated military spending in many African nations is an issue in itself sure, but it is only a small fraction of the general problem that armed conflict poses to any attempts to provide aid.
I actually don't have the time to go looking for data on which African countries are stable. It would depend on your definition. But I'd say the vast majority are relatively secure and stable, with the exception of some pockets of instability. The same goes for Western countries, I'd say there are quite a few involved in conflict to various degrees. Eastern Europe springs to mind, as well as the obvious military campaigns by the US, UK, NATO etc.
Maybe more significant is the backing of certain factions in African conflicts by Western interests.
Nonetheless, I don't think conflict affects aid delivery to the extent you believe. Sure, where conflict occurs, it is certainly an issue. But conflict is not occurring to the scale you make it out to be.RandomName2 wrote: »Again some elaboration would go a long way
France supply of Hutu government with weapons and training of Interahamwe militia prior to Rwandan genocide, NATO forces involvement in Libya, US drones in Somalia, etc etc
[/QUOTE]RandomName2 wrote: »Or possibly objectivity
That people are suffering is not subjective. To deny our role in contributing to it and our responsibility to alleviate it is not objectivity.0 -
You will find that randomized evaluations will be agreed to done independently in the rare occasion where there is competence and a willingness to implement projects as planned. This is usually only for small pilot projects where more funding is needed through evidence based research of some kind.
If randomized evaluations can only be carried out in very specific locations or with specific partners, precisely because they are randomized and not every partner agrees to the randomization, replication in many sites does not get rid of this problem.
Also programmes found to be working small-scale often fail when scaled-up or run in a different locations where the expertise is not available or the degrees of poverty, education etc are different. For the most part there is little to be gained by those in the aid business from evaluations which cannot be controlled. Programmes of large scale are invariably politically sensitive or have been corrupted so an independent evaluation would not be acceptable. Anyone who has been involved using differing methodologies (including for example cost benefit analysis) are only reemployed if they provide a “good” evaluation report.
On your other point re power relations - totally agree they are uneven and unfair. Problem is the world is unfair and that is for another discussion as aid will not change the status quo. Would argue that in fact aid almost invariably re-inforces the status quo.
Randomised trials in development aid are a relatively new phenomenon, that I expect to see become the gold standard in the coming years. If this is the case then various actors will need to comply as donors increasingly require such an approach.
That last bit sounds like a generalisation and misrepresentation, so I'm not going to argue. Evaluation is central to success in development projects.0 -
ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »Randomised trials in development aid are a relatively new phenomenon, that I expect to see become the gold standard in the coming years. If this is the case then various actors will need to comply as donors increasing require such an approach.
That last bit sounds like a generalisation and misrepresentation, so I'm not going to argue. Evaluation is central to success in development projects.
If you have been involved in the aid industry over the decades you will have heard of so many false dawns when all will be well etc. Just try to get the most basic management, monitoring and reporting of results against SMART objectives and you will see that even this most basic requirement is not possible in aid.
Academia has been using Africa as a testing and study ground for decades and you get the sexy places like Turkana in Kenya which is awash with such studies. Its all part of the business and keeps our wheels turning at the expense of the poor. To say there will be this gold standard is naieve in the extreme and I have heard that term applied to all sorts of initiatives in the past but nothing changes.
Its not just trade that exploits but aid also and so many are benefiting from the lack of accountability - check out the latest report on the Public Accounts Committees hearing of the 19th regarding the Irish Red Cross when it comes out and you will understand how talk of "gold standards" is so much a dream. Neither the donors nor the implementing agencies are interested in genuine evaluations because there are vested interests which you appear to understand when applied to other interactions but as for so many people you have a blind spot when it comes to aid - an assumption that good people will do good.
The key to good evaluations has always depended on participation and ownership by the beneficiary stakeholders themselves. Its not actually rocket science and as poor people I worked with used to say: " dont trust people with shiny shoes". Lessons learnt decades ago keep needing to be learnt again with each new decade and thats because the people who have the money and have the power dont listen to the weak and powerless.0 -
If you have been involved in the aid industry over the decades you will have heard of so many false dawns when all will be well etc. Just try to get the most basic management, monitoring and reporting of results against SMART objectives and you will see that even this most basic requirement is not possible in aid.
Academia has been using Africa as a testing and study ground for decades and you get the sexy places like Turkana in Kenya which is awash with such studies. Its all part of the business and keeps our wheels turning at the expense of the poor. To say there will be this gold standard is naieve in the extreme and I have heard that term applied to all sorts of initiatives in the past but nothing changes.
Its not just trade that exploits but aid also and so many are benefiting from the lack of accountability - check out the latest report on the Public Accounts Committees hearing of the 19th regarding the Irish Red Cross when it comes out and you will understand how talk of "gold standards" is so much a dream. Neither the donors nor the implementing agencies are interested in genuine evaluations because there are vested interests which you appear to understand when applied to other interactions but as for so many people you have a blind spot when it comes to aid - an assumption that good people will do good.
The key to good evaluations has always depended on participation and ownership by the beneficiary stakeholders themselves. Its not actually rocket science and as poor people I worked with used to say: " dont trust people with shiny shoes". Lessons learnt decades ago keep needing to be learnt again with each new decade and thats because the people who have the money and have the power dont listen to the weak and powerless.
I'm aware of the history of aid, and its many shortcomings, as well as the various "silver bullets" that ultimately lead to no change. I should not have said that I "expect" this to become a gold standard. I should have said that this kind of concrete evaluation needs to become standard.
I would agree that there is a need for greater accountability alongside a culture of evaluation. I'm sure that aid flows quite often go where they shouldn't go, but this requires that we reevaluate our approach and accountability mechanisms rather than cut it off.0 -
While I worked to improve the design, monitoring and evaluation of one Irish government aid programme and witnessed the extent to which this is so (or not) in other national and multilateral donor institutions, and have worked in the NGO sector, I would love to be able to contradict your statement.Zorbas wrote:If you have been involved in the aid industry over the decades you will have heard of so many false dawns when all will be well etc. Just try to get the most basic management, monitoring and reporting of results against SMART objectives and you will see that even this most basic requirement is not possible in aid.
Academia has been using Africa as a testing and study ground for decades and you get the sexy places like Turkana in Kenya which is awash with such studies. Its all part of the business and keeps our wheels turning at the expense of the poor. To say there will be this gold standard is naieve in the extreme and I have heard that term applied to all sorts of initiatives in the past but nothing changes.
Its not just trade that exploits but aid also and so many are benefiting from the lack of accountability - check out the latest report on the Public Accounts Committees hearing of the 19th regarding the Irish Red Cross when it comes out and you will understand how talk of "gold standards" is so much a dream. Neither the donors nor the implementing agencies are interested in genuine evaluations because there are vested interests which you appear to understand when applied to other interactions but as for so many people you have a blind spot when it comes to aid - an assumption that good people will do good.
The key to good evaluations has always depended on participation and ownership by the beneficiary stakeholders themselves. Its not actually rocket science and as poor people I worked with used to say: " dont trust people with shiny shoes". Lessons learnt decades ago keep needing to be learnt again with each new decade and thats because the people who have the money and have the power dont listen to the weak and powerless.
But you seem to speak of experience and I can't agree more. However, I could add that the aid industry has to some extent recognised these deficiencies and are taking some actions to fix them.
I hold my breath, though.
I have my concerns about random control trials in development research/project piloting.0 -
ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »The Western world continues to exploit many African countries. Is this OK in your eyes? We should continue to exploit but cut off aid?
We should work with other countries and not use aid as a stick to leverage lucrative deals we wouldn't of gotten otherwise.ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »Our problems simply do not compare to those of developing countries. A euro in a developing countries goes a lot further than it would here. Put things in perspective, 0.5% or 0.6% of our GDP is very little in relative terms.
I dont think I could tell the family of someone who died that they shouldn't grieve or be upset because other people suffer more.
To put things in perspective we gave over 500 million away last year and maybe as much this year. That money could of made a huge difference to people suffering in this country. I re-iterate that we should look after our own and then give to others if there is surplus.ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »And don't pretent it's about love. You're asking for apathy.
I am asking for a rational assesment of a difficult situation. Since 1950 the population of Africa has risen from 200 million to around 1 billion by todays count. Not bad for a country that is starving dont you think? By contrast Irelands population has risen from 3 million to 4.5million and we have an abundance of food.
The UN now predicts that several african countries have exceeded their bio footprint and the population is simply to big to be supported by the land they occupy. The rest are fast on their heels. While aid might not of directly caused this we have contributed to the problem and for that we should be very upset and angry with ourselves. We are basically helping a nation breed itself into extinction out of a misplaced sense of 'compassion' without boundaries. If we had given the aid with a caveat on population control it may of been better but we didn't because it's considered 'immoral' to do that. Instead we will wittness the horrendous death of hundred's of millions of africans in the next 2 decades and there is not enough food mountains in the world to sustain or save them. Even IF there was and we do feed them would you allow 1 billion people who cannot feed themselves to all have between 2 to 6 children each? Import more aid? when does it stop. Unimpeded population growth propped up by a faulty assumption that we are doing 'good' is wrong.
True apathy would be to continue the status quo which would be in my opinion tantermount to a crime against the poeple of this nation.
The alternative of stopping aid, and lets just be clear here would result in the deaths of many people which is horrendous. But it's better than allowing even more to be born and let them suffer.
For many reasons the developed world I am predicting will start to begin to realise problems and shortfalls in feeding itself in the next 15 or so years. When that time comes the question of giving aid will no longer be a debate, the external flow of food out of Europe will cease and that will be that.0 -
.
I dont think I could tell the family of someone who died that they shouldn't grieve or be upset because other people suffer more.
Nor would anyone. However, trade-offs are necessary. The greater good should always be the goal.
We have pretty good public services in Ireland, 0.5% of GDP is not going to make much of a difference in relative terms. You're never going to have a perfect system, and the more you invest the less you get in return. The fact that public expenditure is so little in many African countries means that there is a potential for greater returns.
To put things in perspective we gave over 500 million away last year and maybe as much this year. That money could of made a huge difference to people suffering in this country. I re-iterate that we should look after our own and then give to others if there is surplus.
There will never be a surplus.
I am asking for a rational assesment of a difficult situation. Since 1950 the population of Africa has risen from 200 million to around 1 billion by todays count. Not bad for a country that is starving dont you think? By contrast Irelands population has risen from 3 million to 4.5million and we have an abundance of food.
The UN now predicts that several african countries have exceeded their bio footprint and the population is simply to big to be supported by the land they occupy. The rest are fast on their heels. While aid might not of directly caused this we have contributed to the problem and for that we should be very upset and angry with ourselves. We are basically helping a nation breed itself into extinction out of a misplaced sense of 'compassion' without boundaries. If we had given the aid with a caveat on population control it may of been better but we didn't because it's considered 'immoral' to do that. Instead we will wittness the horrendous death of hundred's of millions of africans in the next 2 decades and there is not enough food mountains in the world to sustain or save them. Even IF there was and we do feed them would you allow 1 billion people who cannot feed themselves to all have between 2 to 6 children each? Import more aid? when does it stop. Unimpeded population growth propped up by a faulty assumption that we are doing 'good' is wrong.
Africa is a continent of 54 countries.
We know a lot more about population growth these days and that it relates to education and economic opportunity and gender empowerment. As these areas improve, fertility rates decline.
I would like to see where you're getting your evidence from the 'UN' on 'exceeding bio-footprints' (that terminology doesn't even make sense).
But certainly, we have contributed to environmental degradation in developing countries. Not through aid, but through our own reckless industrialisation and greed.
You're just making most of that up, to be honest.
True apathy would be to continue the status quo which would be in my opinion tantermount to a crime against the poeple of this nation.
The alternative of stopping aid, and lets just be clear here would result in the deaths of many people which is horrendous. But it's better than allowing even more to be born and let them suffer.
It's not about 'allowing', or 'letting' 'them'. These perceptions of 'us' and 'them', and us 'feeding' 'them' or 'letting' them do things disgust me to be honest.
They are people, forced to make choices they might not otherwise make if they had more opportunities. That is simply it. It is our moral obligation, particularly when we recognise our role in creating and maintaining these conditions in African countries, to do what we can to increase the opportunities available.
For many reasons the developed world I am predicting will start to begin to realise problems and shortfalls in feeding itself in the next 15 or so years. When that time comes the question of giving aid will no longer be a debate, the external flow of food out of Europe will cease and that will be that.
Do you think aid=food?
Most food that leaves Europe is subsidised and sold in foreign markets. It is often the case that these cheap imports in Africa mean that local producers can't compete. In others, we undermine the capacity to become self-sufficient in food production.0 -
Advertisement
-
It was an NCO (not the UN) that provided some fascinating data on Africas ecological footprint;
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/blog/africa_approaching_biocapacity_limits
It's not just Africa that will experience massive population adjustments in the next 2 decades. The most of the world will start to experience increases in mortality's other than natural due to food shortages. It's just countries like Africa that are already on the boundary of sustaining theselves will be hit first and hardest, a marker of whats to come for the rest of the world.
Population growth is linked to oil production. You only have to overlay the two graphs to see the correlation. Food and education and gender empowerment come about through energy resources like oil providing these things. As oil declines so will the food production that is artifically supporting this population.
It's not the job of Ireland or Europe to look after anyone, except ourselves perhaps.
We are about 6 billion past where we should be in world population that is sustainable propped up by an abundance of cheap oil. As we are very likley passed peak oil it's time we started being honest with ourselves about whats going to happen to al these people.......morality doesn't change facts, sorry if your angry, so was I for a long time but it wont change anything that will happen in the next two decades.0
Advertisement