Tove Gravdal’s article here in NAI Forum touches upon several sore spots in the international development policies of Norway and the other Nordic countries.

Firstly: Where exactly does our responsibility for global public goods begin and end? Enlightened self-interest has been a main argument for raising development policies high on the global agenda, with many political initiatives that have aroused an international interest. But is it right to use so much of development assistance funds for such measures?

Gravdal finds it “absurd that Norwegian tax money equivalent to maybe one day’s income from Brazil’s oil industry should be transferred into an economy that is almost as big as that of France. [...] It is extremely provoking to watch the luxurious life style of the upper class in many developing countries.”

I can agree with that, but it is also provoking that big, rich countries are not contributing more to measures against climate change such as saving the rain forests, international immunization funds, and against tax havens and illicit capital flows.

If they had, Norway could have used a larger part of its development assistance budget for targeted interventions in favour of ‘the bottom billion’ of poor people in the world, of which a large majority now lives in middle-income countries like Brazil.

Secondly: Is the informal sector included in the calculations when the World Bank and others touts the impressive economic growth in some African countries? If not, the numbers may be quite misleading, given the importance of the informal sector in Africa.

It is important to consider whether the proceeds from growth are used for investments in new productive ventures benefitting poor people in rural as well as urban areas, or primarily for the consumption of the richest 10-15 per cent of the population. And is growth likely to be sustainable when China’s growth flattens out?

Thirdly: Are we delinking assistance for economic development from support for human rights and democracy – and if so, not primarily because of new insights about these issues, but because Western donors are afraid of losing their influence in developing countries to the new international actors? This means that we should increase support for economic growth in areas that we know will also involve more participation and a more equitable distribution.

The media sector is such an example of investments with many positive effects. Economic analysis has shown that 10 per cent increase in mobile broadband nets is associated with 1.5 per cent higher GDP growth. The number of mobile phones in Africa has increased from 5 million to 500 million in ten years, of which one quarter today are smartphones. This is expected to increase to 80 per cent by 2015.

This promotes literacy, increases people’s access to information, facilitates communication and political participation and thus strengthens democratic accountability.

It is hardly very wise for Norway – known and respected for our egalitarian values – to play down our views on redistribution of power and resources in partner countries with extreme inequalities.

As a small country, we have to cooperate with others. But it is not unproblematic that our development policies are very close to those of the big international players, who often have very complex intentions for their aid engagements, in the hope that this will contribute most effectively to resolving the global crises of climate, capital and conflicts.

International Development Minister Holmås says that he wants to bring our development policies down home. He wants to give priority to redistribution of power and resources. The minister can refer to the declaration from the international aid summit in Busan in December 2011 if he wants to give priority to partnerships with selected countries and movements struggling for values and societies that most resemble our own.

Norad’s support to civil society in the Global South already applies this as its main principle. It is quite evident what the representatives of civil society would answer if asked about such a change in Norwegian development policies.

On the contrary, it is much less certain how supportive our business community, including state-owned telecommunications, oil/gas and fertilizer companies, would be in response to development policies that would increasingly irritate the powers in countries of importance for Norwegian exports and investments.