How Much Development Through Aid?

Klingebiel

October 1, 2012

by Stephan Klingebiel, Director of the Department for "Bi- and Multilateral Development Policies" of the German Development Institute (DIE); Visiting Professor at Stanford University's International Programme in Cape Town.

Sub-Saharan Africa’s economic situation has developed positively in the past twenty years, much due to better policies. Some 10 to 20 countries in the region managed to achieve significant growth rates, despite the international economic crisis.

But economic dynamism is still unsatisfactory in many countries where, despite growth, there has been less than adequate improvement in living conditions. Reforms aimed at improving the political environment have yet to be undertaken in many countries.

What is behind the recent progress? Was international aid possibly more successful than many have conjectured? And: what does that mean for the future role of aid in Africa?

Aid continues to play an important role, even with increasing foreign direct investment and remittances. With China and other new actors, the importance of South-South relations for sub-Saharan Africa is growing.

In large part, success stories about economic progress have dominated international coverage of Sub-Saharan Africa in recent months. This attention is justified, since the situation of these 48 countries has continued to take on clearer outlines. The countries of sub-Saharan Africa have undergone processes of change at different speeds and, to some extent, in different directions. Existing country classifications have only just begun to find appropriate categories for the current process of differentiation. 

In point of fact, some countries in the region – even if not all – can look back on an economic success story that has been going on for several years. By and large, Sub-Saharan Africa’s economic situation has developed positively in the past twenty years, not least because the various countries have pursued better policies. 

While the majority were characterised in the 1990s by enormous budget deficits, high rates of inflation, government intervention, capital flight and black markets, the countries of the region generally have more room for manoeuvre today, not least with regard to their own budgets. In the last decade a group of some 10 to 20 countries in the region managed to achieve significant growth rates; the international financial and economic crisis did little to alter this. 

At the same time, there are still a number of countries where economic dynamism is still unsatisfactory or where, despite growth, there has been less than adequate improvement in living conditions. 

The quality of governance has improved in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. Public financial management is, on average, better today than it was in the past. Nonetheless, clientelist and neo-patrimonial systems, which have considerable influence on the use of resources, continue to leave their mark in many countries. Reforms aimed at improving the political environment (political openness, etc.) have yet to be undertaken in many countries of the region. 

The question, of course, is: what is behind the progress made by some African countries in the last one to two decades? Was international support for the continent in the form of developmental cooperation possibly more successful than many have conjectured? And: What does that mean for the future role of aid in the region? 

Hard-to-define impact
There is no really accurate and reliable way of measuring the contribution of aid to development progress. What is clear, however, is that the policies of the countries themselves are decisive in many respects. Countries which have successfully reduced the number of poor people in their populations and have initiated growth processes (i.e., those not merely based on raw materials) have been able to achieve this on the basis of their comparatively good governance activities. 

It makes a great deal of difference, for example, whether clientele-type structures predominate in a country or transparent processes determine how public resources are used. In like manner, the international context is also naturally important for African countries, which are being drawn more and more into the processes of globalisation. 

The interest of emerging economies, like China and India, in African countries has contributed to a new focus on the part of the traditional European and North American cooperation partners. What all of this means is: for African states too, a large number of factors influence policies, and aid is in fact only one factor among many. 

Variances in development
The ‘aid-factor’ in this regard has varying degrees of importance. On the whole, political obligations within the G8 context and in other forums has had the result that aid funding for Sub-Saharan Africa has grown substantially in the last 10 years. Some 44 billion US dollars are available annually from OECD donors. 

A number of countries are very dependent on aid funds for their public investments. In some cases, like that of Burundi, considerably more than 20 per cent of a country’s entire economic power is tied to aid. In other cases, like those of Angola and South Africa, on the other hand, aid has gradually taken on marginal importance and amounts to far less than 1 per cent of GDP. 

The numbers for these countries show that flows of private funds to the Sub-Saharan region have now risen to a much higher level than is the case for aid. In total, international financial flows to sub-Saharan Africa have grown sixfold since 2000. This steep rise has been accompanied by major changes to financial structures, the proportion of private inflows having increased significantly. 

Aid continues to play an important role, although the scene is increasingly dominated by foreign direct investment and migrant workers’ remittances. Such ‘new cooperation partners’ as China, India and Arab countries are also triggering major changes; the importance of South-South relations for sub-Saharan Africa is growing. 

In the coming years, the trend in Sub-Saharan Africa will likely continue to take on clearer outlines. 

The reasons: on the one hand, aid will develop more and more into a side-line factor for a steadily growing group of countries. Countries in the grip of dynamic reform will focus even more than today on the private sector and foreign direct investment. 

For other countries, now booming on the basis of crude oil and minerals, the primary question is whether available resources will benefit the population at large. Nigeria and other countries offer an abundance of study material for the much-discussed ‘curse of resources’. 

On the other hand, however, some countries in the region will continue to remain dependent on aid in the foreseeable future. In fragile countries, aid and humanitarian assistance are of central importance in many respects for making available a minimum of state-maintained structures and public services. 

Aside from this, however, there are also numerous poor countries – such as Ethiopia – which are thoroughly functional on the one hand but for whom aid will continue on the other hand to be an important means of financing and implementing long-term programmes which address poverty and growth. But even low-income countries such as Liberia and Rwanda are making growing efforts to escape their long dependence on aid.

Print
  • Anders Östman says:

    A very confused reasoning. Economic dynamism? Builds on the mainstream idea that current high growth rate in sub-Saharan Africa is leading to prosperity. That we don’t know yet and aid is not just a technical “tool”, it plays often into the hands of those who maintain clientelitistic policies. To lump together Liberia and Rwanda is quite off the mark!

  • Stephan Klingebiel says:

    Dear Anders Östman,
    Thank you for your comment. However, I don’t get your point. (a) Yes, I do think that there is a link between economic growth and prosperity (even though, of course, this is not the full picture). (b) I don’t say that aid is just a neutral “tool”. (c) If you look at aid perceptions of the Liberian and Rwandan governments you will find some parallels regarding the intention to reduce aid dependency.
    Stephan Klingebiel

    • Anders Östman says:

      Dear Stephan,

      There is a congenial idea among donors that all good things go together. If only Africa gets democracy (preferably a Western style one), human rights, good governance, a market economy and a civil society thats demands accountability, development will come to Africa. These ideas are based on a flawed understanding of what really drives development. In Africa development – to go from poverty to prosperity – will come when the elites in Africa have a reason, or call it incentives, to have development as their number one priority. And this regardless of the fulfillment of good governance. At the moment their number one priority is to stay in power, at all cost. Western style multiparty elections lead mainly to intense clientelistic competition and not to the elites focussing on development and to solving the collective action problems they face. In the short run fighting poverty is not in their interest as poor people in general and peasants in particular do not constitute a threat to them remaining in power. Aid has in Africa thus often contributed to solidifying poverty as it has bulit on the premise that leaders were interested in development, when this was not their immediate concern. Elites form their society in ways where they can reap maximun rents through e. g. natural resources, contracts, licenses and AID. Countries in Africa that say they want to reduce aid dependency are right, but it is non-issue, if the use of the rents are not altered.
      Yes, Africa has had high growth rates recently, which is good news. The bad news is that with a few exceptions (Ethiopia and Rwanda) this growth does not seem to lead to the necessary economic transformation that would start the proccess of reducing poverty substantially, as we have seen in e. g. South East Asia. Many donor initiatives have rather created confusing and contra productive policies to start that process than facilitating economic and social transformation.
      Aid could have a role in Africa, but only if it understands how power operates in society and what policies are persued is the determining factor, not institutions.

      • Stephan Klingebiel says:

        Dear Anders,
        Thank you for this. I think we have partly a discussion on different levels and to some extend I don’t see a contradiction to my contribution. You are mainly focusing on the governance dimension in African countries. To some extend I have touched this debate as well. I think my term „clientelist and neo-patrimonial systems” (as you know this is a specific debate for governance issues in a number of African countries) hints to the discussion you are referring to. However, the main point of my contribution is different. I am emphasizing the declining role and the decreasing potential impact of aid (which was, of course, always limited and by far not the only factor) in traditionally aid dependent countries. Just one final point – I am not arguing that growth has always led to poverty reduction (just have a second look at my text): “ At the same time, there are still a number of countries where economic dynamism is still unsatisfactory or where, despite growth, there has been less than adequate improvement in living conditions.”
        Best
        Stephan

        • Thanks Stephan,
          Dear Stephan,
          Some common understanding,which is good. I agree that aid is diminishing as a factor for development, which is good and also necessary for reducing its distorting effect on policy choices. Africa needs better governance, yes, but not “good governance”. Fundamentally Africa needs economic and social transformation, where the “good governace agenda” is not helpful. Donors (Western) have preferably supported “improved living conditions” in Africa and thus generally social interventions, rather than supporting the economic transformation that could lead to more sustainable social services and improved living conditions. I believe this was a mistake. There is no longer a debate about whether capitalism or socialism should drive development, rather there are today different forms of capitalism everywhere. The debate is (even in dysfunctional Europe) about the role of government in the economy. Western neo-liberal paradigms with emphasis on non- state interventions in the economy, which also influenced aid since the late 80s, are today rightfully not a convincing and insprirational proposition for Africa. What it should be more precisely is still not clear, but aid could have role in shaping the future only if it understand the countries it is injected into.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*