El funcionario publico

WHY COUNTRIES GIVE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

3 . 1 Introduction

"The fact that one is a citizen of a particular state should not prevent anybody from being a member of the human family as a whole, nor from having citizenship in the world community".

Pope John Paul XXIII.

The idea of international development assistance started in the wake of the process of decolonization. Mosely argues that:

"Since the 1 9th century it has been a common practice for governments to transfer money on concessional terms to the governments of their colonies under the label of 'grant in aid', 'budgetary subsidy' or some such term".

Mosely 1 987, p2 1 .

In the 1 950s international development assistance as a transaction between sovereign states became wide spread because of the overwhelming shortage in domestic capital and foreign exchange earnings which limited economic growth in many developing countries (Dickenson et aI 1 983 ) . An analysis of the reasons for the lack of capital in the African countries is provided in Chapter Four. This chapter considers the issues surrounding the debate on the motivation for giving international development assistance. The debate is conducted mainly around the two principal theoretical

strands, namely the 'functional utility approach' and the 'conventionalist perspective'. These two principal theoretical strands are examined to see if New Zealand's response to the crises in Africa could be placed within the framework of any one of these theoretical strands. The chapter begins with a brief analysis of why Africa in particular needs international development assistance in the first place. This is accomplished through a critical examination of the causes of poverty and underdevelopment in the context of the modernisation and dependency theories.

3. 1 1 Why does Africa need international development assistance:

The modernisation and dependency debate.

Modernization theorists point to a number of factors within the African countries, such as cultural and religious values, political and economic forms of organisation, which are deemed to be 'backward' and therefore an hindrance to the spread of 'modernity' (Apter 1 965; Lerner 1 962). They conceptualise development as a transition from a 'traditional' rural economy based on 'primitive' methods of production to a 'sophisticated modern' urban manufacturing base (Rostow 1 97 1 ) with higher export potential. They argue that the 'backwardness' of African countries would be overcome only if attitudes and social and political institutions as well as work ethics based on mass production, technology and capital are infused into the economy. Such conventional explanation of the causes of poverty and underdevelopment in Africa led modernisation theorists to suggest that international development assistance should be focused on enhancing the skills, values and attitudes in order to remove some of the constraints on capital formation and growth in these countries (Apter 1 965; Brandt

1 980; Elkan 1 973; Streeten 1 972). The provision of 'development capital' therefore, became the new social and economic frontier in the process of transferring resources to the African countries to help with the modernization process.

The modernization approach is discredited as being rather mechanical (Amin 1 978; Arndt 1 978; Frank 1 98 1 ; Hayter 1 982; Mabogunje 1 980; Myrdal 1 970). It equates capital growth with development, and largely ignores the qualitative human elements such as value systems and human responses to finance stimuli and institutional changes. 'Development planners' of the modernization school assume that development and economic growth are synonymous. This view is repudiated as reductionist; that development should be defined more multi-dimensionally to include not just economic gains but the sociopolitical, cultural, spiritual and environmental needs of the people (Perez 1 990).

Dependency theorists on the other hand contend that underdevelopment is the result of the unequal transfer of real and potential surpluses from the core to the centre. This refers to a global economic and political structure within which the developing countries constitute the periphery and the western capitalist countries the centre (see Frank 1 98 1 ; Myrdal 1 968 and 1 970. At the individual country level the capital cities and major urban centres are the 'sub-centres' while the rural areas constitute the national periphery). In the process of unequal transfer, resources are expropriated from the peripheral states to the hegemonic centres. This lopsided development is not just a basic characteristic but also a basic cause of global capitalist development and underdevelopment. Colonialism exploited Africa by transferring the surpluses from

Africa to Europe and America, the surplus that would otherwise constitute the basis of what Marx referred to as 'constant capital' (Marx 1 967) for Africa's development. In the post-colonial period, the lopsided exploitative relationship continues in the form of exorbitant interest charged on loans from Euromarkets and other international finance institutions, and the deteriorating terms of trade for primary products from Africa.

This exploitative relationship is further accentuated by the transfer of monopoly profits obtained from the exploitation of the natural resources and the labour of workers and farmers from capitalist investments in Africa. Poverty in the African countries is therefore created by forces at the global level, but also assisted by the local elite at the local and national level. This provides a three tiered poverty trap. At the global level the effects of 1 8th and 1 9th century colonization are accentuated by the policies and activities of the transnational corporations. These combine with the oppressive debt burdens, high interest rates and falling export prices to devastate national economies in Africa. These are reinforced at the national level by innumerable policies such as oppressive tax laws and development policies that discriminate against, or at best neglect the poor. Simultaneously, at the local level the poor have to cope with the skewed pattern of land distribution and the lack of access to national assets which have been mortgaged to international finance, big business and commercial farmers. Combined with their physical weakness caused by high prevalence of disease and hunger, and the corrupt institutions and inept officials, mass poverty continues to be created by the accumulation of wealth and power by the local elite, actively supported by western transnational corporations.

Dependency theory extends the exploitative relationship at the global level to the national level, and sees the poverty of the individual and that of the state as

intrinsically linked. Dependency theorists therefore, argue that the need for

international development assistance arises from the failures and neglect of the contributing governments and their private organisations in a previous phase of the history of their relations with Africa. The provision of development assistance by the metropolitan ex-colonial powers therefore, derives from a sense of guilt feeling (Bauer 1 98 1 ) , and a belated attempt to ameliorate the failures of the colonial era. In many cases this simply perpetuates neo-colonialism (Sallnow 1 990) as imperialist exploitation of Africa's resources and cheap labour continues through conspiratorial ties of vested interest with local national political and economic elites (Hayter 1 97 1 ; Amin 1 976).

Dependency theorists further argue that inappropriate development assistance has also led Africa into a sort of a 'technological fix', where poor African countries depend on highly sophisticated imported western technology. This dependence is created not by the basic needs of the recipient country, but the needs created in the minds of profligate public authorities by western contractors and sales people who use international development assistance to dump unwanted equipment. Such equipment does not meet the economic or social needs of the recipient communities, and is neither technically nor economically sustainable (Little 1 964, p8) . Its primary purpose i s to create and sustain a dependency relationship between the donor and the recipient. The element of charity and paternalism in most forms of development assistance, even those in the form of loans at high interest, foster attitudes of dependence on the part of the recipient and of self righteousness on the part of the donor when assistance is in fact not given out of selfless interest (Linear 1 985, p4) . It is the motivation for giving international development assistance that the rest of this chapter is devoted to. It

examines the two main strands of theory developed to explain the motivates for donors giving development assistance to other countries namely, the conventionalist theory and the functional utility theory.

3.2 Humanitarianism or Instrumental utility : Two approaches to explain the

motivation for donors giving international development assistance

Two principal theoretical strands dominate the analysis of the motivation for donors giving international development assistance. These are the 'conventionalist approach' and 'functional utility'. These are also referred to as the 'Humanitarian' and 'Instrumental Utility' perspectives, respectively, (McKinlay and Little 1 977, p59) and 'Universal' and 'Particular' justifications (Mosley 1 987, p 1 2). The conventionalist approach is based on the ethical and moral responsibility of the developed countries towards the less developed countries, while the functionalist perspective sees the motivation for providing international development assistance from the commercial and strategic interests of the donor country.

3.2 I The Conventionalist Approach: International Development Assistance as

redistribution and social justice.

The conventionalist approach argues that the principal objective of international development assistance is the general welfare, including economic development and social change in the recipient country. There are three main sets of arguments in this strand. The first contends that international development assistance fulfills the objective of redistributing resources for economic development and is capable of enhancing international co-operation among governments (Gordenker 1 976). It argues that the creation of international socioeconomic justice through international development assistance will bring about co-operative behaviour among nations. Co­ operation in development assistance would pave the way for co-operation in other areas between governments. As the co-operative attitude grows, it would bind nations together, and spill over from the economic sector to other sectors until at last even the intractable decisions affecting peace and security among nations would come under the dominant influence of international institutions. This will pave the way for peaceful outcomes in politics, economics and social change (Gordenker 1 976, p 1 04).

International development assistance should also be seen as a form of international social security system which is necessary not only from the increasing interdependence of all countries, but also the development of the international social conscience (Singer,

et

al 1 987). People, organisations and governments in the developed countries are obliged to devote part of their national wealth to international development assistance not just out of self interest, but principally out of a moral obligation to foster

international solidarity (Riddell 1 987, p268) . Development assistance must therefore, be conceived as an international programme for the transfer of wealth from the richer countries to the poorer countries. This is analogous to the income redistribution process which the social welfare system aims to achieve at the national level within developed countries. International development assistance constitutes an extension of the international fiscal system through which the more wealthy me'mbers of the world community act sensibly and in their own interests (Brandt 1 980, p77) to meet their obligations towards the poorer members of the global community. Idealistically international development assistance would become 'a true international social service given as a right' (Balough 1 974, p22 1 ) , as 'a public good', the provision of things for the pleasure, happiness and comfort of the general population which might otherwise not exist if left to the free market. The second principle of the Rawlsian 'compensatory principle' is drawn upon to support this contention. This states that:

"social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, income and wealth and the bases of self-respect are to be distributed equally".

Rawls 1 973, pp. 302 - 303.

In more strict economic terms international development assistance is also a redistributive mechanism, a mechanism for correcting misallocations in the international flow of capital due to market imperfections. It should be used to stabilise world aggregate demand by boosting the purchasing power of the lower income developing countries (Healey 1 97 1 ) .

The third strand of the conventionalist approach, also based on the 'compensatory argument', suggests that there should be compensation by the richer countries to the

poorer countries for past injustices arising from the political domination and economic exploitation during the period of colonization and imperialism (see Singer 1 977; Tucker 1 977) . I t derives from the analytical framework of the dependency theory which conceptualises the development of global inequality as the result of exploitative colonialism (see Frank 1 98 1 ; Kiss 1 99 1 ; Riddell 1 992; Rodney 1 982). It maintains that the productive structures of the developing countries (and particularly African countries) were made inherently degenerate through the systematic destruction of established indigenous structures, replaced by those externally imposed by colonialism for the exploitation of the natural resources and labour of the colonised societies. These externally imposed structures are culturally inappropriate to the development of Africa, and are largely responsible for the creation of the crises of poverty and underdevelopment. This has perpetuated the unequal exchange between Africa and global economy, both in terms of the economic resources and political power sharing. International development assistance is therefore the legal and moral responsibility of the ex-colonies as a means to address the global wealth imbalance (Sieghart 1 983, p98) .

The compensatory argument further suggests that the uneven distribution of global resources means that there must be global redistribution of development resources in order to achieve international social justice. Since we were all part of the global heritage, the areas favourably endowed should be obliged to share with those not so favoured (Beitz 1 979, pp. 1 3 7- 1 38) in order to create a just and humane global community. The Rawlsian 'difference principle' which suggests that in a just society the distribution of resources should ensure equal access by citizens, is employed as the central point of this argument. It maintains that a state promoting endogenous

development within its available resources is entitled to the support of other states in the implementation of its policies (Sieghart 1 983, p98). It is therefore binding on the members of the global human family to assistance those less privileged to attain the basic minimum standard of living.

The conventionalist explanation of the motivation for giving international development assistance is criticised on a number of grounds. The conception of international development assistance as a tool for international co-operation is dismissed as too simplistic and optimistic. Griffin and Enos suggest that by accepting the assistance of the powerful nations, the less powerful countries unwittingly take the side of the donor and invariably accept its animosities (Griffin and Enos 1 970, p3 1 7). These animosities are more long lasting and pervasive than co-operative behaviour. McKinlay and Little suggest that development assistance creates a dependency relationship, a position of 'unreciprocated reliance' (McKinlay and Little 1 977, p63). Since the recipient is the main beneficiary in the relationship the receipt of assistance invariably obliges the recipient to support the donor's position in international relations. Thus rather than create mutual co-operation, development assistance actually creates opportunities for the donor to interfere in the development policies of the recipient. The relationship is not one of equal partnership, but weighted in favour of the donor. In theory member nations in bilateral and multilateral relationships are independent and have the same opportunity to shape and influence policies affecting their mutual co-operation. But in practice, the less powerful could actually be manipulated, rewarded and/or punished in the process of allocating international assistance amongst competing recipients. Therefore, rather than providing the basis for co­ operation, international development assistance is actually a method for the strong to

control the weak (Griffin and Enos 1 970, p3 1 7; McKinlay and Little 1 977, p59) , a form of payments to allies to keep them faithful and also to neutrals and/or opponents in the hope of winning them over. Moreover, effective influence requires equal contribution and the application of expertise, both of which are often the subject of development assistance in the first place. The recipient, therefore, invariably operates in a subordinate or dependent position (McKinlay and Little 1 977, p62) and is incapable of exerting reciproc�l influence on the donor.

The compensatory arguments of the conventionalist approach are also attacked as weak extrapolations of the differential principle from the individuals and families within national boundaries for which it is originally postulated, to the international global context (Cooper 1 977, pp. 358-360). They ignore the impediments of national boundaries and the inevitable tensions and conflicts resulting from allocating international development assistance between nations of different ideologies. However, as Ruttan suggests:

"the growth of global political interdependence implies a decline in the significance of national boundaries. Since boundaries are not coextensive with the scope of economic and political interdependence, they do not mark the limits of social obligation in the sharing of benefits and burdens associated with interdependence. The ethical foundation for a system of development assistance rests on the premise that the emergence of international economic and political interdependence has extended the moral basis for social or distributive justice from the national to the international sphere".

Ruttan 1 989, p4 1 9.

The ethical foundation for a system of development assistance therefore transcends international boundaries and the theoretical extension of the moral basis of the

Rawlsian principle to the international context is consequently inevitable. Brandt suggests that the alternative IS the perpetuation of global poverty and

underdevelopment which will continue to cause war and global instability:

"History has taught us that wars produce hunger, but we are less aware that mass poverty can lead to war or end in chaos. While hunger rules peace cannot prevail. He who wants to ban war must also ban mass poverty."

Brandt 1 980, P 1 6.

The acceptance of international responsibility for the prevention of war and global instability means that nations must work towards the elimination of poverty and underdevelopment, and international development assistance is part of that process.

The most potent criticism of the conventionalist approach, however, is that it portrays international development assistance in a language of altruism, and thus tends to obscure the instrumental and self-serving motivations of the donor. This position contends that international development assistance is a major element of the foreign policy of donor countries. By providing or withholding assistance, donors are invariably pushing the message that their self-interests are either served or not significant in the countries that receive or are denied assistance. International development assistance therefore leads to social and political neo-colonialism as well as economic and military imperialism. It perpetuates colonial relationships in a post­ colonial world by creating 'spheres of influence' for competing donors. Consequently the pattern of assistance spreads and perpetuates the animosities that motivate super power rivalry (Griffin and Enos 1 970, p3 1 7). This strand of the argument that donors give development assistance because they are motivated by self-interests rather than altruism is examined in the following section.

3.22 The Functional utility approach: International Development Assistance as a

means for advancing donor political interests

In document Cohecho Uno de los máximos exponentes de la corrupción (página 52-58)