RSS« Consular Affaires | Idiots: Marching in al-Qods »
June 30, 2005
Some thoughts on Aid
Rnadomly found, I forget how, here: http://williamkaminsky.typepad.com/too_many_worlds/2005/06/anthony_cordesm_1.html
A summary of some comments by Anthony Cordesman.
This in particular caught my attention.
1) The US aid programs have to stop using "Russian standards of performance", to use Dr. Cordesman's colorful metaphor. By this he meant the following. It doesn't necesarily matter what your total expeditures are. The goal is not to spend money but to make definite, cross-the-board improvements in infrastructure and the standard of living. And, no, saying how much was spent on specific projects to that end doesn't count as a legitimate performance standard. Honest, timely evaluation of how well specific projects meet their specific goals is needed. On that note, the local success stories trumpeted in the weekly US aid reports, no matter how inspiring they are (and indeed they are given the danger in which many of those people work), do not constitute necessarily a good measure of performance either. All too often they are blips that do not fit into any systematic plan, or worse, occur in localities chosen for reasons of (often corrupt) service politics.
Well, all well and nice. However, I have a hard time thinking of a successful way to create real benchmarks. This strikes me as unrealistic wishful thinking. Who controls the performance data, are the benchmarks going to be on a reasonable time scale? If not, you just end up finding new ways to piss away money.
Given my limited exposure to development programs (and I confess I don't know or understand their internal dynamics all that well), I fail to see how "honest, timely evaluation" is to be achieved. Rather like exhortations to "good citizenship." Indeed ironic that he used the Russian reference in that context.
2) The underlying notion of the US reconstruction efforts, namely that private companies have a special insight into reforming a kleptocratic command economy that has lacked civilian infrastructure investment for 20 years, insight beyond the international organizations that have dealt with similar problems in say, the former Yugoslavia and Cambodia, was always worrisome. It has now definitely proved to be a fallacy.
Not sure I get this at all.
Posted by The Lounsbury at June 30, 2005 01:29 PM
Filed Under:
Jan-July 2005
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.aqoul.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/771
