In an interview with Guenica Magazine last year, Michela Wrong suggests another way for donors to enforce accountability:
Africa is in pretty dire straits at the moment. In Kenya, there’s a severe drought, and because of all the violence that exploded after the last elections, the economy is really suffering. If you cut all aid to Kenya, people are going to die. So I don’t think that’s a solution. But I will say that aid donors have to look very closely at what they do. If you have a government whose ministers are setting out to steal the equivalent amount of money that they receive in aid, then you have to wonder why western donors are continuing with that relationship. I don’t think the answer is to cut them off, but the answer lies very much in doing what Edward Clay, the British high commissioner of the day, was doing. Which is to be very confrontational, to humiliate these people in public, to call them to account, to deny them visas. The aid relationship needs to be less automatic, less lazy, less complacent, and much more abrasive. And if the Kenyan government of the day doesn’t like it, then they can find their money elsewhere.Wrong is right in recognizing that it's difficult for donors to make credible threats. Pulling out sometimes carries with it an immediate humanitarian cost (although some would argue this is justifiable in the longer run). Her suggestion that we call people out is interesting. Is there room here to enforce domestic accountability (rather than just accountability to the donors?). Perhaps, when pointing out crooked public figures, donors should emphasize that the politicians are stealing money that the electorate are entitled to.
Hat tip to the Roving Bandit for the link.
5 Comments
yes; completely on board with your point. I was just in a meeting today with some donors who want to stimulate the demand-side of accountability here.
However, it's not always that simple. We must remember that when politicians steal it is not only for their own pockets - they distribute the spoils to a quite wide patronage group that keeps them in power.
I used to often ask here, why more people don't voice discontent: the answer is that many get something, no matter how small from the ruling class. It might only be Tsh40,000 for school fees, but it's enough to foster some loyalty.
As with a lot of questions in development, it's ultimately contingent on a longer term thing: give people salaries and participation in a proper working economy, and then they will demand a lot more accountability and a lot less stealing.
Now, what comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Yes, I know it's not ever that simple, but it's difficult to write short blog posts titled "Everything is really complicated.
The patronage politics example is also very clear in Wrong's book - one of the reason John Githongo's stand didn't change much in Kenya was because of the total lack of support from his ethnic group, who saw the outing of fellow Kikuyus as betrayal.
But it's not always just about incentives - norms play a role in the perception of this sort of stuff, and while I think "naming and shaming" is neither a necessary or sufficient condition, I still think it's extremely worthwhile.
true. I do agree with the your point. I wasn't trying to say it needs more complexity for your argument, simply that demand-side accountability isn't present from some groups for a reason.
btw - maybe we should tag all our posts with 'yes we know, it's more complicated than this, but consider the basic points' to discourage comments like my first one...
Are we willing to let African leaders call out OECD leaders or donor organizations for corruption, for inefficiency, for patronizing, for post-colonialism, for whatever else? To name names and humiliate them in public? If not, it doesn't sound like respecting fellow human beings.
D. Watson - of course we are - or we should be. It goes both ways. In Malawi they already do some 'naming and shaming' of donors that don't meet commitments on aid or don't provide data to them. This is all good and healthy.