Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
24 MARCH 2004
RT HON
HILARY BENN
MP, MR MATTHEW
WYATT AND
MS FELICITY
TOWNSEND
Q20 Mr Colman: It is a European Union
designation, not WTO.
Hilary Benn: Yes, that is true,
but we need to focus our efforts in making progress in World Trade
matters, and I would say the number one priority from which we
should not deviate is continuing to put all our effort and energy,
alongside others, into getting those World Trade talks restarted,
because of the benefits that will flow to lots of countries, including
Kenya, and that is what I would say unquestionably is the priority.
Q21 Mr Colman: But you do not recognise,
perhaps, in your answer that Kenya is being ruled against on the
fact that Uganda, Tanzania—I could list them all—all
the countries in east and central Africa have trade preference
over Kenya on its exports to Europe. Is this something which DFID
would in fact see as a major area that needs attention?
Hilary Benn: I recognise that
that is the fact of the matter currently, because of the decisions
that have already been taken. My answer is simply that I think
the route to progress, both for Kenya and other countries, is
in making sure that the World Trade talks progress, because I
think that is where we ought to put our energy and effort, and
that, if we can have a breakthrough and get the trade talks back
on track and get an agreement, is where we can see real progress
which will benefit Kenya alongside others.
Mr Wyatt: The question about who
is able to benefit from Everything But Arms is an ongoing discussion
within the European community, and in terms of Kenya, an awful
lot is likely to depend upon what happens with its regional trading
agreements. Of course, there has recently been agreement with
the Eastern African Community on the common external tariffs and
so on, so there is good progress there. There are, I think, reasonable
prospects that Kenya will be able to benefit in the same way as
some of the other countries in the region once they get their
regional agreements in place.
Hilary Benn: They have made progress
on that front and revived an idea that, as I recollect, was originally
mooted a couple of decades ago, and have been able to make some
real progress in recent months, and I think that is a good illustration
of the benefit that countries can have from promoting regional
trade and regional trading agreements at the same time as trying
to make progress at an international level.
Q22 Chairman: Am I right in thinking
the EU has just recognised their fisheries regimes? Is there some
improvement on fisheries?
Hilary Benn: I do not know the
answer to that but I can find out.
Q23 Mr Colman: I think it is correct
that Ugandan fish products out of Lake Victoria are allowed in
but Kenyan products from the same lake are not. The witnesses
are nodding. Kenya has had many trade barriers against it which
do not apply to neighbouring countries.
Hilary Benn: It depends on the
classification of the fish.
Q24 Mr Colman: It is the same fish.
Hilary Benn: Yes, but to whom
they are attributed. I would be happy to provide a note in answer
to the question since I do not know the answer.
Q25 Mr Battle: In another context, I
am quite encouraged by the Department's shift to budget support
as opposed to simply projects. I am actually trying to encourage
the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Departments to apply
that same model in Britain, to give a little bit more as well,
and support through local councils as a way of going forward rather
than doing piecemeal projects. But the proviso that I would have
for that is that you tie in that kind of work in the relationship
of governments to a really clear and agreed poverty focus. I want
to probe a little more the plan that you put forward, the Country
Assistance Plan, and its relationship with the Economic Recovery
Strategy. You mentioned FARM-Africa, but also CARE and Action
Aid, and some of the other bodies and organisations that have
looked at the Country Assistance Plan have said the problem is
perhaps going to be that the Economic Recovery Strategy is not
sufficiently poverty-focused, that in essence at best there is
still, to use an old-fashioned terminology, a trickledown approach
that wealth generation at the macro level will deliver the goods
for eliminating poverty, and therefore there is not sufficient
poverty focus on the issues such as equity, public service provision.
How best can that be addressed, and how is the dialogue going
with the Kenyan government, and are the kind of lines that I am
suggesting the right way to go?
Hilary Benn: Very much. Since
you started the question by a reference to budget support, why
do we not feel that we are in the position to go down that road
at the moment? Really, first, because we think that there has
been insufficient progress in improving public financial management;
secondly, because there has been insufficient progress in public
sector reform; and thirdly, because it is not yet clear to what
extent the budget will reflect expenditure which tackles poverty
and improves social spending in the areas I think we would all
accept are important, recognising the real progress that has been
made in education, but the progress yet to be made in health.
Yes, we do form a judgment on that basis. Certainly we support
the ERS, but we also support the idea that it is a strategy which
needs to be developed. In the same way that our CAP is developed
in response to consultation and discussion and dialogue, we are
certainly encouraging the Government to do the same thing, and
in particular, for there to be a more explicit focus on poverty
as it develops.
Q26 Mr Battle: You mentioned earlier
a renewed emphasis on agriculture, and, if I could take that as
a particular example to push this argument a little bit further,
Imperial College published a paper in which it suggests that often
politicians can review agriculture as a means of distributing
patronage. In other words, that top-down approach might not deliver
the anti-poverty strategies and the pro-poor growth that is needed.
What role does DFID see for agriculture in being a pro-poor strategy
rather than simply a macro strategy for economic growth?
Hilary Benn: I would say that
I think it is about both. It ought to be about both given the
significant number of people who rely on agriculture for their
livelihood. People said that the plans that we had set out in
the draft CAP for involvement in agricultural and rural development
and tackling the problems of rural poverty had been insufficiently
detailed in the CAP. Agriculture is in fact central to our work.
We are developing new programmes, and in the revised document
I think we will spell that out better, and that is one of the
benefits of having had the comments that we have received in response
to the consultation. From our point of view, we would say that
the key issue in agriculture is one, more effective public spending,
and two, the development jargon again, the enabling environment,
the framework within which people are able to improve their livelihoods
as part of agriculture, and therefore we will be looking at a
range of mechanisms in taking forward our work, grant, challenge
funds, to try and address the issues in agriculture.
Mr Wyatt: Two things perhaps.
One is that since we did this draft, the Government has now launched
its strategy for the revitalisation of agriculture, and we have
also had some very positive discussions with the ministry and
have offered to provide some flexible technical cooperation which
they can draw down as they want to support the further development
and implementation of that. In doing that, we will be wanting
to focus very much on questions of ensuring that resources reach
poor people and that mechanisms are put in place to ensure that
goods are not subject to patronage. That is the first point. The
other one is that we are also working with a number of non-governmental
organisations on questions of agriculture. We have had a very
successful programme with FARM-Africa in Meru, which has focused
on improved goat breeding, and there are 30,000 people now benefiting
from that programme, which is also sustainable. The lessons are
being learned there, and although it is a project with a non-governmental
organisation, there are very close links with government and the
veterinary services and so on, so the lessons from that programme
are able to be learned and hopefully replicated. So we are coming
at it from two angles, if you like: first of all, with government
at central level on its overall policy, but secondly, trying to
ensure that our feet are on the ground by supporting specific
initiatives which can then inform that policy.
Q27 Chairman: I have some very quick
questions. Firstly, the United States seems to be committed to
a lot of money for HIV/AIDS in Africa generally, Kenya in particular.
Do you see that as an area where you say that the United States
is putting so much money into this that it is one where we can
back off and let them get on with it? What is your line on that?
Hilary Benn: No, that is not the
view we take. We welcome very much the fact that the Americans
have announced this additional funding, and indeed, Kenya is one
of the five countries in which we are looking to develop a partnership
with the Americans in the fight against HIV/AIDS following the
visit that President Bush paid to the UK in November. No, we need
more money in the international system, we need more effort, we
need more co-ordination, and we are far from reaching the point
where we can say, "Yes, there is enough money because the
Americans or others are putting in and we can step back,"
and that, of course, is reflected in the fact that we have significantly
increased the money that we spend as DFID bilaterally on tackling
HIV/AIDS and supporting reproductive health, and according to
UNAIDS, the UK is the second largest bilateral donor after the
United States of America. So we welcome it, but we need more of
it if we are going to address this absolutely fundamental challenge
to development, not just in Kenya but right across sub-Saharan
Africa and in other parts of the world where, if the epidemic
gets out of control in the way we have seen in some sub-Saharan
African countries, we have a really big problem on our hands as
a world.
Q28 Chairman: We will come on to talk
about governance and other issues in a second, but Kenya, by any
token, has made considerable progress on governance in recent
years. If the United States Millennium Challenge Account comes
forward, one would assume that Kenya would be one of the countries
that would benefit from the new MCA. I just wonder what sort of
dialogue anyone had had with USAID, to what extent you think further
funds from the United States are going to come for Kenya in addition
to money for HIV/AIDS, and whether you have any indication as
to where that money is going to go and how it is going to be used,
and to what extent DFID can steer USAID as to how that money should
be used.
Hilary Benn: The first thing is
that obviously, the Millennium Challenge Account has been developing
as both a process and a concept, and it is, of course, in the
end for the Americans to determine, as is their right, how they
wish to structure it, and how they are going to make an assessment
of individual countries against the benchmarks which they set
for entitlement for MCA support. What we need to do is to make
sure that we understand the way in which they are doing that,
and understand where the money is going to be made available,
because obviously, we need to take that into account alongside
contributions from other donors in looking at our programmes in
particular countries, and in particular, promoting harmonisation
and co-ordination so that we do not duplicate and we can work
together as effectively as possible. But it is fundamentally a
matter for them. I remember last Autumn attending a presentation
which the Americans made in New York, I think around the time
of the autumn session of the UN General Assembly. Their thinking
was still developing, I must say, at that point, and obviously
it has come on a bit since then, but they have to take those decisions,
and we have to take account of them, and to understand where they
are going to be deploying their resources and in what area.
Q29 Chairman: Do you have any idea when
the cheques are going to start turning out? It seems to be taking
a very long time.
Hilary Benn: I am afraid you are
asking the wrong person.
Ms Townsend: I was just going
to add that Jeffrey Sachs and a huge contingent from the UN Millennium
Project arrived a few weeks ago, I suppose, for consultations
with the Government and other stakeholders across sectors, and
two or three of us attended meetings in our own sectors, which
certainly included agriculture and education and health. I would
like to support what the Secretary of State is saying about their
thinking; it was mainly asking questions. There were a few speeches
but not ones informed by the local situation in Kenya. It seemed
to me that their interest was very broad. They had not focused
yet. But we are talking.
Hilary Benn: The truth is we all
have to wait and see.
Q30 Chairman: It does not sound as though
much has changed since we were in Washington. It is a bit depressing
really. Lastly, as we are focusing on the Kenyan Country Assistance
Plan, Secretary of State, what in the various topics that we are
covering would you see the Commission for Africa touching so far
as a country like Kenya is concerned? How is the Commission's
work going to relate to all this? Is the Commission's work going
to be theme-led? How is that going to impact and engage on Kenya?
Hilary Benn: The decisions about
the way in which the Commission is going to do its work will obviously
be determined when the Commission holds its first meeting, which
is planned to be in May, but we do envisage that there will be
a number of themes that will be identified. Individual commissioners
will be asked, perhaps in pairs, to lead on those particular areas
of work. That is the first thing. The second thing is it seems
to me a fundamental that we should draw on all of this experience,
in essence about what works to enable progress to happen, what
does not work, what we need to do more of, what changes we need
to make in the environment in which countries develop, in order
to maximise the chances of making progress towards the MDGs, to
encourage opportunities for private investment, in particular
given the fundamental importance of economic development to making
progress for all the countries of Africa. I see this very much,
first, as we have already made clear, being about keeping the
focus on the importance of Africa and progress in Africa, for
all the reasons that I think we share and understand, and second,
to genuinely ask the questions about what is going well and which
we can do more of and how can we support it, and what is not going
so well and what new ideas we can draw upon. This is a really
difficult balance, it seems to me, in the work of the Commission
for Africa and more generally: on the one hand, if people look
at the continent and have a perception that this is the part of
the world where nothing works, this is an incomplete and an incorrect
picture. That is unquestionably the case, because there are areas
of success and progress that can be pointed to. On the other hand,
given the scale of the challenges in many of the countries of
sub-Saharan Africa, we also have to maintain a sense of urgency
and determination that we need to do more, because so much hinges
on the progress of this continent over the next generation if
it is to avoid a repetition of the experience of the last generation,
which is that it has actually got poorer, its share of world trade
halved, all the things that we know and understand, and it is
about getting that balance right. If you can demonstrate where
progress is possible—for the sake of argument, we have talked
about Kenya and the areas in which it has made progress—take
a country like Mozambique, where they have doubled the number
of children in primary school in the last five years; that is
progress—then it seems to me that it will encourage people
to say yes, if we can do more of the things that have enabled
that to happen—peace and security and stability and having
a plan and all of the elements—then we have a better chance
of supporting Africa in many of the things that it is seeking
to do itself, both as individual countries and through the AU
and NEPAD, and it seems to me it is how we get that balance right,
to provide political impetus and support, which is going to help
the continent to progress in a way that it has not in the last
generation. That is why it seems to me that it matters enormously.
It has had a very broad welcome, and a lot of people are keen
to contribute to the process, including, I am sure, and I hope,
the Select Committee.
Chairman: We have made that clear.
Q31 Mr Colman: My question is about governance,
and I certainly think that Kenya is going to be one of those success
stories in the next ten years. Governance is going to be very
important within that. You have a very good analysis in section
B11 and B12 on corruption in Kenya, and I note you say in B11
that Kenyan citizens reported bribes being demanded or offered
in two out of three encounters with public officials. We met John
Githongo, the Anti-Corruption Tsar, when we were in Kenya and
were very impressed by him. You seem to concur with that in your
paragraph C3. Other than increasing civil servants' salaries,
what can a government do to address the issue at the everyday
level at which poor people encounter corruption and rent-seeking
behaviour, and how can DFID support this?
Hilary Benn: I think the first
thing is that there should be a very clear lead from government,
which indicates that they intend that things should change and
that the daily experience which you refer to, and which we touch
on in the paragraphs here, should not be how people have to live
and should not be the things that people have to do in order to
access services or to get their rights or to be treated properly
and decently. I think one cannot over-estimate the importance
of strong political leadership in this area, combined with an
effective mechanism for calling people to account who do engage
in corrupt behaviour, because then people can see that things
are beginning to change. I think that is fundamental to enabling
progress to happen, because if people do not think that things
are changing on the ground, particularly at the lower level that
you have been talking about, Mr Colman, then you can have the
policy and we indeed have a very high opinion of the work that
the anti-corruption tsar is doing, but it is how people experience
it on the ground, and that is about setting the standards and
then calling people to account if they breach those standards,
so that in time people can see that things are changing. But I
would just say that fundamental to it is strong political leadership.
Mr Wyatt: In terms specifically
of what DFID is doing, we are working with a number of organisations
in government and outside government to try to help the Government
to implement its policy of zero tolerance on corruption. A couple
of examples, one from each: we are working with the Government
and also with the World Bank and Swedish SIDA to put in place
an integrated financial management information system which will
reduce the opportunities for corruption and improve financial
transparency within government spending. That is an example of
supporting government. Equally, we are also supporting organisations
outside government which are there to hold government to account
and to draw attention to things that go wrong. A good example
of that is the support we are giving for Transparency International,
where we are providing core funding—it is quite an innovative
thing for us to provide core funding to a Kenyan organisation,
but we are doing that. We have had a long relationship with Transparency
International—first while John Githongo, who you mentioned,
was the chief executive and now under Gladwell Otieno—and
are now providing core funding for their work. So on both sides,
the demand for reduction in corruption and also helping government
to ensure that it is able to respond to that demand.
Ms Townsend: May I just add that
what we do in education is not only about getting children into
school and improving their experience there. The combined effect
of the Government abolishing the fees from parents for primary
education, which used to be, I think, the third greatest expenditure
for people after food and housing, the accountability mechanisms
now in place together with the abolition of that type of payment,
which was very much at the discretion of the head teacher, has
changed people's interaction with that particular arm of government
services enormously. There is a huge area of possible corruption
and conflict between the user and the provider that has just been
taken away. We need to follow that in other areas.
Q32 Mr Colman: A brief question on democratic
accountability, parliamentary accountability. Bomas came to an
end on the constitutional process. It has come out with its constitution,
very much about having a prime minister, being accountable and
elected from parliament. Do you see a role for DFID in terms of
working within and encouraging a democratic process in Kenya?
The political parties have long been on an ethnic basis rather
than on ideologies or approaches. Do you think that DFID should
in its Country Assistance Plan look to perhaps encouraging the
emergence of new political parties, or is this a move too far?
I think it probably is. Is there a comment you want to make about
what has come out of Bomas?
Hilary Benn: I do not think it
is the role of us as a development organisation to be explicitly
encouraging the development of new political parties.
Q33 Mr Robathan: Hear, hear! You ought
to be worried when we are the ones cheering you!
Hilary Benn: I am grateful for
the verbal support from members of the Committee, but that is
my view. I do not think that is our role, but it is our role to
encourage a climate, and we do this in the way in which we support
voluntary and community organisations, the programmes that Matthew
has just been describing, in trying to support the tackling of
corruption, where as I said right at the start, I think the new
government has shown commitment and has demonstrated progress,
because we know that all of these elements of openness and transparency
and people being able to articulate the needs that they have and
encouraging government to be able to respond to that are all essential
parts of a healthy, functioning political process, and it is our
job to support that, but not individual parties. As far as the
constitutional process is concerned, of course, it is a bit stuck
at the moment because of recent developments. Our very strong
view is that the outcome of that constitutional process is unquestionably
for Kenyans themselves to determine. I think everybody's concern
would be that the process for doing that should be respected.
That is a straight answer to a straight question.
Q34 Chairman: Perhaps I can just ask
Matthew a quick question. When we were in Kenya we met a lot of
parliamentarians. I just wondered on the process of the CAP civil
society is engaged with, to what extent have Kenyan parliamentarians
engaged in and responded to the CAP?
Hilary Benn: You told me earlier,
Matthew, that some of them had come to one of your consultation
meetings.
Mr Wyatt: We have sent the CAP
to the heads of some of the parliamentary committees, so we have
actually reached out with the draft to Members of Parliament.
I am not aware that we have had written replies from them, but
we did hold a public consultation in Nairobi last Thursday, where
I presented the draft and we had about 150 people there, of whom
four were Members of Parliament. So there has been some engagement
with MPs there and at least one, I think, possibly two of them
asked questions during that session and gave their views, so there
has been contact with parliament on the CAP.
Q35 Mr Robathan: Can I take you back
to the governance and corruption issue? You earlier made a comment
that it is of absolutely fundamental importance to this issue—a
proposition I agree with entirely, as do many of our correspondents,
not least, indeed in terms of economic growth. The Nairobi Stock
Exchange commented on the absolute importance of the rule of law
for people to be dealing in the Nairobi Stock Exchange, and that
they had to have redress in the courts, etc. The Kenyan National
Chamber of Commerce and Industry made comments to the same effect.
I also have something from the National Council of NGOs. You have
mentioned the constitution—and it was in the newspapers
either today or yesterday, as I recall—and the fact that
people seem to be moving away from the process of a new constitution
and, as you so rightly say, a constitution is a matter for the
people of Kenya, but it is quite important, I suggest, that there
is a constitution which all people in Kenya think is fair and
correct, or as many as possible. In your CAP you in particular
talk about the culture of patronage. If I might just quote to
you from the National Council of NGOs[2]:
"From where I sit, the culture of patronage (political, ethnic
or otherwise) is alive and well in Kenya today. The only thing
that has changed is the pronouncements against it and the hand
that hands out the largesse." Later on: "From a DFID
Kenya perspective, it would be good to nuance the existing optimism
with the reality of patronage." That is a comment. I know
Rome was not built in a day and Kibaki has not been in power for
very long, or the Government change did not take place that long
ago, but when would DFID decide, if it came to it, that in fact
the changes which you say are fundamental—and I agree with
you entirely—for the rule of law, for an end to such overt
corruption—not to go along with this? We are talking about
direct budgetary support. When might DFID say, "We are sorry.
This is not working"? What progress do you expect to see?
Hilary Benn: We are not talking
about direct budgetary support currently. I explained in answer
to an earlier question the lack of progress in areas which meant
that we were not at the moment considering that, and I think that
is the right approach in the context of the country at the moment.
That is a very difficult question to answer, how long, because
it goes to the heart of something that we think about a great
deal, as does the Committee, which is what are the right expectations
to have about rate of progress in countries where one is talking
about quite fundamental changes? If we pause for a moment to reflect
on our own history as a country, look at how long it has taken
us, as I sometimes joke in stressing the importance of making
progress. I say "We don't want you to take quite as long
as we did," because we have done it all and made every mistake
in the book and been through our own processes and experiences
ourselves. Sometimes I sit and I think "Are we being over-ambitious
and having excessive expectations about rate of progress?"
and on the other hand sometimes one thinks, "Well, we know
this is absolutely fundamental to dealing with some of the broader
problems and therefore it is in everybody's interests that people
should crack on as quickly as possible" and in the end it
has to be a balance between the two. But I agree with you completely
that it cannot be just a question of fine words being uttered,
which is why, in answer to Mr Colman's earlier question, my view
is what really matters is people's daily experience on the ground,
because that is the best way of judging whether progress has been
made or not. We are talking about Kenya today, but two weeks ago
I was in Sierra Leone—and you, Mr Chairman, were also there—where
corruption is a fundamental problem, and there have been two recent
surveys in that country where the people have said "This
is a big obstacle to progress, it is an obstacle to our perception
that things have changed in our lives"—and there is
great expectation in Sierra Leone because of the stability—and
also it is an obstacle to the opportunities for private sector
investment, because people have to come and decide whether they
are going to connive with the culture of corruption or not. The
fact that the Government has identified this as an issue, has
started to talk about it, is a big step forward, and I think one
needs to recognise that, but the proof is in what happens on the
ground, whether things change or not, and our job is to support
the Government in that commitment and the expectations that it
has set out to enable that progress to be experienced by people
in their ordinary lives. That does not answer your question as
to how long, because I do not know what the answer is to how long,
but that is the process I think that needs to be followed.
Q36 Mr Khabra: Rather than trying to
address each and every development challenge that a country faces,
it appears DFID's approach is to focus its efforts on those issues
on which it has a comparative advantage. There are a few questions
around this issue. How does DFID prioritise and allocate resources
across various sectors? As regards Kenya, what areas does DFID
have a comparative advantage in, and what are the comparative
advantages of other key donors? Finally, which donor has a comparative
advantage in agriculture, which is a major part of the economy?
Hilary Benn: That is a really
big and fundamental question, which goes to the heart not just
of this process but of the way in which we work in a number of
countries, and I am sure Matthew will want to comment on some
of the specifics. The honest answer is in part where we put our
time and effort will have evolved out of what we have done in
the past, and therefore, because we have done it in the past,
we have developed knowledge and expertise, and therefore that
is something that we seek to build upon. That is one route. Secondly,
it is based on our analysis of what we think the circumstances
of the country are, where we think we can best apply our assistance,
and the ways in which we give support. One finds in a lot of programmes,
including here, that providing support to capacity building on
the one hand—and I think the malaria bed nets is a really
good example, and I should correct myself because I think earlier
I said that we felt we had already saved 40,000 lives; we are
part-way through the first part of the programme, and when that
is completed we assess that that will have saved 40,000 lives,
and we are currently looking at ways in which we can extend the
malaria bed net programme, in particular to bring the price down
in the rural areas, where the sales of the bed nets are not going
as well as they are in the urban areas, where people have a higher
disposable income, because we are keen that we should spread the
benefits as widely as possible. Thirdly, it is about trying to
get this balance right between, on the one hand, not spreading
ourselves too widely, and the questioning and encouragement from
lots of people. They say "What about this, this and this?
Thanks for what you are doing on these, but what about this?"
and in the end we have to form a judgment about what is the right
balance for the range of the programme, recognising that other
people are going to do things and just because we are not working
in a particular sector does not mean we do not think it is important;
we do, but other people may be leading on it. In answering the
earlier question about where we might scale back, having accepted
that perhaps we have spread ourselves a bit too thinly, I gave
the example—I am not sure whether it was before you had
arrived, Mr Khabra—of procurement and civil service reform;
the World Bank is doing work on that, and I think we can really
leave it to them. That is the range of factors that we have to
take into account, so it is a product of history and priorities.
The last thing I would say, and it links back to an earlier answer
I gave, in relation to the Millennium Development Goals, which
are absolutely fundamental to everything that we do, and our PSA
targets in particular, is that I have been emphasising the importance
of asking ourselves, in deciding where to put our effort, how
we are making progress against those different goals and, if that
country is not making progress, whether we should be doing more,
and that that therefore should be reflected in the CAP.
Mr Wyatt: I think that is a very
comprehensive answer. I would only add that the one other factor
that is very important in our dialogue with the Government is
that they approach different donors for different things, and
that also features in the discussion. If the Government is particularly
keen that we should be involved in an area, obviously we give
a lot of weight to that, and similarly, if they particularly want
another one, then we give weight to that too.
Q37 Mr Khabra: How do you assess the
comparative advantage and what it means?
Hilary Benn: In the context of
Kenya, we might be able to give the Committee an example of where
we think we have a particular comparative advantage or comparative
expertise. I think the truth is that it is going to depend on
the circumstances of the particular country and the history. If
we have been working in an area and we have built up knowledge,
I suppose that creates a comparative advantage.
Mr Wyatt: Perhaps one example
might be in the education sector. For a long time we, perhaps
with the World Bank, of the major donors were really the only
two donors that were working to scale in the education sector.
So historically, we have had a very deep involvement with that.
We have been working on the books programme, which Felicity was
talking about earlier. Now a number of other donors have come
in and are supporting that, and we are thinking maybe books should
not any longer be our priority and perhaps we should look at other
things, and we are looking at school buildings and sanitation
and so on. That is one example of where we felt we had a comparative
advantage in one area and because circumstances have changed,
perhaps it is beginning to shift, an example within a sector.
Q38 Mr Davies: A very quick question
on comparative advantage: is it your feeling that a priori,
we would have a comparative advantage in a country that was a
member of the Commonwealth, or that a priori the French
would have a comparative advantage in francophone or former French
Union country? I have to tell you, there is a pattern there, which
you can quite clearly see, in terms of flows of aid.
Hilary Benn: Unquestionably, because
it is a product of our history.
Q39 Mr Davies: Exactly. Do you regard
that as a comparative advantage?
Hilary Benn: I do not know what
the answer is as to whether it is a comparative advantage.
2 See Ev 39 Back
|
