Written evidence submitted by Professor
Lawrence Haddad, Director, Institute of Development Studies
My comments are framed by the question: will
this legislation do any harm?
I have organized my comments around the implicit
assumptions in the draft Bill.
I should emphasize a potential conflict of interest—my
organization receives approximately 50% of its funding from DFID
contracts and grants, hence any increases in UK Aid could be seen
as good for IDS. Nevertheless, I hope the following reflections
are helpful.
IMPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS
IN THE
BILL
1. More aid is good for development.
(a) This is a good bet if aid allocations are
driven by a donor-recipient consensus on the evidence about what
reduces poverty and if both donor and recipient have the capacity
to utilize the ODA.
(b) As aid allocations increase they will need
to be more carefully monitored and assessed.
(c) As aid is increased, this must not distract
attention from aid exit strategies in certain countries
2. More aid from the UK is good for development.
(a) Leadership is important for inspiring others
to increase commitments, but free-riding is all too easy and I
would like to see some evidence on whether unilateral increases
in aid are merely compensated for by reductions of other DAC members.
(b) Does DFID have the capacity to sensibly administer
more aid under these tight deadlines? If it took 11 years
to increase the ODA/GNI % by 0.17 percentage points, an increase
of 0.27 percentage points over five years represents a three-fold
increase in ramp up. Can this be done in increasingly fragile
contexts with a smaller and smaller staff?
3. UK aid will be more predictable.
(a) The previous point emphasizes how quickly
ODA will have to increase if the target is to be met. Does this
make UK Aid more predictable?
(b) If ODA is strictly tied to GNI does this
mean ODA amounts become less predictable?
4. Without the Bill, 0.7% will not be protected.
With it, it will.
(a) Cross-party support for 0.7% seems strong
although some have concerns about DFID funds being allocated to
climate and military purposes under a Conservative Government.
(b) There seem to be several get out clauses
that the SoS can appeal to if the target is not met ("the
effect of economic or fiscal circumstances arising outside the
UK" which seems to offer wide latitude).
5. The UK public is comfortable with the
0.7% by 2013 goal.
(a) Will this Bill, and the reporting on any
failure to meet the target, strengthen or erode the UK consensus?
I can see several newspapers using the Bill and any subsequent
failure to meet it to "wake up" its readers about "money
being given to corrupt African governments". This will need
to be managed and DFID's communication strategy around ODA will
have to be substantially strengthened.
(b) The timing could be seen as electioneering.
If so, this could contribute to the politicization of aid in the
UK. If the current Government is re-elected, does the Bill add
much? If an Opposition party is elected, any failure on their
part to support it could undermine the UK's credibility going
forward.
On balance, I am in favour of the Bill. But
the Impact Assessment seems rather sanguine about the potential
downside risks—these will need active management.
|
