Role of Donors in Poverty Alleviation and Development Activities: Are they achieved 100 % or appropriate and expected outcomes!!!???

[Suman Chowdhury Mony]

Many Donor organizations and countries of the world have been donating or lending billions of money as aid for long time in many third world countries and underdeveloped and developing countries for organising various types of social and economical development programs including poverty alleviation. Many countries do their development works by using the foreign assistance. There are many NGOs and Government Organizations establish for doing various types of development activities including poverty alleviation programs or works.  We know, the aid expectant organizations prepare several project proposals and generally donor organizations or countries approve those proposals doing some changes or not to do any changes and give them fund, donation or debt to implement those programs/projects. After getting fund, those organizations or authorities try to finish their project within the project tenure and they publish a beautiful and good looking (successful!!!) project completion report and send it to funding organizations and many others organizations and authorities desiring further assistance for upcoming another projects.

But what are the roles of fund raiser organizations or authorities in the time of project implementation??????

Only doing MONITORING works or show some pattern of monitoring activities!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are the results of those projects? What are the achievements? In which purpose Donors give the funds? Have the implementers successfully completed those projects? What are the outcomes? Are those completed projects or programs bringing positive and helpful results for the related people, societies and the countries? What are the real pictures of our poor and non developed countries?  

There are many questions arrive.  Years after years, Donors have been funding huge amount of money in many countries for various types of social and economical development matters including poverty alleviation. In spite of huge amount of donations, debts, aid and foreign assistance, yet there are no rational achievements of desired results in most of the foreign assistance taking countries. It is true, if the disbursed money and other assistance used in precise way and the donors and projects implementers gave their 100 % efforts to catch the expected projects goals and worked for bringing positive results for man kind, also for the society and countries, then there were some positive outcomes must be come in those countries. But the real pictures are not like that.

Where are the problems? Corruption is a common word and easy process to do in the developing and under developed country. Is it true there are various types of problems in NGO management and corruptions are already entered in there?

Or, what? – Unskilled country offices of Donor agencies? I want to believe that our every branch of our donor agencies is skilled.

Maybe our honourable Donor organizations and countries never search the answers of those questions!!!!  Disbursing only huge amount of money as voluntary perspective is not the greatest work, but when that money help to improve the current circumstances of the target people and related society and area then the action of Donors come as a true greatest work.

But when the assistance of Donors cannot bring the proper results for which they disbursed fund, then we should rethink about it. Our honourable Donors should rethink and rearrange their actions for poverty alleviation and several types of social and economical development works in the developing and under developed countries. Their assistance should not bring fruitless results; they should gain their expected results for man kind and creating a better world for all by their successful efforts.

[M.]

euh-many issues here. and many donors.

concerning the EC, biggest donor in the world for development aid, and one I happen to be a bit familiar with, I can attempt some subjective reply:

"But what are the rolls of fund raiser organizations or authorities in the project implementation time??????

depends who you speak about. EC for instance deals with states=governments. EC has two modalities of aid: budget support (SB) and programme support (PS). They are igven according to documents called Country Strategy Papers that have been signed by donor and country following treaties signed etc. These docs set up the frame for "collaboration" and the priority areas and rationale. BS is then given to governments, disbursed in tranches according to general treaties signed (which provide also a frame for cooperation in general) and the measurement of "indicators" the country has to reech and that are more often than not shady to measure and complex.  Basically BS is given when the country is deemed to be macroecon. stable (nope, it has nothing to do with political governance, and this is indeed  a problem). BS performance has not to my knowledge been measured/evaluated at global level for the EC. PS modality is given through ngos and other implementing non-state actors when country is deemed too unstbale economically (and too corrupt) to manage well the BS.this includes humanitarian aid, channelled through implementing ngos. Millions and millions are put inthe hands of non state-actors so that they "alleviate poverty" or alleviate the results of war, while EC foreign policy designed in nearby offices fuels war more or less indirectly.

 This leads us to the issue of the role of the state in "develpment" whatever that means) but I guess thats another story? or maybe not. In some instances this kind of support is good, otherwise nothing could be done and in some countries (I think Bangladesh here,, becaue recelty assesed it, but many others could apply) it can actually be a relatively good option given the level of corruption of some governments and the level of good structure and population outreach and trust of certain non state actors.

So the role of the donor in implementaiton is very limited in what regards the EC. what they could do, they dont becasue they have other interes. Remeber aid policy is only the little sister of strategic interest donor might have in the country-region.

Also, one could argue, hey, why shouldnt it? who has to implement development? "ownership" might be an overused term but still has all relevancy today when we talk about the state and how development is achieved .

the role of this donor in my opinion would be not so much to implement action as to self-criticise in order to change its architecture of cooperation-and this goes well beyond aid policy itself. But it wont happen. not this century. there is just not enough political will (or power, in the case of the decadent EU) to do so.

Only MONITORING or show some patternt of monitoring activities!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are the results of those projects? What are the achievements?it is a good question. I just happen to have finished a consultancy evaluating the action of EC aid on millenium development goals in two countries. I guess it all depends what measure youre using, Results? as compared to what objectives? as measures by what indicators? as inscribed in what political frame? my conclusions are, (notwithstanding the lousyness of data available itself and the irrelevance of and incoherence of the MDG and their indicators to indicate anything) that results were quantitatively insignificant. Im not sure the donor will like to hear that, but hey, data speaks for itself. Achievement is a term that would have to be replaced in a  context: in regard to what? at what level are we speaking? what are the indicators? whats the level? macro? meso? micro? There was probably some achievement, for some people. I choose to believe that.

 

In which purpose Donors give the funds? another very good question :-). for the donor concerned, I believe the give funds because such is the Architecture of Aid. They have committed to giving funds. thee have to. They have agreements well beyond aid tself with the countries. they have interests (commercial, energetic, strategic). a slice of the aid goes in, then immediately out to external contractors (multinational companies actually doing the work-build the road, get the mineral....or assess how this is done). the funds MUST be given, disbursed. it is a sign of our cooperation with these states and our good faith in cooperation, stability and peace....

 

Have the implementers successfully completed those projects? this should be measured :-) there are some data in the EC webpage. research done by sub contractors of the donor itself (consultancies). much remains to be done. But that would be a vast workload. Donor is busy giving funds and donor does not have a memory of, say, last decennial becasue its staff rotates at the speed of light and are not required any specific knowledge of aid. So donor doesnt know if it was worth something. Then again, projects should have performance indicators in order to be measured. and then again there are other instances having an impact on project results beyond proyect  design itself. I would say, some work, some not. A drop in the ocean. Even if they work they are so tiny its like asking if a drop in the ocean has an impact on whale comfort.

What are the outcomes?  idem...

Are these helpful for the related people, societies and the countries? What is the real picture of our poor and non developed countries?  these are the BIIIIG quesitons of aid...:-D

generally speaking I would say the current Architecture of Aid (regarding the EC) is not fit to respond to the size and scope of the problems it sets up to tackle..ine same way that having chinese build a road network/sewage system was never directly linked to african eradication of poverty, EC aid policy is not thought whithin broader EC (or others') foreign policy in a coherent way. And thus it will not address poverty, injustice, climate change and what have you in the way they need to be tackled: with coherence, courage and rigor.