International donors - aiding or abetting?

10th September 2015

In September 2012, lawyers representing an Ethiopian farmer announced that they planned to sue the UK government for its role in human rights violations in Ethiopia. The farmer, named in court papers as “Mr O”, alleged that the Ethiopian government’s “villagisation” programme had involved the forced resettlement of thousands of families including his own.

Mr O claimed to have witnessed beatings and rape. He says that when he tried to return to his own village in 2012, Ethiopian soldiers caught him and tortured him. His lawyers argue that the UK government must share some of the responsibility for these abuses because the villagisation programme was funded by its Department for International Development.

Criticism from a number of organisations, such as Human Rights Watch and the Oakland Institute, has fuelled accusations of donor complicity in the violations in Ethiopia – yet many see the country as a development success story. Thirty years on from the famine that claimed over a million lives, Ethiopia’s transformation has been described as an “economic miracle”.

"Donors who help such regimes may be complicit in those abuses, and yet withdrawing aid may threaten the socio-economic progress of these countries."

This demonstrates well the dilemma donors face when giving aid to non-democratic developmental regimes. The commitment of the Ethiopian and other ‘developmental’ yet repressive governments to promoting socio-economic development has led to significant progress. Donors who help such regimes may be complicit in those abuses, yet withdrawing aid may threaten such countries’ socio-economic progress. How, then, should donors decide what to do?

The shift towards politics in development research and policy in recent years, often referred to as “thinking and working politically” (TWP), has highlighted the trade-off that often has to be made between promoting economic development and strengthening political and human rights. Acceptance of this trade-off, the emphasis on political realism, and the importance given to the role of domestic leadership all mean that proponents of TWP tend to take a favourable view of developmental regimes, even if they exhibit authoritarian characteristics.

The clearest example of this is South Korea. The country’s economic transformation took place under an authoritarian regime, and it was only after a minimum threshold of development was achieved that the country democratised. While South Korea is widely viewed as the foremost development success story, current President Park Geun-hye went so far as to apologise during her 2012 election campaign for the substantial human rights violations of the earlier authoritarian developmental regime.

Even so, some proponents of TWP criticise the donor emphasis on democratic governance, saying that “what poor developing countries really need are leaders who … can get things done”. However, there are also plenty of examples to show why this ‘working with the grain’  approach can be problematic.

Peter Uvin’s superb book, Aiding Violence, explains how the donor community saw the Rwandan government of the 1980s and early 1990s as developmental and so continued to provide it with aid, though warning signs such as escalating racist propaganda hinted at the possibility of looming problems. Uvin describes how this aid helped the Hutu government to acquire the weapons used in the genocide of 1994.

As Duncan Green notes, a real danger with some of the approaches to TWP and ‘doing development differently’ is that “we end up helping governments that routinely kill or suppress their opponents [to] ‘deliver development’”.

We argue in our new paper that it is important to acknowledge the dilemma donors face when giving aid to developmental states. We have developed a framework that shows how the “donor’s dilemma” is, in fact, three distinct dilemmas of complicity, double effect, and dirty hands.

In complicity dilemmas, an agent sets out to achieve a desired outcome but others do wrong while progress towards that outcome is underway. To avoid complicity, the agent would have to withdraw and sacrifice the positive effect of her intended actions.

The name we have given to the second type of dilemma borrows from the ethical Doctrine of Double Effect which says that sometimes it may be permissible to cause harm as a side effect – but not as a means – of bringing about a good result. We suggest that a political reading of double effect dilemmas would interpret them as cases in which the structural realities that constrain the agent create a situation in which actions towards desired effects will inevitably generate negative side-effects.

In dirty hands dilemmas, the agent acts in a way that would generate a negative effect as a means – perhaps the only means – to achieve the desired positive effect. Understood politically, dirty hands dilemmas arise where different goals – for instance, stability, fairness, justice – are in tension with each other, and some have to be sacrificed, compromised or negated to maintain others.

"Our framework suggests how to diagnose each type of dilemma and offers practical ways of addressing them [beyond] an all-or-nothing approach."

Our framework suggests how to diagnose each type and practical ways in which they can be addressed. An all-or-nothing approach to the donor’s dilemma offers only two choices; either fully endorsing financial support to a developmental regime regardless of how it behaves, or withdrawing all aid to preserve the moral integrity of the donor. Treating the donor’s dilemma as a structural problem depersonalises it, and this helps to ensure that the donor does not conflate the dilemma with the contingent leadership of the recipient state.

Correctly identifying contextual constraints and the type of dilemma also puts more choices and tools at the donor’s disposal. This in turn would make it possible for donors to build a coherent case for different responses to normatively distinct situations, and so strengthen public support for development aid.

Many donors and development organisations work in complex political realities and we need to move past a naïve belief that donors should never provide aid to non-democratic governments. Equally, it is important that we avoid the other extreme where we ignore signs of increasing repression and rights violations.

We argue that at the heart of thinking and working politically lies the ability to respond to changing circumstances and to be aware of warning signs. Further, the framework illustrates that a political approach to aid, one which is sensitive to political contexts and structural constraints, need not be normatively silent.

Image: Niels Sienaert, Flickr

0 Comments

Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.

Author

Niheer Dasandi

Niheer Dasandi

Niheer is a Research Fellow with the Developmental Leadership Program, based at the University of Birmingham. His research focuses on politics and development, particularly on the political economy of aid, links between inequality and poverty, the process of policy reform, and political-bureaucratic interactions.

Read more

Author

Lior Erez

Lior Erez

Lior Erez is a Teaching Associate in Ethics and World Politics at the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge. His research is in normative political theory, and in particular the obligations and responsibilities of states and citizens in the global political order.

Read more

Related items

Opinion by Luke Arnold25th May 2016
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal29th March 2016

It's all about inclusion, but how?

Guest post for the World Bank

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal6th April 2016

Education, development, and the problem with consensus

Why rethink the international consensus on 'quality basic education for development'?

Opinion by Michele Schweisfurth7th April 2014

The challenge of realising Pacific democracies' development potential

How can Pacific democracies deliver for their citizens?

Opinion by Julien Barbara8th July 2016

Authoritarianism, democracy and development

What does the evidence say?

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th November 2014

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015

Cancer and the links between medicine and development

Guest post for From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th April 2015
Opinion by Suda Perera19th December 2016

Shuffling the decks: quick fixes versus long-term stability

Guest post for Development Progress on 'post-conflict' DRC

Opinion by Suda Perera22nd January 2015
Opinion by Heather Marquette10th November 2014

Adding gender and power to the TWP agenda

Why bring gender into Thinking and Working Politically?

Opinion by Sally Moyle6th August 2015

Gender analysis, and thinking and working politically – bridging the gap

Guest post on Devpolicy  introducing panels at this week's Australasian Aid Conference

Opinion by Chris Roche14th February 2017

Overcoming premature evaluation

Guest post in From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th November 2016

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's EITI process and its contribution to broader reform

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016
Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017

Politics shape services; and services shape politics

How governance and sector specialists can help each other understand the politics of service delivery

Opinion by Richard Batley19th June 2014

Is developmental patrimonialism a dead end?

The first of two posts introducing a new DLP paper on growth and democratic transition

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th September 2016

Corruption: do we target the servant or the paymaster?

Guest post for The Guardian on UK aid watchdog report

Opinion by Heather Marquette5th November 2014

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

'Power, politics and positive deviance' is the theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014

Indonesia and the political settlements trap

The challenges of 'resettling the settlement'

Opinion by Graham Teskey17th July 2015

Two remarkable transitions: lessons from Oman and Somaliland

Political settlements and international power structures

Opinion by Sarah Phillips20th July 2015

Do donors have realistic expectations of their staff when it comes to 'thinking and working politically'?

Is learning to ‘think politically’ like learning a new language? 

Opinion by Heather Marquette9th June 2014

Being 'there': reflections on fieldwork in the DRC

Fieldwork in fragile places part 1: the security dilemma

Opinion by Suda Perera5th November 2014

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal26th April 2016

International donors - aiding or abetting?

The 'donor's dilemma' is discussed in a new DLP paper.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

Innovation: transactional or transformative?

Given the fascination with 'innovation' in the field of development, it's time to discuss what the word might mean.

Opinion by Chris Roche23rd March 2015

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014

Politics, risk and development: three takeaways

Reflections from two conferences

Opinion by Chris Roche19th February 2016
Opinion by Heather Marquette9th March 2015