One would think that the goal of any international ngo aiming to minimise the scandalous disbalance in the distribution of the world's resources ought to be, gradually, to put itself out of business. Or at least - to 'devolve' most of its business to those parts of the world where the aid is meant to be destined for.
Given the scandalous disbalance, and given the minute fraction of the rich world's enormous girth line that it is prepared to shed for the sake of the poorer world, there should need to be overpowering arguments to justify the continued existence of huge managerial structures, staffed by internationals at a rate from 10 to anything up to 100 times higher than locals would be paid, and located in cities which demand the highest office rents and day-to-day running costs of any in the world.
One would think. One might also think that one small thing that a huge ngo could do, at least over a 10 year period or so, would be to strengthen the capacity of local ngos - something they love to do - but to such a degree that the local ngos are doing the work, not the internationals. And one would surely think that the sign of a really successful international ngo - one which actually manages to alter the balance of power to some degree - would be that it gradually dies out, or at least slims down, as those in the recipient countries expand.
One would have thought that if we were doing our jobs well, we in the donor countries ought soon to be out of work, at least in this field. Or at the very least, we ought to be in work for the same rates that we deign to pay those in the 'recipient' countries.
Some nuggets to show how very far that thought is from the real world of so-called international aid.
See them all at this page.
Consultants are creaming off a staggering $20 billion from hard-won global aid budgets. The $20bn total is 40 per cent of the international communities' overseas development pot of $50bn - money that is meant to relieve poverty in developing countries.
The World Bank has confirmed the figure for the first time: ... it admitted that money spent on 'technical assistance' and consultants had increased by $2bn on last year's $18bn total.
, in Consultants pocket $20bn of global aid, May 2005
Consultants pocket $20bn of global aid, May 2005
We estimate that a massive $37 billion (47%) of the $79 billion in headline aid in 2004 was ‘phantom’, while real aid stood at only $42 billion. There was some improvement from 2003, with nearly all the increase in aid – otherwise known as Overseas Development Assistance or ODA – between 2003 and 2004 counting as real aid. However, even with this increase, our analysis suggests donors still contributed an average of only 0.14% of gross national income in real aid in 2004, or only one fifth of the UN target level. On average, donors give only $48 for each of their citizens in real aid each year – less than $1 a week.
In India, DFID spent US$40m on TA [technical assistance] from Credit Suisse First Boston over just six months, in the course of advising the state government of Orissa on energy privatisation. The total bill for foreign consultants on this programme eventually rose to US$110m, with most of the TA provided by Price Waterhouse Coopers. In Vietnam, one DFID official estimated that they typically pay foreign experts between US$18,000 and US$27,000 per month, compared to US$1,500-$3,000 for local experts.
In Cambodia, donors spent between $50m and $70m on 700 international consultants in 2002 - equivalent to the wage bill for 160,000 Cambodian civil servants. In other words, donor-financed consultants working in the Cambodian government are paid upwards of 200 times what their Cambodian counterparts receive.
From Real Aid
... estimates using International Panel on Climate Change assumptions show that stabilising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at 1990 levels would have implied a global, equal carbon entitlement of about 0.43 tons per person. Yet in 2000, actual per capita emissions in the rich countries were about 3.4 tons, meaning that each person in the rich world was over the limit by approximately 3 tons. According to the UK government, the damage cost of carbon emissions is US$56 to US$223 per ton of carbon. Using a mid range estimate of US$140, each person in the rich world owes US$420 annually through excessive use of carbon. In total, this results in a South-North flow of around US$400 billion.
According to [Reporters without Borders], 105 journalists were murdered over the year. Iraq, where at least 62 were killed, was the most dangerous place, followed by Mexico (8), Somalia (7), Pakistan (4), Afghanistan (4), Sri Lanka (2) and Eritrea (2). It would be no surprise if these countries ended up with the lowest scores. However, with the exception of Eritrea ranking 169th, this is not the case...
How is it that Eritrea, where only two journalists were murdered, ended up ranked below Iraq (157), Mexico (136), Somalia (159), Pakistan (152), Afghanistan (142) and Sri Lanka (156)? Perhaps because that nation is on Washington’s black list and RSF receives funding from the CIA front National Endowment for Democracy, NED?
Likewise what is the explanation for Cuba ranking 165 when not one journalist has been killed there since 1959? Why is this nation ranked below Iraq, Mexico, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Brazil (84), China (163), United States (48), Haiti (75), Nepal (137), Paraguay (90), Peru (117), Democratic Republic of the Congo (133), Turkey (101) and Zimbabwe (149), where at least one journalist has been killed? RSF explains that Cuba’s poor ranking is due to journalists being imprisoned. Just supposing the organization is correct on this point –which is actually far from being the case-, wouldn’t killing journalists still be more serious than imprisoning them?
In 2003, developing countries transferred a net US$210 billion to the rich world – that is, it paid out US$210 billion more than it received in new inflows... Interest payments alone continue to take US$95 billion of developing countries’ resources, almost three times the value of what they receive in grant aid.
* One quarter of the aid [provided by rich countries] – $20bn a year – funds expensive and often ineffective western consultants, research and training.
* In the UK, for example, almost half of TA spending goes on consultants and other experts, the vast majority of them British.
* A typical cost of an expatriate consultant will be in the region of $200,000 a year. According to the OECD, in typical cases more than one third of this is spent on school fees and child allowances – spending which would not be needed if local consultants were used.
the sheer amount of aid the U.S. gives to Israel [is] unparalleled in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Israel usually receives roughly one third of the entire foreign aid budget, despite the fact that Israel comprises less than .001 of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. In other words, Israel, a country of approximately 6 million people, is currently receiving more U.S. aid than all of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined when you take out Egypt and Colombia.
Our definition of phantom aid includes aid that is:
- not targeted for poverty reduction, estimated to be worth US$4.9 billion
- double counted as debt relief, totalling US$9.4 billion
- overpriced and ineffective Technical Assistance, estimated at US$13.8 billion
- tied to goods and services from the donor country, estimated at US$2.7 billion
- poorly coordinated and with high transaction costs, estimated at US$9 billion
- spent on excess administration costs; totalling US$0.4 billion.
In total, at least 61% of all donor assistance is phantom aid.
Invaded and occupied Iraq has been made to pay out U.S. $200 million ($270 million) in "reparations" for lost profits to corporations such as Halliburton, Shell, Mobil, Nestlé, Pepsi, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Toys R Us.
ActionAid said that although Britain had abandoned tied aid, at least 80% of contracts awarded by [the Department for International Development] in 2005-06 were to UK firms. A total of £101m was awarded to the so-called big five consultancy firms - PWC, KPMG, Deloitte, Ernst and Young and Accenture. Adam Smith International received contracts worth £22m, mostly for Iraq and Afghanistan.
, in Aid wasted in paying for private schools, July 2006
Aid wasted in paying for private schools, July 2006