Poverty focused assistance: new category of development aid

Abstract

ODASS is now at its lowest level in real terms for 25 years. When governments flaunt such commitments it is easy to be pessimistic. Yet the commitments and programme of action of WSSD provide an idealised blueprint from which steps can be taken to advocate for change. Dissemination of information clearly identifying what governments have, and have not, achieved will be a further part of this process. To this end we analysed British ODASS in greater detail. Although British ODASS has been criticised for being inappropriate, it is also thought by some to be one of the more effective and poverty-focused aid programmes. The results outlined below are thus not intended to represent a bestcase or worst-case scenario, but to draw attention to the issues and make constructive recommendations to improve the effectiveness and appropriateness of ODASS. The average annual British ODASS for the 5 years 1989–93 was 0·3% of gross national product (GNP), equivalent to an average of US$2982 million (£1=US$1.75) per annum. 56% of this aid was bilateral (arrangement between UK and individual recipient country) and 41% was multilateral (ODASS given to international organisations such as the European Union [47%], World Bank [29%], United Nations’ organisations [17%], other [7%]). The remaining 3% of British ODASS went on administration. The median percentage of bilateral British ODASS allocated to the social development sectors of education and health was 8% and 5%, respectively. 60% of bilateral education aid was other or unspecified, and only 6% was specifically allocated to primary education. 38% of bilateral ODASS was directed to the world’s least developed countries. Theoretically, these countries should be the recipients of the bulk of ODASS. Bilateral British ODASS spending on health and education in the least developed countries was 2·2% and 2·7%, respectively. Only 0·6% of bilateral British ODASS was spent specifically on primary (0·1%) and secondary (0·5%) education in such countries. During the 5 years 1989–93, of 128 countries receiving bilateral British ODASS, only 19 received assistance for primary education, 36 for secondary, and 75 for tertiary education. Primary and secondary education—arguably the key to social and economic development—receive only a fraction of ODASS worldwide. The World Bank and other international aid agencies are giving increasing lipservice to the importance of primary education. Yet our analysis estimates that only 0·0002% of British GNP is spent on primary education in the world’s least developed countries (bilateral aid). This staggeringly low percentage is of especial concern in view of the generally good reputation of British ODASS. An important step to help achieve the goals of the WSSD would be to “We are witnessing in countries throughout the world the expansion of prosperity for some, unfortunately accompanied by an expansion of unspeakable poverty for others. This glaring contradiction is unacceptable and needs to be corrected through urgent actions.”