The rise of new economic heavyweights was the subject of this session and we discussed the impact that these new emerging donors could have within the international development arena. During the discussion, one of the main points of interest were the positive or negative effects that these new donors can exert in comparison to the typical OECD countries that have previously dominated. If China has a particular aid strategy that is different to that laid down by the OECD, is that necessarily a bad thing? One of the main arguments that was raised was the risk that these new donors were undermining the principles of conditionality that are adhered to by the OECD donors, and in doing so, the new donors could be fuelling corruption or even exploiting the poor countries. But, what if it is just a new way of providing aid? What if it is just business? Also, another argument that we discussed was whether the poorer countries preferred dealing with countries that were not part of the OECD, because they are easier to deal with and are treated more equally.
An article I read in preparation for this session draws on these arguments in more detail. Woods (2008) analyses China as an emerging donor. So with regards to whether China’s aid strategy is helping to fuel corruption in the recipient countries. To counter this argument Woods states that ‘China has responded quietly to concerns voiced by other African states’ (2008: 3). Also, with regard to the perceptions of emerging donors from the recipient countries, Woods states that ‘they [emerging donors] package their aid in a strong rhetoric of respect for the sovereignty of other governments’ (2008: 13). Treating the recipient countries this way can have a positive effect, especially if western countries see them as ‘patients unwilling to take medicine which is good for them’ (2008: 13).
So to look at the question of whether these emerging donors can have a positive impact on international development, my personal view moves away from the cynical opinions such as seeing emerging donors as fuelling corruption as this is not always the case. The donor agenda over the past few decades has largely been unsuccessful and it may be a positive movement towards allowing these new donors to use different methods away from the conditionality of the OECD. This is also expressed by Woods who states that ‘in Africa…governments needing development assistance are sceptical of promises of more aid…Small wonder that the emerging donors are being welcomed with open arms’ (2008: 16). Also, treating the recipient countries in a different manner could be viewed as a positive.
Overall, the discussion during the session surrounded the impact of the emerging donors on international development. There have been many arguments that suggest that these new donors are fuelling corruption and exploiting recipient countries. However, there are a number of positives that could also be looked at such as providing a different means of providing development assistance when other methods have been unsuccessful. Also the relationship between emerging donors and recipient countries is stronger because of how the recipient countries are treated.
References
- Woods, N. (2008) ‘Whose Aid? Whose Influence? China, emerging donors and the silent revolution in development assistance’, International Affairs, Vol. 84, No. 6
Chloe’s Political Spectrum 