Syndicate content

Add new comment

In his blog - and apparently in his book - Wolfgang Fengler argues that the dissection of aid will exacerbate the monitoring and the management of development aid and progress. I believe that we always need evidence for our statements, otherwise they might be misleading. Me personally, I don't believe that the number players in the development aid industry has increased during the last decade. NGOs like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Novartis Foundation - not to mention the Rockefeller Foundation - have been in the filed for mor than ten years. I would like to see evidence for the number of actors in the field during the last 20-30 years. On the other hand, Wolfgang is stating that US$ 3.2 trillion in aid haven't led to big changes in developing countries. Is this ODA or does this count include NGOs, venture philanthropy and individual contributions? However, if "big" money has not spured any progress, what should be bad about "small" money? Could it be that the proportion of small projects is steadily increasing just BECAUSE ODA doesn't work the way it should? I think we should be careful with big statementss. Big statements might prove to be wrong if the data show something else, and wrong statements will lead to wrong recommendations, strategies, and actions. Maybe the time has come to look at the key success factors of small projects and take the learnings to the regional, national or continental level. Our entire society in the West is build on a bottom-up approach, but in the South we claim to implement a top-down model. The Chinese are better at doing that.