Kenya

Aid is dead:  it is worse than merely useless, since it abets and perpetuates mis-governance and dependency by Africa.  No, to the contrary, massive additional infusions of aid are crucial for all of Africa.  This massive transfer of aid to governments in Africa is particularly urgent right now, in the midst of the financial crisis, which is bound to inflict permanent damage everywhere in the continent.

These blanket statements are nonsense, on both sides.  While they may contain a 'straw man' element, unfortunately in slight variants one often sees such pronouncements in current writings and public debates.  In spite of the practical irrelevance of holding on to such extreme positions, such artificial debates go on and on, pitting the extremes against each other.  The media loves it.  Each side of the argument tends to fit selective 'facts' (and hyperbola) to their extreme cause.  Even reasonable analysts tend to write about one single determinant for the ills of Africa, or just opt to focus on one extreme side of the argument or the other.

‘Aid Effectiveness’ gone astray?  Imagine official multilateral and bilateral donor aid agencies holding high level meetings for years to agree on ‘harmonized’ aid strategies for recipient developing countries whose governments are expected to fully 'own' them.

Don't look in this space for formal definitions of donor aid ‘harmonization’.  They are in official reports from aid organizations; there you can also read about efforts to 'harmonize' the timetable and frequency of official visits by donors to recipient countries.

Instead, in this blog space let me spur debate, as I just did in a panel on ‘Aid Effectiveness’.  Let me start by echoing a panel member in advancing an unorthodox interpretation for donor ‘harmonization’:  lowest common denominator agreement among donors regarding their strategy towards a recipient country.  Spineless strategies, devoid of innovation, and skating over the toughest challenges for development.