Page 413 - Volume 2_CHANGES_merged_with links

Development Aid

“Izandla ziyagezana” - “Hands Wash Each Other”

 Differing concerns related to ISSUES that can arise that impede further Economic
Growth
(e.g. Low-level equilibrium trap, Dual Economy, Economic Mobility, Wealth Distribution, Welfare Trap,
Working Poor,..)

 Differing concerns related to how Economic Growth affects INDIVIDUALS

(e.g. Inequality in all its forms, Poverty in various manifestations, Cycle of Poverty, Feminisation of Poverty,
Working Poor…)

 SOCIETAL concerns (i.e. over and above their direct economic impact)
(e.g. Inequality in all its forms, Poverty in various manifestations, Cycle of Poverty, Feminisation of Poverty,
Working Poor...)
***** ***** *****
m̩
ɡ
And so we can take it for granted that each major 'zuŋ u donor nation brings their own
'partiality' to their 'aid gift'. This won't be aid that falls under the term 'tied aid' but it will add
its own 'strings' which together with other 'aid gifts' can help to 'blunt' the recipient

government's progress.

Governments who know they need significant amounts of aid can all too easily adopt
a 'play the aid game' approach where individual programmes are no longer part of an

overall programme based on fundamental reforms and designed to produce a cohesive

legacy. Under the 'play the aid game' governments can all too easily agree to very worthy
individual programmes simply to get the funding (and some perceived kudos?) and then

completely fail to build the building blocks that are necessary to produce any real sustained

legacy.
ɡ
m̩ 'zuŋ u nations and their Bretton Woods Institutions are at fault here.
ɡ
m̩
Africa has moved on. The 'zuŋ u has not. Or at least not far enough.
Development of Africa's ‘least developed’ countries will progress at a much faster, more
sustainable pace only when the various sources of aid are administered through a single

body that also has the sort of authority that allows it to directly influence the behaviour of a
recipient government. No other body currently exists that can fill this function better than

the AU.
It’s not just that the AU can more readily relate to the actuality on the ground. The AU

is much better placed to co-ordinate activities with neighbouring countries rises all falls

according to what happens in neighbouring countries.
The AU is also much better placed to provide the sort of subtle -and therefore less

disruptive -'carrot and stick' approach to ensuring recipient governments meaningful and