The lack of feedback and accountability is fatal to aid effectiveness

Written by Gavin Chait For the past two months my significant other has been working 18-hour days at DISA Vascular, where she is Quality Assurance manager.  This weekend auditors fly out from Germany to evaluate their product and their systems for that quality assurance.  

Accreditation allows them to use the CE mark; the standard assurance mark that reflects compliance with essential health and safety standards set by the EU.  Without it they cannot sell their product in Europe.

DISA Vascular manufactures cardiovascular stents.  A failure of the product can result in fatalities.  Scrutiny is quite a costly business but consumers are probably happy that this type of evaluation takes place.  You are probably even more happy that scrutiny is performed by third-party professionals.

If all the stent manufacturers got together and agreed on a set of safety standards and told us to trust them, “We’ll comply with these,” you probably wouldn’t feel as safe.

Everywhere in the commercial sector there are external means of feedback to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.  Financial auditors watch the money, standards authorities watch the products, journalists watch the way companies treat the public … all of this scrutiny may be unpleasant for those being observed but it helps us to feel comfortable buying products made by people we don’t know.

And then we get to the development sector where charities and development agencies assist people we don’t know to stop being poor.

In October 2006, at an international conference in Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands, the representatives of 24 countries signed a Statement of Ethical Principles in ((Fundraising)).  Charitable fundraisers are to abide by this code.  And we should trust them because they are working for the common good.

Imagine a similar code of conduct were issued entitled Statement of Ethical Principles for Chief Executives.  Imagine CEOs across the planet told us simply to trust that they would work in the best interests of shareholders.  Would you ((trust)) them?  Or would you continue to demand close audit scrutiny and tough controls (like Sarbanes Oxley)?

At this moment there is limited scrutiny placed on development organisations.  As William Easterly, Professor of Economics at New York University, remarks in his essay “Why doesn’t aid work?”:  The two key elements necessary to make aid work, and the absence of which has been fatal to aid’s effectiveness in the past, are FEEDBACK and ACCOUNTABILITY. The needs of the rich get met through ((feedback)) and ((accountability)).

But the needs of the poor are not.  There is very little.  Because it’s free, because it’s donated, somehow we don’t care for accountability as much.  And so, despite spending a total of $ 568 billion on aid to Africa, Africans are no better off than they were 40 years ago.

Clearly the lack of money isn’t the problem.

And so, in full awareness of this shortfall, we offer our own services.  To measure the effectiveness of different approaches and different organisations, and to offer clear guidance as to what works and what doesn’t.

So that we don’t ask ourselves again, in 40 years time, “Why doesn’t aid work?”

---

< Prev		Next >