Document Library

Key Text Aid to Fragile States: Do Donors Help or Hinder?

Author: S Browne
Date: 2007
Size: 37 pages (250 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

Does donor aid to fragile and poorly-performing states do more harm than good? This paper, from the World Institute for Development Economics Research at the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER) examines the aid relationship with respect to Burma, Rwanda and Zambia. It offers eight principles for donors to observe in engaging more productively with fragile states. Influencing political will and supporting development capacity are two of the most important ways in which donors can help move a state from fragility towards stability.

There are several factors which help to explain why some developing countries are weaker and more poorly governed than others. These include the maturity of the state, the size of government, the quality of leadership, and the presence or absence of conflict. State failure thus has dimensions of both will and capacity.

With some exceptions, donors have appeared in fragile states at the wrong times and with the wrong attitudes, even sometimes undermining development progress. Failure demands more constructive engagement by donors - in some cases to save people in weak states from their leaders, and in all cases to save the states from circumstances which they cannot control.

Donor engagement in Burma, Rwanda and Zambia has proved to be a mixed blessing:

Burma: Western aid, dwarfed by the assistance of the country's neighbours, is clearly not working. Humanitarian assistance is helping to support Burmese livelihoods, but it needs to be complemented by other forms of engagement. The regime has little capacity and little will.
Rwanda: Relatively positive development outcomes blinded the donor community to institutionalised racism and the autocratic nature of the Habyarimana regime. As a result, donors ignored or missed signals that could have prevented the genocide. Donors remain divided in their perceptions of the current regime's will and capacity.
Zambia: Generous but fickle aid has been linked to a Bretton Woods programme that has done little to help the average citizen. Despite some signs that Zambia is beginning to set its own development agenda, political will has been volatile and state capacity remains low.

Notwithstanding these experiences, engagement is better than isolation, particularly where fragile states are already seeking to isolate themselves. Engagement should be consistently applied and based on collective action, preferably backed by the authority of a regional grouping and by globally acknowledged norms of international comportment. It should also take into account the humanitarian plight of the population. Furthermore,

each failed state must be treated as unique, with solutions formulated accordingly
state capacity building should focus on political, institutional, economic, social, and security capacities
donors should focus on ‘building up’ initiatives rather than on ‘building down’ or ‘gap-filling’ strategies that attempt to impose preconceived notions about capacity building
donor engagement with aid recipients should involve an intermediary to ensure greater disinterestedness
donor aid must be in complete alignment with the frameworks and management capacities of recipients
the goal of sustained support should encourage more open-ended aid planning
donors must be coherent, and must assess how bilateral trade terms, investment patterns, migratory flows, and other factors may impact aid.

Access full text: available online

Source: Browne, S., 2007, 'Aid to Fragile States: Do Donors Help or Hinder?' UNU-WIDER Discussion Paper, no. 2007/01, United Nations University - World Institute for Development Economics Research, Helsinki
Author: Stephen Browne , browne@intracen.org
World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University, http://www.wider.unu.edu/