The William and Mary’s AidData research lab has undertaken a huge exercise of understanding the changes in the flow and impact of Global Aid. The rise of China has the changed the practice of development aid in less than a few years. Some of their reports offer key insights into the thought process of local leaders and factors that have led to China becoming increasingly influential in a sector which was mostly led by the western-bloc for geopolitical reasons and later to increase its soft power.
Aid Data has heard from 6,800 grassroots and national leaders from 141 countries and at the heart of these discussions is a simple yet profound message: the old bilateral donor-recipient model is insufficient to meet the demands of the world today. For solutions to be better and sustainable, aid must need to move towards real partnerships that promote contingency, accountability, and performance orientation.
Most of the low and middle-income country leaders want reliable, culturally appropriate, contextually relevant, and priority-focused partners. Many of them believe that the change from aid as charity to aid as partnership signifies more than semantics – it is the key to building sustainability. They found that leaders wish to work with development partners that coordinate their aid strategies with the national goals that are set out by the country rather than imposing or dictating their own. It is increasingly become clearer that political freedoms may not be as important for grassroots leaders and Sen’s idea of development might be undergoing a subtle change.
Although health and governance are still essential even for Western donors, other priority sectors like infrastructure, employment, and physical development are where leaders believe they have found a more reliable partner. For instance, the leaders who were called upon to speak agreed with education and health are avenues for sustainable growth of the economy, but they also want something more tangible to show to their public at large and these large scale projects being sponsored by China are helping them in doing exactly that.
The changes are indicative of the fact that while traditional Western donors would not be able to replicate China’s development model due to differences in existing carrying capacities, they would also need to rethink their portfolios if they are to offer something that is as clearly popular amongst developing countries at the moment: fast, infrastructure-focused growth
It is becoming increasingly important that donors involve themselves and understand the contexts in which they are operating rather than focusing on changing it. It is time to substitute the ‘‘one model fit all’ approach for one that is tailor made for the specific needs of each country. The local leaders acknowledge this need for context knowledge, perceiving long-term vision, stakeholder capacities, and sustainable development solutions that might benefit the community beyond the funding sources.
China is now a big development actor, has extended its operations to more than 52 countries after 2017 alone. It has significantly expanded its engagement possibly because it seeks the role of a global power, but its support is not contingent on changing domestic system or rights regimes, which puts it at an advantage. This evident through the BRI, which targets the construction of highway(s), ports and power stations instead of political awareness, spread of democracy or freedoms – ideas that remained a key for most part of the late twentieth century. This is not to state that China does not emphasise on merit-based systems, accountability and efficiency, but leaders are much more likely to pay attention to it rather than a reform that ‘infringes on their values.’
The Chinese aid is frequently politically unconditional, and that is virtually a boon to many African and other developing recipients in terms of the relatively nonintrusive conditions it entails, the nature and terms of the loans provided may be strategically dangerous not only to the sovereignty but also to the long-term economic stability of these states. Furthermore, the results of the survey for the Leaders’ Listening report also showed somewhat ambivalent perceptions of China’s role, although often with positive regards to the substantial financial contributions, but also with concerns over possible prerequisites.
The changes are indicative of the fact that while traditional Western donors would not be able to replicate China’s development model due to differences in existing carrying capacities, they would also need to rethink their portfolios if they are to offer something that is as clearly popular amongst developing countries at the moment: fast, infrastructure-focused growth.
The competition between aid models highlights a broader question: should development assistance be aimed at the lofty and glamorous construction of visible structures or should it be for long-term growth sustainable development and guaranteeing against debts?
In a way, one of the most positive notes that can be extracted from the report is that Chinese side is also increasingly using transparency as a tool for reforms that leaders may already have in mind but cannot implement because of numerous political obstacles. The BRI 2.0 would no longer be a free cheque for all, but rather one in which governments would have to show progress and follow a reform-based agenda that is similar to the one being emphasised by IFIs.
The Chinese side states that its aid model is participatory as it seeks to integrate local people into the developmental decision-making process. This way and through frequent interaction with the locals where they seek their input in co-producing solutions, but they recognise that they don’t share the same ‘ambitions’ which West does and don’t tie assistance to rights based regimes. The view remains that this needs to be addressed by leaders on the ground and by governments as they deem fit.
They argue that bilateral aid should not be viewed as a way for the donor country to gain political leverage over the recipient nation, but as part of an international effort to help establish norms that are settled in multilateral institutions via consent of member states. There have been assertions to the contrary as depicted even by AidData and there is evidence to suggest that some of the largesse has been shown to shore up allies. This is not an aberration from the past, but rather continuity of the existing developmental politics and is only opening new avenues for China especially as the rest of the world becomes more inward looking.
It is also important to stress that while World Bank and UNDP are well regarded, they are in danger of seeing their dominance eroded by bilateral donor systems unless they are capable of chasing the velocity and high-end projects commissioned by states like China. Multilateral organisations, especially those that emerged in the middle of the twentieth century, have seen their role questioned as they tried to apply outdated bureaucratic models in many parts of the world. The concept of adaptive management offers the multilateral organisations the opportunity to maintain their importance and to provide highly effective aid that is at the same time sensitive to local needs and conditions.
The current flow of aid from International Financial Institutions should also, therefore, be characterised by effective flexibility that considers the situation on the ground in developing member states. This way, aid can become more relevant to the locality while, at the same time, aligning projects with some goals of the nation.
The Chinese side needs to ensure that assistance must come with transparent and well-understood strings attached to it. It is equally important to make public the conditions and ensuring that projects have passed through the environmental, social and ethical scrutiny before they are operationalised will help foster donors’ and recipients’ confidence.
Leaders in developing countries are now demanding an end to business deals and strategies that compromise their views and practices on governance, accountability and development solutions. As the global disruptions in economic sectors are still prevalent, it is high time to reimagine development cooperation for maximisation of its impact and fair and sustainable distribution.
Thus, the only way for the aid to contribute to long-term positive change is to approach it as a shared process rather than as altruism. There remains no question that the future of development will rest with the ability of traditional donors, multilateral organisations, and emerging players, alike, to adapt to the emergent model of cooperation to catch up with the pace of China.