Helping out

Every year New Zealand spends around a quarter of a billion dollars in overseas aid. It needs to be wisely spent.

John Overton is Professor of Development Studies at Massey and has research interests in rural change and sustainable development. His research has spanned colonial Kenya, rural Fiji and Malaysia.

It may seem odd to describe development work as an industry yet, with a government aid budget of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars and a large number of non-government organisations involved in development projects throughout the world, the business of aid is a large one. Although New Zealand devotes a low percentage of its GDP to aid – compared to a number of European countries at least – it is well regarded as a donor, especially in the Asia–Pacific region.

Ten years ago, then Foreign Minister Don McKinnon stated that New Zealand’s aid programme brought benefits to this country as well as to the countries we gave aid to. We were “doing well out of our doing good,” he said. What he meant was that aid contributes to building peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region, it raises the profile of New Zealand and goodwill towards us and it helps open doors for business. To that list might have been added the high proportion of aid expenditure that returns to this country in the form of payments to development consultants and the fees and living expenses of the large number of aid-funded scholarship students studying here. The country’s official development assistance programme (NZODA) was run by a unit within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and it seemed to many that aid was driven more by considerations of self-interest and diplomacy than altruism.

Criticisms of the official aid programme mounted during the last decade and culminated in a ministerial review of NZODA. This review, published in 2001, involved a number of sharp criticisms of aid. It was critical of the way the programme had lost sight of what it suggested should be the principal focus of aid: the alleviation and elimination of poverty. It suggested that more funding should go to countries where poverty was greatest, there should be fewer countries as recipients rather than wide dispersal, aid should be focused on things such as primary education rather than tertiary scholarships, and NZODA should be separated from the diplomatic and trade functions of the Ministry through the establishment of an autonomous government aid agency. The review was generally well received and last year in July its recommendations led to the launching of NZAID (the New Zealand Agency for International Development, Nga Hoe Tuputupu-mai-tawhiti).

Already the effects of the reform are apparent. One of the key ingredients of the establishment of the new agency is the move away from diplomatic staff running the aid programme, typically with a short time on the aid desk as part of their career cycle. Now the agency – a semi-autonomous unit still within the Ministry – is employing development specialists, skilled and experienced in development work and committed to the agency. Its new poverty focus is beginning to shape some new strategies, though it could be argued that ‘poverty’ can be so broadly defined and analysed that almost any development programme – from global trade liberalisation to village water supply – could be justified under its banner.

Complementing NZAID, the development industry in New Zealand has a large number of development NGOs, ranging from the international agencies such as Oxfam and World Vision to small local voluntary agencies. These organisations, often receiving their funding from NZAID and public donations, tend to work on a different level. They go where NZAID cannot – to Africa, for example, where poverty is greatest – and they tend to operate in ways which build links with local civil society rather than working through cumbersome bureaucracies. Development NGOs in New Zealand add around a further $60 million in aid to NZAID’s $220 million. This total sum is almost identical to the amount this country receives for its exports in wine!

Despite all this activity and ministerial reviews, there is still a need to question the aid industry. Development projects do not have a happy history and the development literature is littered with stories of failure: inappropriate projects using inappropriate technology without the participation of the supposed beneficiaries and without the long-term commitment of donors. There have been improvements, but sceptics still regard much development work as being driven primarily by the interests of donors rather than by the real needs of recipients. It is an industry that threatens to become self-serving and self-perpetuating. Some also continue to question the very idea of development: is it a force for progress and good or a new means of control, of forcing people into particular ways of life and into a world order dominated by the rich and powerful? Environmentalists also argue that models of development based on increased consumption are simply not sustainable given the planet’s limited resources and ability to absorb wastes. The challenge for the discipline of Development Studies is to reassess continually and critically the nature of development as theorised and practised. After decades of trying, one thing we can be sure of is that there are no easy answers and no industry blueprint that will bring development to all.

Massey University was the first university in New Zealand to offer qualifications in Development Studies and its programme is still the largest. Students can study extramurally or internally for a Postgraduate Diploma, Masters or PhD.