Donor aid in Africa should increasingly go to women
<b>By Carol Dralega</b><br><br>It happens once a year in Norway. The whole country is consumed by it. This time, the development aid fundraising had a renewed sense of purpose, determination and optimism.
By Carol Dralega
It happens once a year in Norway. The whole country is consumed by it. This time, the development aid fundraising had a renewed sense of purpose, determination and optimism.
The event was followed live on TV and at the end of the day, more than NOK 200m (sh67b) was raised. But something was different about this strategy — a reminder of the interesting trends in the flows of donor aid.
Firstly, this money will bypass all manner of government bureaucracy and personnel and will go straight to the grassroots beneficiaries — and not just any — the money will help train poor women trapped in debilitating poverty and deprivation with entreprenurial skills.
Secondly, the administration of this money will be entrusted to CARE Norway, which is an arm of the internationally known humanitarian organisation with a presense in Uganda.
The week-long event, that culminated in a 24-hour multi-dimensional fundraiser on October 10, was organised by the Norwegian national broadcaster, the NRK. Evidently knitted firmly within this action was a national sense of global responsibility, national pride and the alignment with national principles and priorities — that is social justice, equitable and pragmatic resource distribution, empowerment, accountability and trust – albeit aimed to convince the donating public of its transparency and pragmaticism.
In light of the raging debates on the virtues, vices and search for alternatives, it is apparent that the flows of donor aid are continuously shifting — an obvious indication of the restlessness and subsequent reaction to the dysfunctional strategies that have characterised donor support over the decades. With decades of donor budgetary support, many developing countries, including Uganda, have miserable results to show.
National and international statistics show that gross inequalities and rampant poverty stubbornly prevail, while the national education, health and the democracy projects leave alot to be desired for the majority.
In serious competition with this status quo is the alarming levels of corruption. We are bombarded by it everyday, but nothing really seems to change.
With this state of affairs, the concern is the â€last mile†is seldom reached and the often marginalised such as women and children; grassroots communities, low income families; least educated, remain in a perpetual cycle of poverty and deprivation.
The anti-corrutption culture and the fight against corruption lack robust and transparent proficiency to tackle the infestations on the ground in a manner that rekindles donor citizens’ trust — moreover, the thieves are actually getting smarter and are not getting caught.
With this backdrop, this mediatised grassroots action in one of the world’s leading donor countries, highlights the nascent statement that the top-down trickle methods through national budget support cannot and will not be trusted to reach the bottom of the pyramid.
That this year’s collective action was decisively underdog directed - focusing on the fundamental role of women in grassroots development must not be lost. With the motto to ‘help women help others’, the rhetoric is not just the shift to bottom-up channels for aid delivery but also an affirmation of women’s often neglected role in development processes and especially their enduring role as care givers and solid managers.
Research has proven that women have a strong repayment performance. Evidence from the World Bank shows that women borrowers generate additional income through their enterprise and are more likely than men to direct it to household expenses especially those that benefit children.
By empowering grassroots women through training, they are investing in tangible, enduring and beneficiary empowerment, self-actualisation and future self-reliance — from the bottom of the pyramid.
What was also interesting about this particular action was the channel choice for aid delivery. With government bureaucracies fast losing the credibility in aid management, some donors are continously seeking and engaging alternative channels to make their tax payers moneys more effective.
One of this is the consciously targeted support to the NGO community — preferably their own.
Now, not all NGOs are saints and one can argue that hand-picking NGOs and entrusting them with donor aid can be construed as exogenous, patronising and offers less for the recieving country in terms of local employment, limited reach of funds but, given the odds that the money will reach its target, it seems a much more effective avenue. Throughout the action, reciepient NGOs like Unicef (recipient for 2007) and Care Norway’s previous work was under public scrutiny.
The difference was that it was the multiple beneficiaries at the grassroots,who, in their own voices, affirmed the massive changes and impacts of the direct assistance in their households and communities.
An economic intervention such as this one (economic empowerment of women through microfinance training) may lead to better incomes, more security, better health, more knowledge, education and expertise for the predominantly women entreprenuers. However, this intervention is riddled with its own set of limitations, for instance, it is not holistic as it ignores the multi-dimentionality of the development problem.
The intervention also ignores the complex, gendered nature of political, social and market structures the rural women have to confront in their daily lives. And yet again, the benefits arguably outweigh the challenges.
One clear message from this action that must not be lost is, as long as leadership in poor countries does not reclaim the fast fading credibility and respect, my bet is they will continue to merely watch while the flows in (traditional) international development assistance increasingly bypass them or worse still, stop altogether.
The writer is a senior researcher, ICT and marginalisation, Western Norway Research Institute
It happens once a year in Norway. The whole country is consumed by it. This time, the development aid fundraising had a renewed sense of purpose, determination and optimism.
The event was followed live on TV and at the end of the day, more than NOK 200m (sh67b) was raised. But something was different about this strategy — a reminder of the interesting trends in the flows of donor aid.
Firstly, this money will bypass all manner of government bureaucracy and personnel and will go straight to the grassroots beneficiaries — and not just any — the money will help train poor women trapped in debilitating poverty and deprivation with entreprenurial skills.
Secondly, the administration of this money will be entrusted to CARE Norway, which is an arm of the internationally known humanitarian organisation with a presense in Uganda.
The week-long event, that culminated in a 24-hour multi-dimensional fundraiser on October 10, was organised by the Norwegian national broadcaster, the NRK. Evidently knitted firmly within this action was a national sense of global responsibility, national pride and the alignment with national principles and priorities — that is social justice, equitable and pragmatic resource distribution, empowerment, accountability and trust – albeit aimed to convince the donating public of its transparency and pragmaticism.
In light of the raging debates on the virtues, vices and search for alternatives, it is apparent that the flows of donor aid are continuously shifting — an obvious indication of the restlessness and subsequent reaction to the dysfunctional strategies that have characterised donor support over the decades. With decades of donor budgetary support, many developing countries, including Uganda, have miserable results to show.
National and international statistics show that gross inequalities and rampant poverty stubbornly prevail, while the national education, health and the democracy projects leave alot to be desired for the majority.
In serious competition with this status quo is the alarming levels of corruption. We are bombarded by it everyday, but nothing really seems to change.
With this state of affairs, the concern is the â€last mile†is seldom reached and the often marginalised such as women and children; grassroots communities, low income families; least educated, remain in a perpetual cycle of poverty and deprivation.
The anti-corrutption culture and the fight against corruption lack robust and transparent proficiency to tackle the infestations on the ground in a manner that rekindles donor citizens’ trust — moreover, the thieves are actually getting smarter and are not getting caught.
With this backdrop, this mediatised grassroots action in one of the world’s leading donor countries, highlights the nascent statement that the top-down trickle methods through national budget support cannot and will not be trusted to reach the bottom of the pyramid.
That this year’s collective action was decisively underdog directed - focusing on the fundamental role of women in grassroots development must not be lost. With the motto to ‘help women help others’, the rhetoric is not just the shift to bottom-up channels for aid delivery but also an affirmation of women’s often neglected role in development processes and especially their enduring role as care givers and solid managers.
Research has proven that women have a strong repayment performance. Evidence from the World Bank shows that women borrowers generate additional income through their enterprise and are more likely than men to direct it to household expenses especially those that benefit children.
By empowering grassroots women through training, they are investing in tangible, enduring and beneficiary empowerment, self-actualisation and future self-reliance — from the bottom of the pyramid.
What was also interesting about this particular action was the channel choice for aid delivery. With government bureaucracies fast losing the credibility in aid management, some donors are continously seeking and engaging alternative channels to make their tax payers moneys more effective.
One of this is the consciously targeted support to the NGO community — preferably their own.
Now, not all NGOs are saints and one can argue that hand-picking NGOs and entrusting them with donor aid can be construed as exogenous, patronising and offers less for the recieving country in terms of local employment, limited reach of funds but, given the odds that the money will reach its target, it seems a much more effective avenue. Throughout the action, reciepient NGOs like Unicef (recipient for 2007) and Care Norway’s previous work was under public scrutiny.
The difference was that it was the multiple beneficiaries at the grassroots,who, in their own voices, affirmed the massive changes and impacts of the direct assistance in their households and communities.
An economic intervention such as this one (economic empowerment of women through microfinance training) may lead to better incomes, more security, better health, more knowledge, education and expertise for the predominantly women entreprenuers. However, this intervention is riddled with its own set of limitations, for instance, it is not holistic as it ignores the multi-dimentionality of the development problem.
The intervention also ignores the complex, gendered nature of political, social and market structures the rural women have to confront in their daily lives. And yet again, the benefits arguably outweigh the challenges.
One clear message from this action that must not be lost is, as long as leadership in poor countries does not reclaim the fast fading credibility and respect, my bet is they will continue to merely watch while the flows in (traditional) international development assistance increasingly bypass them or worse still, stop altogether.
The writer is a senior researcher, ICT and marginalisation, Western Norway Research Institute