Accountability Matters

Interdependence, sovereignty and accountabilities for development

Browsing Posts published by alan hudson

“Aid is only ever a means to an end. Aid that is truly effective will eventually do itself out of a job.” (The Tunis Consensus)

The Tunis Consensus is the fruit of the second regional (African) meeting on Aid Effectiveness, held in November 2010. Organised by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the African Development Bank, the meeting was intended to set out an African agenda to take to the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, to be held in Busan, South Korea, in November/December 2011.

image continue reading…

I am currently working for ONE as their Senior Policy Manager on Governance, Transparency & Accountability. Click here for more information about me, my skills and experience. Drop me a line at alan@alanhudson.info or follow me on twitter  @alanhudson1 NB: This blog and my tweets reflect my views, not necessarily those of my employer.

Donors are keen to play their part in improving governance in developing countries and see the inclusion of governance on the aid effectiveness agenda as an important entry point in this regard. But the role that donors can play in directly shaping the landscape of politics and governance in developing countries is - and should be - limited, for reasons of leverage, understanding and legitimacy. The most helpful thing that donors can do is to nurture an environment of transparency and accountability within which locally-appropriate solutions can emerge.

continue reading…

What role should donors play in helping to improve governance and domestic accountability in developing countries? My starting point in addressing this issue is that accountability in developing countries – as elsewhere – is very important for reasons of effectiveness/learning and fairness/justice and that donors, while recognising that domestic politics is the key driver of governance and accountability, ought to do what they can to support the strengthening of domestic accountability. However, some serious questions need to be asked about the “what they can” in that sentence.

continue reading…

I’ve now been working in DFID’s Policy Division for nearly six months. It has been what one calls an interesting experience …

Being in Policy Division has stimulated my thinking in recent weeks about a couple of things. First, about what donors can do to enhance governance in developing countries. And second, about how the effectiveness of donors’ efforts to enhance governance in developing countries can be measured. Both huge issues that I will certainly return to but for now two quick observations: continue reading…

The Donors’ report produced in response to allegations of aid in Ethiopia being allocated according to political affiliation rather than need was published in early August, peak holiday time for many. As such, it’s perhaps not surprising that there has been very little reaction to it.

Today sees the first mention of the report on the internet. Bloomberg reports that Merera Gudina, the Chairman of the opposition Oromo People’s Congress, is “not enthusiastic” about the report and “fed up of complaining to donors when they are consciously refusing to know and/or knowing the truth but they are refusing to face the reality.”

I am not in a position to state authoritatively what the reality is. However, a casual observer of development and politics in Ethiopia would quickly conclude that the perspectives and priorities of donors and the Ethiopian opposition in relation to that reality are somewhat different.

The former US Ambassador to Ethiopia, David Shinn, called the report a “careful, thorough and rather bureaucratic response” to “highly charged allegations.”

Full Bloomberg report is here. Donors’ report is here.

In late 2009, the Development Assistance Group (DAG) – a group of 26 donors in Ethiopia – decided to conduct a review of the systems and safeguards that are in place in a number of donor-supported development programmes, and that are designed to ensure that aid is spent as intended. The review was in part a response to allegations that aid was being allocated according to political affiliation rather than need. I was heavily involved in this piece of work while in Addis. It was basically complete some time ago, but elections and protracted discussions with various stakeholders meant that its publication was delayed.

The report finally came out yesterday. It’s available here at the DAG website or, failing that, can be found here