Aid for What Development?
A discussion of aid, regardless of the donor, must begin with lucid consideration of the development vision and strategy adopted by the recipient state in question.[VII] During the 1981 G7 summit in Cancun, western powers, through President Reagan and supported by his European colleagues, proclaimed that they know better than the countries of the south themselves what needs to be done.
The Washington Consensus and structural adjustment programs have translated this position into action that continues do this day, essentially signalling a return to colonisation. Despite the profound economic crisis, which should, without a doubt, put into question the global vision of liberal globalisation that is not the case.Development cannot be distilled to a mere economic dimension—the growth of Gross Domestic Product and the expansion of markets for exports and internal trade. Instead any analysis must take into consideration its social dimensions, e.g. the extent of inequitable income distribution, access to common goods such as health and education.
‘Development’ is a holistic process that implies the definition of its political objectives and their articulation such as the democratisation of society and the emancipation of individuals, affirmation of the ‘nation’ as well as power and autonomy of these in the global system. The choice and the definition of its objectives are at the heart of opposing debates in the long-term vision as well as the strategy and actions proposed for development, including aid. Importantly, ‘the demise of development’ is general, like that of aid, since dependence increases with time. The search for a positive alternative (‘another aid is possible’, ‘in the service of another, equally possible, development’) should be at the heart of the debate.
13.2