Here is my web site :: Mark

British investment into Africa is 50 times that of Germany and four times that of the US. We are the acknowledged political leaders in the area of development which gives us not just vast soft power, influence and leadership on a global stage on the issues but also makes us leaders in economic investment in the rising giant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/mar/02/bob-geldof-africa-tony-blair

I thought I had posted this already but maybe it got caught in a spam filter or something (or maybe I didn’t actually post it?)

I ran across a US GAO report online that mentioned the US’s main competition in Africa is EU countries, not China, in terms of trade. I’ll link it if I find time.

What is the relationship between developmental loans and the British or American banking industry?

From the Economist:

“That there are not more of these curmudgeons is testament to one of Britain’s more laudable features: a philanthropic concern for the world that has survived its shrinking global influence. As a share of gross national product, Britain gives three times more aid than America and 50% more than Germany. Its charity also comes with few strings. France channels much of its aid to its African clients; DFID is forbidden by law to take British national interest into account. For this and other reasons, development wonks (which Britain has in abundance) praise DFID richly.”

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21565936-britains-ambitious-overseas-development-policy-needs-be-savvier-if-it-survive-weight

Being of a skeptical nature, I am not sure I buy the stuff about not taking national interest into account. At any rate, isn’t a desire to give itself–especially when some recepients question aid altogether–a form of national interest? One’s desires as national interest? Am I being fair, or unfair? The giving does at times seem to follow regions which have a large diaspora within the UK.

A commenter at the linked piece writes, “The modern aid budget is influence buying. The amount which actually arrives at the purported destination (after subtracting “taxes”, “import duties”, “handling fees”, “consulting charges” etc.) is rather minuscule. That which does arrive also reduces pressure on the local government to provide the necessary services and resources.

As such the supposed philanthropy is the belated recognition that the UK can no longer afford the the military it would need to fulfil it’s craving for power and influence. Yet as this article demonstrates, attempting to buy influence outright comes with it’s own problems, not the least of which is the question whether the recipients are willing to take your commands as well as your cash.”

I simply don’t understand enough of British culture or politics to know what is so….

I think the genuine and heartfelt desire to reduce poverty is often in conflict with national desires to have some sort of influence over a foreign situation, and these domestic tensions play out in many donor nations. The desire for influence doesn’t have to be “preparation for invasion,” but may represent one aspect of basic statecraft. Well, actually, we may be in some agreement here after all….

(From a 2007 article):

“Britain is well placed to take the leading role at the World Bank, analysts said. In October, Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling said the country’s overseas aid budget will climb 17 percent.

Spending by the U.K.’s Department for International Development alone will go up by 11 percent to 7.9 billion pounds in three years. Total British spending on aid will reach 9.1 billion pounds by the end of 2011.

Displacing the U.S.

“Britain has the money to take the lead” de Tray said. “The question is whether they will want to take the risk of displacing the U.S., which might lead U.S. policy makers to step aside and disengage from the World Bank.” ”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aNEsB7rNK1_M&refer=us

How do these tensions play out within a backdrop of British “punching above one’s weight” and the power and prestige that comes with membership in international institutions?

But the protagonists in discussions like those you attended can never say this – a small subset are completely complicit in the process, and the rest, like most academics, schooled and funded in a system designed to promote those who won’t notice, won’t say, and continue to discuss only the puppet show.

You don’t seem a million miles apart. A ‘deeper examination of development work’ v’s FB’s ‘taking a more critical approach’.

They seem pretty similar…?

Decades after decades of funding corrupt police departments (or foreign governments) might call into question whether it is a good idea to do that. That doesn’t mean policing is a bad idea, just that the department shows no sign of being reformed.

You make a good point about objectives versus approach. In that, I don’t think your point is so different from that in the post. In keeping with the previous post about “what is deterrence,” what is “development,” and how should we think about it? Isn’t there a blurring of foreign policy, economic development work, and humanitarian work? If you abandon economic development work or policies as it is commonly understood within international institutions of the Bretton Woods variety, does that mean development stops? Or humanitarian work stops?

I don’t know but I don’t think the points are so different.

By your logic, I suppose you’re against the continuation of police work given we haven’t eradicated all crime? It clearly hasn’t worked, so let’s be sensible and realise this and abandon the whole endeavour. Time to move onto something else. Or, maybe, we need to be mindful of the difference between instruments/measures and aims. If measures haven’t worked it doesn’t mean we abandon the aims, especially if these are very sensible aims that we can still make some progress towards. Hence, we keep up policing, flawed as it is.

I’d suggest a deeper examination of development work, what it does and its impact before suggesting the abandonment of the entire international development project. And regarding the MDGs: they’re not a plan, a strategy or an instrument. They are objectives — objectives that, if you sit and read them, no one in their right mind could reasonably deny as a rightful aspiration for the citizens of all countries — which, of course, you may disagree with, but that’s different to debating what measures should be applied to achieve them. There’s a difference between abandoning an approach and abandoning an objective. So I don’t think it was just professional loyalty or institutional nostalgia that caused those development professionals to balk at your suggestion. I suspect their view was that you just didn’t get it.

I merely wished to challenge the bright minds at KoW to turn off the continual drip of the misuse tap with, seemingly to me, superficial, and inaccurately used application and/or reference to strategy. e.g. ‘a plan of action’ is again (sorry) not strategy. A plan of action arises from strategy, yes, but it is not part of strategy itself. The definition used maybe that generically applied by those less aware on the subject, but you gentlemen should be among the best informed in this area of work – no? What I’ve read outside of KoW but still emanating from within the walls of King’s leads me to think so. Surely by being more precise in our use of such terms only adds quality to the discourse?

To paraphrase the great Neils Bohr, if strategy hasn’t profoundly astounded you in both it’s difficulty and utility, then you haven’t understood it yet.

Moving away from this distraction, your post raises a good question. Your four final points of action are certainly worthy ideals. However, I believe they only have a chance of growth, when nurtured at the macro level. Without an organisation’s behavioural lead / psyche, esp. at the top, these ideals will always struggle for survival – be it the World Bank, Nato or Barclays bank (and their Libor desk).

This assumes that the commanders and leaders of these organisations also have the wherewithal to identify the issues you raise, apply logical reasoning, and then understand how to implement the required changes in behaviour and thinking.

A much greater tolerance of failure than currently allowed in most organisations is required to authorise the killing of prior ideas and assumptions, the giving up of projects, and the questioning of causal relationships. This failure also needs to be kept within the bounds of organisational ‘intent’ which is no mean feat either. From personal experience these organisations are very few and far between.

All of this brings me back to education. The promotion and compliance with your thoughts requires commanders and leaders to have the knowledge to recognise these issues and implement/embed the change of thought required. This takes education. In rhetoric and reasoning; in Auftragstaktik; in command, leadership and management; in organisational behaviour and psychology e.t.c. But we are unlikely to change this at a base level without valuing and teaching rhetoric and reasoning. Without this, the fundamental questions will never be asked in the first place.