Foreign Development: International Aid and Donor Agencies

                                             


Since Harry S. Truman's Four Points Speech in which he urged the developed countries of the world to assist the "underdeveloped", countries have been providing aid. For the greater part of the last 50-60 years, the majority of aid originated from the U.S. and Western Europe. For the most part, the relationship between the donor agencies and the recipient stems from the relatives that existed during colonialism.

This week's lecture and class discussion centered around the role of donor agencies in international aid and development politics as well as the changing dynamics of international aid.

Since the establishment of the EU, it has become one of the largest donor agencies and has also altered how development aid is granted. Instead of decisions being made solely on the established relationships between individual countries and the possible benefits that the individual donor country could/would receive, decisions are made in a more multi-lateral and neutral manner. In recent years, though emergence of new donor countries has been noted including China, India, and Brazil. One of the areas of discussion that we touched upon in class was whether or not the more 'regular' donor countries(OECD states) should be concerned by the emergence of these new donors. Overall I think the answer is yes and no. Yes because if the developing countries are able to receive assistance elsewhere that doesn't come with some of the conditionalities (gay marriage, democracy, liberal markets, privatization etc) that Western countries like to enforce, they are more likely to refuse to adhere to the West as their assistance would no longer be needed. This means that the power and control that Western states have would be severely weakened.  These new 'emerging' donors are focused more on the economic growth of the countries that they provide aid to and how that economic growth can benefit their interests. On the other hand though, traditional donor countries should not be concerned as this allows them to free up some of their funds. If other countries are stepping in to assist developing nations, then traditional donors can dedicate more funds to projects/countries that are of extreme importance to their strategic interests.

In regards to these new emerging donors, quite a few students in the class were very surprised by the amount of money that India has provided to developing nations. India's internal development is very poor and it is not understandable as to why they are giving money to other countries. A huge majority of the class were of the opinion that India's level of domestic development does not impact the fact that overall their economy is still booming. The question though is not whether or not India has a growing economy, the question is WHY is India giving aid to other nations when they should be investing in their own country? Yes, there are poor people in other donor countries such as the US and UK but the extent of poverty in India compared to that in the US is extremely high. Obviously India, as well as all of the new emerging donor countries, are attempting to build a wider sphere of influence and garner power by providing aid. While that is fine, it is a bit senseless as to why India(and Brazil) are providing aid to others when they themselves are still recipients of development aid.

Overall, the structures of global politics and development aid are definitely shifting. Developing countries should utilize the emergence of these new donors to their advantage by aligning themselves with those states that are capable of providing them the assistance they need without the unfavorable strings attached.

Religion and Development

Since the beginning of time, religion has played an important role in people's lives. Whether the religion is that of Ancient Egyptians religion or modern Christianity, it still played a role in the manner of which individuals or state leaders conducted their affairs.

                                              
This class session was actually interesting though I don't think much was actually learned. I realized that many people are unable to discern between religious values playing a role in politics and development and people using religion as their scapegoat for doing horrible things.

For instance, Boko Haram was mentioned as an example of how religion leaves a negative impact on development. Apparently, because Boko Haram claims to be fighting against western influence/education and seeks to have rule by Shari'a law, the motivation for their actions are derived simply from religion. Unfortunately though, Boko Haram is another example of individuals using religion simply as an excuse for their atrocious actions. Boko Haram is comprised of poor, unemployed individuals who are tired of their consistent state of poverty. Shari'a law has been in place in the Northern states of Nigeria(where these men/boys are from) since the 1990s and very little influence of Westernization can be found is these areas.

If the area in which these individuals are from and where they commit most of their crimes are already under Shari'a law, then how could they possible be doing it for the same of religion the imposition of Shari'a? How are their actions religiously motivated?

In regards to whether or not religion should play a role in development, I think it should. The overwhelming presence of a certain faith in an area will affect the values and morals that those citizens uphold. These specific morals, values and beliefs need to be taken into account when development projects are being designed. For instance, if an organization is aiming to build a health center in Hyderabad, India and one of their aims is to promote family planning and safe sex in order to lower the high rates of STDs that are present in the region, the organization should probably factor in the religious values of the Hindus and Muslims in the area. Therefore instead of importing the typical pro-condom/birth-control approach that are common in Western hospitals which focus heaviliy on using condoms/pills to combat making rash decisions and promiscuity, the health center and whatever literature that it disseminates in the region should focus more on the health and financial benefits of condoms and family planning products.

By operating in this manner, the community members are more likely to be receptive to the center and use its services, thereby improving the overall health of that area and making an impact on the region's progress in human development.

The religious beliefs of individuals should not be trampled and ignored simply because others do not agree with them. It is important and a human right in my opinion that individuals should be able to practice their religion and uphold their values publicly. A current debate right now is gay marriage. In the west, many say that it is not fair for people to impose their religious opinion that homosexuality is immoral on others. While I do agree that, individuals need to realize that there are many who uphold certain values that align with religious doctrine though they themselves do not ascribe to a faith. Is that individuals opinion more valid because his/her basis is not from a religion? Or is the opinion still wrong? Religion does and should play a role in development and donor agencies both NGOs and IGOs need to to factor the culture and religion of the area that they are entering during the entire development project process.

African Elections

In culmination of the recent class readings and discussion on governance and democracy, this week we discussed democracy and elections with the focus being on Ghana.

If you were to ask people what the most important or most notable component of democracy is, most, if not all, will say elections. The ability to vote for who you think is better suited to rule your city, town, state or county is an important aspect of a democratic state. The method in regards to how elections are conducted, how candidates get their names on ballots, or how a winner is declared, all depends on the individual country.

For this class session, we watched the documentary "An African Election" which recounted aspects of the Ghanaian election. The documentary focused on providing the viewer with a decent reflection of how elections are conducted in Ghana and included the campaigning of the candidates, the process of voting by citizens as well as the declaration of a winner.

                                         

The film begins with the candidates and their respective parties making appearances and canvassing different areas for support and votes. While the candidates were stating the reason why they should be elected into office and making all of their promises, it was very noticeable that both candidates sought to deliver the same changes to Ghana. What seemed to differ though, as some of the citizens in the film pointed out, is the manner in which they planned to deliver these changes. The citizens decide on who to vote for based upon who they think actually has the capacity to produce change and produce it effectively. Besides the candidates ability to deliver change, citizens are also swayed to vote for a candidate based on the individual's ethnic background or state origin.

Although the rallies that are hosted by the different parties seem to be flocked with numerous citizens, many of the Ghanaians in the film did not seem to put much stock in the elections. Many of them have voted in the past and yet have witnessed very little to no change in regards to the country's development- many individuals are still poor, many are unemployed and many lack basic access to food and education. Despite their disenchantment with previous elections, many still held out hope for change from this election.

The manner in which this election was conducted was very strange to me. The whole time, from when ballots were being cast to the election counting office, I did not see the elections going smoothly. Obviously, the country still has some developing to do. The manner in which votes were handled by the individuals at the polling places seemed sloppy and left lots of room for error. Hopefully in the near future, Ghana will transition to a computerized voting system, improve the operation of their polling centers and ease the aggressiveness of party officials in the election room.

The Constant Identity- Ethnicity and Development

Does/should ethnicity matter in development? Should ethnic diversity play a role in development projects? Does ethnic diversity create a negative impact or positive impact on development? These were the questions raised in the readings and class discussions. The role of ethnicity in development theories and projects have been very minimal mainly due to the assumption that with modernization, ethnicity and ethnic groups would cease to exist or at least retreat to a behind-the-scenes type role. Many countries are ethnically diverse, some are bio-ethnic(population split predominantly between two different groups) and others are multi-ethnic in which the country is made up of numerous groups, each with significant proportion, such as Nigeria.

The first thing that needs to be addressed though is what exactly is ethnicity and what constitutes an ethnic group. An ethnic group, to my understanding, are individuals who share the same ethnic background regardless of religion or nationality. An individuals's ethnicity does not change simply because they move or because they no longer choose to identify with that group. An Arab will always be an Arab just like a Yoruba or Assyrian person will always be Yoruba or Assyrian. Ethnicity is ALWAYS constant. While members of the same ethnic group often do share the same religion such as the predominantly Muslim Hausa people, that is not always the case as evident by Yorubas and Arabs, which have significant portions of both Muslims and Christians.

Based on the readings and the discussions in class, many individuals are of the opinion that ethnicity is socially constructed and influenced by socio-economic and political circumstances. While I do think that the magnitude in which ethnicity has on an area is influenced by the aforementioned circumstances, as I stated earlier, I don't think ethnic groups are some arbitrarily made associations that can just be dissolved. While some individuals are of the opinion that ethnic diversity only brings about negativity, some hold the opinion that the impacts of ethnic diversity can also be positive.

In the article "Ethnicity and Development-an elusive relationship" by Hettne, he mentions that there are certain characteristics that an ethnically diverse country needs to have in order for ethnicity to not be a hindrance to good development. Out of those that he listed, the characteristics that I think are the most important are cultural pluralism , sustainability and internal self determination. To avoid ethnic marginalization or ethnic conflicts, all groups must feel like they belong to the country. They must be comfortable to associating with their ethnic group and know that they will be accepted by members of other groups. In regards to sustainability, environmental degradation of shared natural resources can lead to ethnic conflict such as in the Niger Delta region in Nigeria.

Overall, I think that ethnic diversity can leave both a negative and positive impact on development, depending on the structure and events in the given area. If the government is controlled predominantly by members of one ethnic group, there is a risk of ethnic marginalization occurring. The group that is in power might begin to utilize unfair policies such as building schools, hospitals and other social welfare necessities in areas that are dominated by their ethnic group or handing out jobs to members of their group. Actions such as these can breed animosity among the marginalized groups and lead to conflict. On the other hand though, ethnic diversity can leave a positive impact when individuals from different groups are able to combine talents and resources for the good of the nation.

Hettne, B. (1993) ‘Ethnicity and development – an elusive relationship’, Contemporary South
Asia, 2(2): 123-49

Smith, B. C. (2013) Understanding Third World Politics: Theories of Political Change and
Development, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, chapter 8

The Resilience of Autocracy

The entire focus of this week was a continuation of the last week in regards to democracy and democratization. This week specifically, we focused on authoritarianism and the ability of an autocratic style government to succeed.

Is an autocratic government really bad? Is democracy the ideal way to govern a country? Throughout history and in recent times, we are constantly being inundated with the idea that authoritarianism is bad and that all citizens really want to live in a democratic state. Despite this supposed inherent desire for democracy, why is it that authoritarian regimes are still able to exist for years upon years?

Personally, I am not of the opinion that democracy is the best and only way to function. As much as people like to rattle off all of the wonderful things that comes from democracy such as the ability to vote, more freedoms, economic development and an overall better life, these qualities are not simply limited to democracies. There is nothing that states that these appealing conditions cannot be found in non-democratic states nor is there any guarantees that a democratic state will have all of these things, besides voting-which is not always done well as evident by many developing 'democracies'. It is very possible to have all of these things in an autocracy, especially in those that are monarchical. Although citizens might not be voting for their head of state, in many autocratic states, citizens do vote for local officials and parliament members. During the class discussion, it was very evident that many of reasons why authoritarianism is classified as bad, also appear in democracy. For instance, corruption, nepotism and censorship-the only difference between the two styles of governance is how visible these traits are. There is not much of a difference between a king placing is close allies in key cabinet positions as a US president placing his close allies as cabinet secretary. There is no difference in an autocratic government attempting to ensure that they stay in power to a political party in a democracy attempting to ensure that the hold the wide majority of seats in parliament or Congress. 

In regards to the ability of authoritarian style governments to succeed, we were required to read "The Durability of Revolutionary Regimes" by Way and Levitsky. In this paper, both authors explained some of the reasons why revolutionary-derived autocratic regimes are able to stay in power for so long. The most important reason lies in the manner in which the revolution evolved. Revolutions that emerge out of mass mobilization and popular dissent instead of a coup orchestrated by a small group of individuals, have a greater chance of longevity in regards to power and control of the state. Armed struggle also plays a role in the durability of revolutionary regimes because those controlling the revolution are able to eliminate opponents and destroy traditional power centers. The fact that the revolution is widespread also provides the ability for these leaders to "justify" the elimination of opponents, regardless of how crude the process is, because it's a necessary maneuver for the success of the 'great cause'. By ridding themselves of the opposition and establishing their regime as THE power center, they are ensuring that the chances of them being challenged and overthrown are very minuscule. Along with demolishing independent power centers, a strong ruling party and coercive actions also plays a role in the durability of such regimes. 

The discussion on the durability of autocratic regimes then shifted to Arab monarchies and why, in light of the Arab Spring, all of the monarchies experienced either very little to no unrest/protests at all. The question that was posed to the class and addressed in the paper "Resilient Royals: How Arab Monarchies Hang On" by Yom and Gause was 'what makes the monarchies in the Gulf so special that they were able to withstand the the effects of the so called Arab Spring?'.

Muscat, Oman

                               
With the exception of Bahrain, whose protests were quelled by Saudi assistance, many of the Arab monarchies were able to avoid or settle all disturbances by providing the citizens with what they wanted-primarily jobs and money. The resilience of the Arab monarchies correlates to my earlier point in regards to democracy not being the best or only way to operate a state. The Sultanate of Oman, for example is a monarchy and repeatedly classified as 'Not Free' by Freedom House, yet citizens enjoy a very decent life. Since Sultan Qaboos bin Said took power in 1970, the nation has developed rapidly. All citizens are provided with health care, free education, welfare assistance, tax free living as well as other benefits. Though the Sultan is the head of state, citizens still vote for local and parliament officials. While Oman did experience minor protests, they were not geared towards overthrowing the government or aiming for a revolution. The requests made during the protest consisted of raising the minimum wage for nationals, providing more jobs for nationals and decreasing the reliance on expats in the workforce. Once these demands were promised and subsequently met, the protests ended. The ability to quickly provide citizens what they desire is a major attribute to why many non-democratic states are able to function with relative peace.

Overall, based on what we've learned over the last few weeks as well as my previous knowledge, I do not think that democracy is best for all nor do I think that autocracy is the best for all. The culture and traditions of the local people will play a role in how each style of government progresses in a state. The quality of life and economic development of a country will also affect how willing citizens are to accepting one style of governance over another. 

Levitsky, S. and Way, L. (2013)’ The Durability of Revolutionary Regimes’, Journal of Democracy, 24:3, pp. 5-17

Yom, S.L. and Gause III, F.G. (2012)’Resilient Royals: How Arab Monarchies Hang on’, Journal of Democracy, 23:4, pp. 74-88

Choosing The Lesser of Two Evils

Democracy. Freedom of the people for the people. Rule by popular/majority vote. This week the first thing we did in  class was write on a piece of paper what we thought of democracy. I wrote "the system where you choose the lesser of two evils". That is sincerely what I think democracy is. When one looks at modern politics , especially during an election year, the sentiment that you should choose the lesser of  two evils in regards to candidates is very visible. During debates or media campaigns, contenders can usually be seen saying 'yes I might have done XYZ but at least I didn't do what the other guy did, his mistake was worse than mine so therefore you should vote for me'. This mentality also transcends to how citizens vote. Most of the discourse runs along the lines of "I'm going to vote for that individual because the other guy's policies are worse not because I think he is actually good. People rarely vote for an individual because they think he or she is the best for their country, state or city.

Along with our individual opinions on democracy, there was also a general discussion about sequencing democracy based on Carothers' article "How Democracies Emerge: The Sequencing Fallacy". In this paper Carother seeks to convince the reader that sequencing is not necessary and that its often just a tactic to delay the transition of a country into democracy, either by the autocrat or external powers. Though he makes some good points in regards to rule of law and elections as well as his opinion on the idea that rule of law needs to be established prior to democracy is wrong, the overall paper is not that convincing in regards to sequencing being flawed. He bases his belief that rule of law is not necessarily a prerequisite on his understanding that dictators/monarchs are most likely not going to promote the establishment rule of law because it could serve to undermine their authority. Yet, he contradicts himself. He makes it seem as if only autocracies are incapable of establishing rule of law but then later says that democracies also struggle to build rule of law. This then leads me to wonder, so if democracies aren't good at it and autocracies aren't good at it, why should one aim for democracy?

As an alternative to sequencing, Carothers introduces gradualism. Gradualism though does not seem to be any better than sequencing. With gradualism, there is no need to wait for rule of law to be established prior to democracy. As long as the citizens of the country are calling for democracy, the transition should begin to occur. The aspects of a state that need to be established for gradualism to work, according to Cartohers, are economic development, the creation of wealth and the crave of democracy by citizens. Unfortunately though, these aspects are not easy to acquire, especially in an autocratic state that is poor, underdeveloped and repressive. These aspects may actually take more time to put in place than those called for by sequencing.

In Tolstrup's "When Can External Actors Influence Democratization? Leverages, Linkages and Gatekepper Elites", he discusses the impacts that elites or 'big men' have on the democratization process. As mentioned in my last post, a key factor in reforming a country, is making sure that the elites are on board. This same notion is expressed in Tolstrup's paper. As seen in recent years in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of how much strong international powers want democracy to happen in a state, regardless of how much money that is poured in, if the will of people are not in it, democracy will not succeed. You can have elections, set up a parliament and any other democratic institution, that still does not mean that democracy will succeed in that state.

Overall, democracy is not something that will just happen and be successful because some international body thinks it will be. The citizens of the state, the elite as well as commoners, need to want the changes that a democracy will bring. The transition from a non-democratic state to democracy, will vary depending on each country because as much as people(Development workers, heads of states, diplomats, academics) like to present a framework for what is needed for a successful democracy, there is not one full proof method.

Sources:

Carothers, T (2007) ‘How Democracies Emerge: The “ Sequencing” Fallacy’, Journal of Democracy, 8(1); pp. 12-27 

Tolstrup, J (2013)’When can External Actors Influence Democratization? Leverage, Linkage and Gatekeeper Elites’, Democratization 20 (4) pp. 716-742

Inclusiveness and Big Men

This week's readings and lecture focused on the role that elites and political settlements play in the development/success of a state. Acemoglu and Robinson's chapter "Understanding Prosperity and Poverty"  began with the classical explanation that poverty and development were not predetermined and has nothing to do with geography or culture. This same sentiment was mentioned in Moore's paper "Political Underdevelopment: What Causes Bad Governance". In both readings, the authors explained how at one point some entities in the global south such as the Aztecs, were more advanced than their Northern counterparts. I personally do not understand why anyone would actually think nations in the southern hemisphere are not as developed simply as a result of their geographical location. Logically it does not make sense and as discussed in the last class session, the case of North Korea v. South Korea proves this to be incorrect.

The rest of the Acemoglu and Robinson chapter focused extensively on the effect that inclusive and extractive institutions had on the development of a state. While I do agree that a state with an inclusive institution and economy has a better chance of being developed, I do not think that being extractive completely rules one out of the development process. The example of China is consistently used in regards to a state that seems to be developed but due to its lack of inclusiveness will eventually cease to grow. I do not agree with this. There is no "right" way to develop and the methods that work in one state might not work in another. Based on the readings and my perception of them, Accemoglu and Robinson as well as Leftwich do not think that it is necessary to replicate the development strategies of one state to another. They are however of the opinion that there are certain correct ways to go about development especially in regards to state building. Personally, as a result of the various cultural practices, informal institutions, and patrimonial style of governance that exist in many developing countries, trying to impose a liberal democracy or inclusive institutions on a state that is not prepared for it or does not want it will not be successful because those values are not embedded in the the culture of the given state. Regardless of how much resources and effort is put into building a state, simply trying to replicate an ideal western state with the intrusion of liberal democracy, such as attempted in Afghanistan, will not work.

The readings though did shed a light on  how the being inclusive versus extractive can affect the overall progress and development of a state.

In regards to the role of elites in development, it is pretty much agreed by many that it is almost impossible to alter the government or any major aspect of the state without the allegiance of the elite. After doing the readings and the discussions in the seminar, I agree as well. Even though the elites of a state are the minority, most likely any sort of reforms that are being implemented will affect them. The determinant of whether or not the elites will support the reforms lies in whether or not it will negatively or positively affect their standing in society. For instance, if an initiative includes a very strong effort to rid corruption, which is something that the elites is heavily involved in, most likely the reform will not succeed as well.

References:

Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. (2012) Why Nations Fail: The origin of power, prosperity and poverty, London Profile Books.  Chapter 15: “Understanding Prosperity and Poverty”

Daloz, P. (2003) ‘Big Men, in Sub-Saharan Africa: How Elites Accumulate Positions and Resources’, Comparative Sociology 2 (1) pp. 272-285 [online] available at: UoB E-library

The Underdevelopment of Development

With the immense push for development projects in poor/ developing nations, many organisations and developed countries were of the mindset that after numerous years of work, many of these poor-performing countries would we well off. Unfortunately though, that has not been the case. Many of these nations still suffer from poor governance, inefficient economies and horrible living standards. This has led to many wondering why, despite the immense amount of resources that have been utilized to improve circumstances in these nations, they still under perform. What is it about nations in the 'Global South" that causes them to have such poor institutions? Is it because of their geographic locations? Is it because of their cultures and backwards practices? These are some of the questions and sentiments that people often pose when trying to understand this issue.

There are those who instantly jump towards the problem of culture and claim that  'backwardness' of some of these states is what limits their ability to improve. This mentality goes in line with those who propagate modernization theory. Modernization theory upholds that if societies began to modernize(become like Western nation) in regards to mentality, culture and methods of operation, their overall livelihoods would improve. Modernizing would bring about good governance, effective institutions, a growing economy, etc.

Moore's paper "Political Underdevelopment: What Causes Bad Governance", explains that the cause of the global south's problems stems from the abundance of bad governance which stems from a host of other problems. His main claim is that political underdevelopment of poor questions results from their interactions with rich countries as well as the way in which authority in the south is/was constructed. Alongside this, he mentions that the policies and practices of Northern governments is what helps sustain poor governance. While some might find this surprising and obnoxious, the arguments that Moore presents are quite convincing and accurate especially when related to the context of international aid. Aid agencies have classified bad governance as an obstacle to improved welfare and economic growth and therefore put in place conditions that are related to governance issues in order for a state to receive aid. The problem with this approach is that 1- Some leaders of poor countries are fine with not receiving aid due to the fact that their personal wealth would be more negatively affected if they met the conditions and 2-the conditions are not chosen in the context of the specific country but simply what Western nations believe is good.

Besides poor governance some other reasons behind underdevelopment lies in the way these nations were formed. As a result of colonization, most of these countries have unnatural births, incomplete state formation and a history of external control.

Western/Northern nations also affect the development of poor nations through the manner in which they plunder the resources that these nations have and their mismanagement while extracting these resources. This can be seen in regards to the actions of Shell in Nigeria. While extracting oil in the Ogoni area, Shell completely devastated the area, ruining the soil, contaminating the water and in essence making it uninhabitable. The Ogoni people in the area as a result suffered further poverty. Similar situations can be witnessed in other nations.

Overall, the cause of underdevelopment does not stem from the geographical locality of the nation nor from its culture and nor was it predetermined. Poor development is a result of bad governance, mismanagement and irregular relationships with Western nations.

Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J. A., 2013. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. Croydon: CPI Group (UK).

Moore, M., 2001. Political Underdevelopment: What Causes ‘Bad Governance’. Public Management Review, 3(3), pp. 385-418.

The Primacy of Politics

                                           

In the required readings for this week, both authors took a stance on whether or not they were of the opinion that politics is important or even matters in the realm of development and development aid. Prior to reading both papers, my personal opinion was that politics does play a role in development aid and the ongoings in the  political arena of a state is very important when it comes to formulating and carrying out development projects. At the same time, politics should not extremely integrated in development. For instance, the type of government a country has, should not be a conditionality to receiving aid. Regardless of whether or not the agencies decided to actively factor politics into their program design, politics will still play a role somehow. The political atmosphere in a country or region will determine whether or not the organisation is even allowed in the country as their mobility within it. Also, in most contexts where development aid is strongly needed, politics is usually the cause of the problem  such as in cases of violence due to civil unrest or starvation/deplorable conditions due to ethnic or regional animosities.

The first paper, "Development Aid Confronts Politics" heavily advocated for the importance and inclusion of politics in development and clearly lays out the problems that arise from separating development aid from politics. Upon reading. some of the problems that she stated such as overlooking the sociopolitical reasons for resources not reaching a certain state. While aid workers might assume that this is due to the lack of transportation and poor management in the displaced region, it could actually be a political tactic employed by the ruling party as an act of ethnic marginalization. By development workers seeking to understand the sociopolitical framework of the country or region that they are entering, aid objectives and procedures can be designed in a manner that will result in the most goals being met. This paper showcases that donor organisations are beginning to notice and realize that they do need to incorporate politics into their plans, the question that remains though is much of a role politics should play.

Towards the end of this paper, the author presents exactly what I consider to be the problem when politics does become intermixed with development. Over time, development aid and the affiliated projects all become a tool to espouse 'good governance' which often translates to liberal democracy as is the norm with most Western states. This is where the problems begin to arise. The politics portion is no longer about simply understanding what's going on in that region or state but more about how can we(IGOs/NGOs) use these funds to garner what we want.