Afghanistan Watch: Who's really committed to development?

August 15, 2006

Who's really committed to development?

Yesterday the Center for Global Development released its 2006 "Commitment to Development Index," a comprehensive look at development assistance that takes assess quality of aid as well as quantity.

Afghanistan is a prime example of how aid quantity can be secondary to its quality. Development has faltered because funding has followed donor priorities and bureaucratic processes, and in doing so has failed to strengthen Afghan government capacity. The need to rethink the foreign aid delivery system was a central finding of the Afghanistan Compact in January.

The Commitment to Development Index does not look specifically at Afghanistan, but offers some insights into aid practices generally. Note that two of the top donors in Afghanistan (the US, and the UK) are ranked in the bottom half (though they have improved since 2003), while a third (Japan) claims last place.

Here's an except from the Index overview:

Each year the CDI rates and ranks 21 rich countries on how much their policies help or hurt poorer nations. The CDI assigns scores in seven policy areas (foreign aid, trade, investment, migration, environment, security, and technology), with the average being the overall score. The idea is to provide a much more comprehensive picture than the usual comparisons of donor nations on how much aid they give.

This year, the Netherlands moved into first, mainly because a conservative government in the formerly number-one Denmark has cut aid spending. Japan remains in last place as the country whose government is least engaged with developing countries. As in the past, the G-7 "leading industrial nations" have not led on the CDI; Germany, top among them, is in 9th place overall.

There's a lot more at their websites for the data junkies out there:

Browse the CDI charts by clicking bars, country names, and policy components
Explore the Data Maps to see results another way.
Read the Foreign Policy article here.

Here are six findings from the study:

1. Rich-country policies matter

Much attention is given to what developing countries can do to foster poverty alleviation and growth at home. The Index highlights what rich countries do to help or hinder development abroad.

2. Development is about more than aid

Aid is important, but trade, migration, investment, environmental, security and technology policies influence development too.

3. Aid is about more than money

How donor countries design their aid programs is as important as how much aid they give.

4. Coherence matters

The Index penalizes countries that give with one hand (through aid or investment) but take away with the other (through trade barriers or pollution).

5. Partnerships are powerful

Facing global challenges that no one nation can handle alone, the Index rewards countries that deliver aid through multilateral arrangements, sign global environmental agreements, and participate in internationally sanctioned security operations.

6. No one is perfect

Almost all countries score below average in at least one area and most are below average in at least three.

Posted by Carl Robichaud on August 15, 2006 at 01:32 PM in Economics, Investment, Reconstruction, U.S. Policy | Permalink

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by: |

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:

Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

August 15, 2006

Who's really committed to development?

Comments

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Post a comment

Subscribe

Search

Categories

afghanistan News feed

Recent Posts

Archives

Feeds

Links