Greater co-ordination would reduce the burden on recipient countries, writes Richard Whelan.
In 2004 Ireland will spend €479 million on overseas development assistance. This is a good sum, one we should take pride in, but there are worrying indications that our money is not being used as effectively as it should be.
The publication in the May-June edition of Foreign Policy magazine of the Commitment to Development Index (CDI), compiled by the Centre for Global Development and the magazine (published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) makes it possible to review our relative effectiveness.
The index is a ranking of 21 rich nations according to how their policies help or hinder social and economic development in poorer countries. The Dutch government has adopted the CDI as one of its external performance standards for development and is seeing how it can improve its performance. Ireland should do the same.
The CDI rates countries from 0 to 10 on performance in seven categories: Trade, Technology, Security, Environment, Migration, Investment and Aid.
Surprisingly, Ireland is 18th overall, fourth from the bottom, with only Japan, Spain and Switzerland performing worse. Holland and Denmark are first and second, with Japan coming in last. As the CDI is based on relative, not absolute, performance, this is a poor rating for us.
In assessing aid Ireland, with a ranking of three, comes out very low. This is because it is one of those donors which is penalised for overloading governments of poor nations with onerous aid-reporting requirements and endless "mission visits" from foreign aid officials.
As Foreign Policy points out, last year Tanzania declared a four-month "mission holiday", during which the country received only the most urgent visits by donor officials.
The magazine reports that Switzerland gave Tanzania $29.7 million for five projects between 2000 and 2002, whereas Ireland offered roughly the same amount of total aid but through 404 different projects. (The Department of Foreign Affairs believes the 404 figure is overstated.)
On trade Ireland scores 5.8, lower than it should because of EU tariffs and subsidies. The US came first and Norway last in the category, the latter because of its very heavy agricultural subsidies.
On investment Ireland scored 2.7, the lowest ranking in that category, essentially because Ireland does not provide political risk insurance or help investors avoid double taxation when doing business with many poorer countries.
On migration (which covers openness to migration, the ratio of foreign students from developing countries to the total foreign student population, and aid to refugees and asylum-seekers) the Irish score is 5.8. Surprisingly, on environmental matters it scores 2.8, second-last, just ahead of the US on 2.3.
The latter measures the harm Ireland is causing to the global commons, in the consumption of ozone-depleting substances, subsidies for fishing, emissions of greenhouse gases and low petrol taxes, in addition to our contribution to international initiatives in this area. The score is a surprise and worrying.
On security (peacekeeping) Ireland scores 5.5, although many might be surprised it is not higher.
Finally, its technology score, at two, is by far the worst in the category. This is arguably the most important area with the most profound long-term effect on poorer countries.
Many Asian countries have achieved massive growth partly because of technology transfers. Ireland's poor score reflects inadequate government subsidies for research and development either through direct spending or tax breaks. (An improvement is noted by the magazine for 2003).
The record on "private giving" is more impressive. Ireland, at 6¢ per person per day, is in 3rd place, slightly behind Switzerland at 7¢ and quite a distance behind the leader, Norway, at 24¢, with the US at 5¢, and Portugal, Greece, Italy and Japan among the lowest "private givers".
Although a crude measure, and somewhat dated, the CDI index does make it possible to review relative performance and suggests areas for focus and improvement. These might include greater co-ordination of aid to reduce the burden on recipient countries, government efforts to make properly structured political risk insurance available and to sign double-taxation agreements with developing countries, while further government effort to support research and development is clearly required. Ireland's record on the environment clearly also requires action.
[ www.cgdev.org)Opens in new window ]
Richard Whelan is a commentator on strategic affairs