Poverty and aid telling a different story

Countries give aid to others with the intention that they will reduce poverty and inequality but questions always remain about whether the aid has had made any difference to the people it was supposed to help.

Inequality and indeed poverty can be defined in different ways and this makes it very difficult when questions are asked about its effectiveness and impact, explained Professor Mark McGillivray, a co convenor of Deakin University’s Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation’s Development, inequality and wellbeing research stream.

The issue of definition and the sharing of disciplinary expertise cuts to the heart of two workshops being run by the stream this month.

The first held on Wednesday October 14 looked at the discrimination, disparity and deprivation, the issues they create, how they are interpreted and how they are measured.

A second workshop to be held on Monday October 26 will look at the political environment, the factors that drive deprivation and poverty, how these create minorities and their impact on human rights.

While such workshops and discussion may seem grist to the mill for academics but perplex people outside the academic community, Professor McGillivray’s research project evaluating Sweden’s long term involvement in giving development aid underscores why such discussions are important.

Similarly co convenor Dr Anthony Ware’s latest research looks at the political and social narratives that drive inequality and discrimination in Myanmar.  It highlights the role insights from social sciences can bring to development assistance and evaluation.

Professor McGillivray is leading a research team which will evaluate Sweden’s long-term bilateral development cooperation with Tanzania and its effect on the reduction of poverty.

“Tanzania is among a number of developing countries with which Sweden has had a particularly long bilateral development co-operation relationship.

“This co-operation commenced in 1963 and no country has received more aid from Sweden than Tanzania has.”

“Tanzania is the seventh largest recipient of world foreign aid since 1960,” Professor McGillivray said.

“The international community is particularly interested in the impact this aid has had on poverty reduction in this country.”

Professor McGillivray said two key obstacles to evaluations in the past had been defining poverty.

“Poverty, can be defined in many ways, with the most common definition being that of income poverty,” he explained.

“An individual is said to be living in this type of poverty if their income is below the critical threshold necessary to maintain a certain level of material well‐being.

“Yet it is widely accepted in policy and research circles that well-being is multidimensional, involving more than achievements in income alone.

“Achievements in health, education, personal security, environmental conditions, social connections, and participation also matter.”

There can also be much confusion about what is ‘aid’.

Professor McGillivray said aid for the Swedish investigation would be defined as Official Development Assistance (ODA), transfers in cash or in kind, that are funded by the Swedish taxpayer and administered by the Swedish International Development Agency, or other organisations of the Government of Sweden.

“But aid can also include donations from Swedish non-government organisations, or Swedish residents to family members, or others living in the recipient country.”

Professor McGillivray said while all donors evaluated aspects of their country’s programs, the Swedish evaluation went further.

“Evaluations tend to be of specific projects or programs over relatively short periods of time and they tend not to focus on poverty reduction,” he said.

“The Swedish evaluation focuses on the entire aid program for a period of more than 50 years and it specifically looks at the poverty reduction impact.”

Dr Ware said an understanding of the social environment in which aid programs took place was also important.

“Social narratives about different races, religions or how hard people are perceived to have worked allows us to justify disparity, discrimination and inequality,” he said.

“In effect, we use these narratives to feel ok about others having less opportunity or resources.

“Narratives drive policy and practice, and allow discrimination.

“Ultimately, they can allow us to value one life more than another.

“Combatting inequality and poverty must therefore include developing new narratives, new ways to describe ourselves and others.”

Dr Ware said those who were without found it particularly difficult to challenge such views if the stories were fixed within the political environment.

“Myanmar for instance is a very diverse mix of different ethnic groups, with one dominant majority and a diversity of ethnic minority races.

“Yet the language used to talk about this speaks to part of the problem: most of the majority Burmans don’t see themselves as an ethnic group—the minorities are ethnic minorities, but they are just the Burmese,” he said.

“This is perceived as paternalistic, at best, and allows people to treat minorities differently, fosters opposition and dysfunction and works against efforts to build a cohesive nation.

“Narratives and language shape policy, and underpin inequality and disparity.

“Even development projects which might otherwise be very good become part of the problem, reinforcing power differences.

“Given the army and government leadership are almost entirely Burman, these narratives are also at the heart of the civil conflict and peace process underway in Myanmar.”