Are Aid Donors Walking their Own Talk?

Craig Fagan, Senior Policy Coordinator at Transparency International, is taking the measuring stick to aid transparency

A new study on donor transparency shows that many aid agencies are not putting into practice the levels of disclosure that they typically demand from the governments which receive their money. Produced by Publish What You Fund, the global campaign for aid transparency, the study compiles an index to see how different donor agencies measure-up when it comes to opening up their own books on how much aid they give, where and what for.

The index looks at 58 agencies, ranging from the World Bank’s International Development Association (the top performer) to Malta’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (the worst performer). In many cases, different agencies within the same institution or for the country are assessed. For example, three agencies from the EU and four from the United States are separately analysed to see how easy it is to follow the flow of the money. Overall 11 of the 15 worst performers on the index are EU member states. These include Spain, Portugal, Latvia, Italy, Poland and Hungary.

The degree of low-quality aid information provided by donors can be startling. In completing the study, the only information found on one of France’s top aid recipients, Cote d’Ivoire was about a project commemorating two decades worth of research on chimpanzees. In the case of Austria, the figures showed that the fourth biggest recipient of the country’s aid agency’s funding was the government of Austria.

These examples may seem humorous but they are worrying given the sums and stakes at play. In 2010, the latest year for figures on official development assistance, US$ 128 billion was spent on aid. These monies are supposed to be producing development results and helping the world’s poorest change their lives and futures.

But without timely, comparable and accessible information on the money be given, it is impossible to assess whether such outcomes are happening. By keeping donors’ books closed, there is a risk of waste, mismanagement and corruption.

Greater levels of transparency should be the norm, not the exception, for development efforts to be effective. Donors often urge partner governments to take measures that institutionalise transparency, accountability and integrity. From an aid effectiveness argument, these good practices make sense as they have been seen as having a real development pay-off. The question is, why are donors not doing the same?

Share and enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • TwitThis
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • MisterWong
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Technorati
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • YahooBuzz
  • Print
  • email
Craig Fagan

About Craig Fagan

Craig Fagan is Senior Policy Coordinator at Transparency International.

, , , ,

4 Responses to Are Aid Donors Walking their Own Talk?

  1. Titus 19 November 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    Thanks for this piece.Indeed donors should do much more.As an anti-corruption researcher and activist in Zim l am concerned that donors may end up enganging in shady deals under the guise of protecting democracy activists.With a repressive government which shuns foreign funding for human rights NGOs,donors have had to support certain democracy efforts clandestinely.But where do you draw the line between protecting activism and ensuring you remain exemplary in accountability and transparency.Would love to hear from you!

  2. Luis Felipe Martí Iturbide 21 November 2011 at 5:55 pm #

    Can you send me information in sapnish?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Securing sustainable development outcomes through good governance and transparency | space for transparency - 27 September 2012

    [...] Publish What You Fund: Are Aid Donors Walking their Own Talk? [...]

  2. “F” for aid transparency: Why are development actors not making the grade? | space for transparency - 1 October 2012

    [...] might be hard to believe, the overall performance of the assessed organisations has improved over previous years. It went up seven percentage points from the 2011 index. And this increase is seen as being a [...]