Are the United States and other developed nations doing all they can to help alleviate poverty in the developing world?
Of course not. Are they working their hardest to bring peace and prosperity to every region of the world, regardless of its strategic importance?
Obviously not. Have the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund always kept in mind the interests of the countries they're trying to help when they create policy?
I highly doubt it. Can we blame these organizations and their member states when we think about the endemic poverty and violence in much of the world?
To some extent.
And yet ...
However uninspired, shortsighted and under-funded programs are, and no matter how self-serving, superficial and insincere countries might be, the funding is there. Of course there should be more of it: the international community should be ashamed it wouldn't rally the funds to fight the genocide in Darfur, and the United States should be embarrassed that it constantly blackmails the United Nations by withholding its mandatory dues.
Yet as we all know, the right way to solve a problem is not to throw more money at it (Congress ... cough, cough). We could be doing more with the funding we have and more effectively knock down the ridiculously high statistic of nearly 3 billion people living on less than $2 a day. So what are we missing?
One overlooked element of this conundrum is governance. No matter what incredible plans the people in New York or Geneva make or how thorough an understanding of economic development the World Bank has, the reality on the ground is the only thing that matters. The Oil-for-Food program sounded like a good idea right up to the point where we found out Saddam Hussein was siphoning billions in funds, taking part in oil smuggling and demanding kickbacks from those buying Iraqi oil.
U.N. policy in Angola that helped create a unity government also seemed like sound policy ... except for the continued war, the Angolan rebel group UNITA prospering off the sale of blood diamonds, and the rebel movement's success in using the diamonds to court favors from other governments like Burkina Faso and Togo.
The internal system of governance (or lack thereof) is an integral part in determining whether a policy is ultimately successful. If a ruler is not accountable to his or her people, no matter how well-intentioned a program might be, the international community cannot presume that theoretically effective economic policies will trickle down to the people.
Likewise, if a country is mired in instability, bitter conflict and decades of civil war, it will take more energy to implement effective reform there. I'm not saying the international community did not take this into account when they designed the programs, but it seems implausible that there is a one-size-fits-all solution. Yet World Bank and IMF policies around the globe often seem far removed from the individual nuances of each country and at times seem completely misplaced.
The second overlooked element of governance is the responsibility of individual countries to do what they can to implement effective programs to the best of their abilities. While presidents and prime ministers can blame bad policy, under-funding and underhanded motives to some degree, a significant portion of what is wrong with development rests with the developing country itself.
In many countries in Africa, where bribes are included in original budget proposals for public works and government contracts, it seems na've to think the same would not occur with international aid. While a shift in the acceptability of corruption is ostensibly occurring, the progress is negligible, and neither I nor those it most directly disenfranchises will live to see its improvement at this rate.
Someone needs to take corrupt governments to task and re-teach a civil society that has been taught to supplement its meager salaries with regular kickbacks. Whether this force is internal or external, it matters little in the long run.
While sanctions would not work effectively, perhaps "smart sanctions" directed at those most directly profiting from them (either through freezing assets, confiscating passports etc.) or even public shaming might result in some progress. Simply highlighting the corollary between ineffective and corrupt domestic governance and its negative impact on poverty reduction might prove a powerful force for some.
While domestic governance is far from the only factor influencing why some countries thrive and some wither, it is often a significant issue. Governance is an integral element of shaping international policy as well as determining how to keep individual governments accountable.
