Expanding a case – 129
the arguments set out in that introduction, namely that developing countries often have little room for manoeuvre when faced with
international pressures from donor countries, financial institutions
and so on.
We come now to the last and most important set of reasons why
development programs have often disappointed the hopes of the rural
poor. This is that, for the most part, developing countries who are trying
to help the poor are caught in a web of international policies, financial
agreements and practices from which they can hardly escape. Most
finance for development ultimately comes from the governments of major
donor countries and from international financial institutions. How this
money is used is therefore very greatly influenced by the politics and
economic ideologies of these organisations. Where there is conflict
between development priorities of the recipient country and the interests
of the donors, it is to be expected that the latter will prevail.
Which questions can we ask of this? First, in the second sentence we
have listed ‘international policies, financial agreements and practices’.
Which ones? When were they made or when did they come into
play? The next sentence refers to governments of donor countries
and international financial institutions, but we must ask in particular
which governments and which financial institutions are the important
ones for the sake of the argument. The fourth sentence raises questions
about how greatly politics and economic ideologies influence the use
of money, and which kinds of politics and economic ideologies? The
final sentence introduces a condition (‘where there is conflict’) that
will need to be specified further; and finally we might need to ask
how and why the interests of donors prevail.
When we speak of international policies towards development we must
first single out those of the United States, which since the late 1990s has
been by far the biggest and most powerful donor of Official Development
Assistance (ODA) in absolute dollar terms despite its permanent position
since 1989 near the bottom of the international donor tables as a
the arguments set out in that introduction, namely that developing countries often have little room for manoeuvre when faced with
international pressures from donor countries, financial institutions
and so on.
We come now to the last and most important set of reasons why
development programs have often disappointed the hopes of the rural
poor. This is that, for the most part, developing countries who are trying
to help the poor are caught in a web of international policies, financial
agreements and practices from which they can hardly escape. Most
finance for development ultimately comes from the governments of major
donor countries and from international financial institutions. How this
money is used is therefore very greatly influenced by the politics and
economic ideologies of these organisations. Where there is conflict
between development priorities of the recipient country and the interests
of the donors, it is to be expected that the latter will prevail.
Which questions can we ask of this? First, in the second sentence we
have listed ‘international policies, financial agreements and practices’.
Which ones? When were they made or when did they come into
play? The next sentence refers to governments of donor countries
and international financial institutions, but we must ask in particular
which governments and which financial institutions are the important
ones for the sake of the argument. The fourth sentence raises questions
about how greatly politics and economic ideologies influence the use
of money, and which kinds of politics and economic ideologies? The
final sentence introduces a condition (‘where there is conflict’) that
will need to be specified further; and finally we might need to ask
how and why the interests of donors prevail.
When we speak of international policies towards development we must
first single out those of the United States, which since the late 1990s has
been by far the biggest and most powerful donor of Official Development
Assistance (ODA) in absolute dollar terms despite its permanent position
since 1989 near the bottom of the international donor tables as a