Canadian Store (CAD)
You are currently shopping in our Canadian store. For orders outside of Canada, please switch to our international store. International and US orders are billed in US dollars.
The following is excerpted from Stephen Brown's upcoming book Struggling for Effectiveness: CIDA and Canadian Foreign Aid (available in September).
Outside actors raise a litany of criticisms against CIDA and Canadian foreign aid with great regularity. Commonly raised themes include CIDA’s excessive bureaucratization and centralization; lack of both geographic and sectoral focus, leadership, and overall vision or clearly articulated purpose; and failure to commit to a firm timetable for achieving the goal of disbursing 0.7 per cent of GNI on ODA (Chapnick 2008; OECD 2002; 2007; Goldfarb and Tapp 2006). On occasion, government bodies, such as parliamentary committees, have published critical examinations of Canadian aid policy as well (for instance, Canada 1987). A distinctive trend in recent years has been the number and at times vociferousness of attacks on CIDA from within government, as well as how drastic some of the remedies suggested are. Three government reports stand out in this regard, two from the Senate and one from a government-appointed panel, all of which lament in particular the lack of visible impact of Canadian aid. In addition, recent attacks by the minister responsible for CIDA on the agency can only be interpreted ominously.
In 2007 the Canadian Senate threw CIDA a one-two punch. First, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence complained about the lack of visibility of CIDA’s efforts in Kandahar, the province of Afghanistan where Canada is playing a central role, and recommended that CIDA turn over $20 million per year to the Canadian Forces for them to use for development projects (Canada 2007b, 9, 26). Second, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade deplored CIDA’s “40 years of failure” in Africa and raised the possibility that the agency be abolished and its functions taken over by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). Among other things, it recommended focusing aid on the private sector and economic growth, at the expense of social spending and fighting poverty directly, which it considered unproductive welfare spending (Canada 2007b). The media seized upon the mooted possibility of abolishing CIDA, which was actually not the Senate committee’s first preference.
Despite being very poorly argued and justified (for a detailed analysis, see Brown 2007b), some of these recommendations squared well with pre-existing government beliefs and intentions, including the rationale for increased support to the private sector. The tenor of the report also supported the shift of focus away from Africa, first announced a few months after the report’s publication. The government did not act on other recommendations, such as promoting trade with and investment in African countries or increasing support for UN peace operations in Africa.
(…)
The Senate reports brought high-profile attention to CIDA’s shortcomings, real and imagined, and placed the agency in a more vulnerable position. In 2009 an unprecedented event occurred: CIDA’s own minister, Bev Oda, after spending her first two years in office talking up CIDA and its achievements, rather suddenly went on the attack and criticized the agency for its lack of technical expertise and focus on inputs rather than results (Berthiaume 2009). The patent unfairness of her criticisms further eroded morale among CIDA employees and raised the spectre that the government was laying the groundwork for future budget cuts (Brown 2009). These critiques all centred on the apparent lack of impact of Canadian aid. However, a fixation on immediately visible results has a negative effect on effectiveness.
Stephen Brown is a recurring guest on CBC's The Current, most recently on July 5th.
To learn more about Struggling for Effectiveness or to order online, click here.
For media inquiries, contact MQUP Publicist Jacqui Davis.
No comments yet.