Will buying the new Band Aid single help?

Published on Wednesday 24 November 2004 01:10

TWENTY years ago, shocked by images of famine in Ethiopia, Bob Geldof launched Band Aid. The response exceeded even his wildest hopes. Do They Know It’s Christmas? reached No1 in 12 countries and went on to sell more than 3.5 million copies. Live Aid followed, with similar success.

In all, over 75 million was raised and distributed worldwide.

On Monday, the Band Aid 20 single goes on sale - but will it have as big an impact as in 1984?

There are a number of reasons to suspect not. For one thing, many people have grown increasingly suspicious about the work that aid agencies do. A number of awkward questions have emerged, and it is not easy to find satisfactory answers to them.

What are the charges? Well, the very fact that appeals keep coming raises tough questions. Why are so many countries still apparently unable to meet their own needs? Why the continual demand for foreign aid? What has happened to all the money given in the past? Did it reach the people who needed it, or was most of it swallowed up in administration expenses? If the money did get through, why do the appeals keep coming? Has it served merely to foster a climate of dependency in developing countries - a habit of relying on foreign handouts to solve problems? If so, then further aid may do as much harm as good, by putting off the day when developing countries take responsibility for their own needs.

Or is the problem that the humanitarian crises that hit the headlines stem from local political and economic causes - from corruption, mismanagement and oppression? If so, then is it our responsibility to intervene? Again, there is the risk that doing so might be counter-productive, for any aid we give might be used by corrupt leaders to further entrench their grip on power and put off vital reform.

These are serious concerns; even those sympathetic to aid agencies should, I think, admit there is some truth in them. Foreign aid can foster dependency and serve to entrench corrupt, undemocratic regimes. Many aid agencies do give a misleading impression of what proportion of their funds go direct to the field. The business of aid is far more complex and expensive than the fundraising literature of aid agencies tends to imply.

So would it be better not to respond to the latest appeal? Perhaps, but we should also consider the counter-arguments. As a start, we should acknowledge the root causes of world poverty, although assuredly political and economic, are hardly confined to developing countries. Developed countries have also played a part. Consider the way governments of developed countries have used their influence over global institutions like the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund. Such institutions play an ever-greater role in determining the wealth and poverty of nations. And our governments have used their power to ensure that such institutions serve our interests over those of people in developing countries, with little regard to considerations of equity or justice, or to the suffering that results.

If global institutions and practices are unjust, no doubt we should campaign to change them. But still, if corruption and mismanagement at the local level were serious enough, it might still be foolish to give aid; doing so might merely serve to entrench corrupt, undemocratic regimes.

However, although serious problems of governance persist in many developing countries, considerable improvements have been made in recent years. Since 1980, for example, 33 military regimes worldwide have been replaced by civilian governments,140 of the world’s 200 or so countries now hold multi-party elections, and 82 of them - home to 57 per cent of the world’s population - are considered full democracies.

What of those countries which are still very badly run? Should we at least avoid giving aid to them? Perhaps in certain cases, but sometimes useful work can be done even in such countries. Legal aid can be provided, for example, for the victims of such regimes. Organisations which represent marginalised or oppressed communities can be funded. In a variety of ways, democratic forces can be supported. And sometimes, as a last resort, emergency relief must be supplied, if millions of people are not to die.

Similarly, when it comes to fostering dependency, the danger is real and serious mistakes have been made, but the risks can be reduced through alternative forms of aid. Instead of merely handing over food, money can be spent on supporting agricultural production and on strengthening the position of groups most vulnerable to hunger. Money appropriately targeted to health and education is more likely to enhance people’s capacities to control their own lives than to render them forever dependent on foreign aid. Much of the work of the better voluntary aid agencies is focused on such long-term development, although it is always emergency relief that gets the attention.

And what of concerns about aid money being swallowed up in administration? Yes, some aid agencies do give a misleading impression of this and deserve criticism for it. However, money must be spent on training staff and evaluating projects, if costly mistakes are not to be repeated. Money must be spent on lobbying and advocacy if the economic and political conditions that cause poverty are to be changed.

So what conclusions can be drawn - should we give to Band Aid? The key point is that we should give these matters more urgent and careful attention than we tend to. Many people appear to dismiss the idea of giving to aid agencies at the merest suggestion of the kind of criticisms listed above. But none of these criticisms touches on the basic factor that gives this issue its discomforting force: the utter madness of a world in which millions live in comfort and luxury, while millions of others still endure extreme poverty.

Band Aid is surely not the solution, but if it prompts further reflection on these awkward facts, it may help to bring a solution that bit closer.

• Keith Horton is a research fellow at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Australia. His book, Should We Give to Aid Agencies?, is to be published by Edinburgh University Press.