Pluralism and the Voice of the Multi-Donors

Are donors cleverer than we are? Do donors use more sophisticated software than we do? Do they inhabit cubicles painted in more inspiring colours? Are they more clear about things than the UN?

Let’s have a closer look: 

There are the like-minded donors, the Nordic donors and the North-Atlantic donors; the old-Europe and presumably the new-Europe donors, and those that can’t decide between two; there are those who pay their development funds to the EU and those that prefer to trust nobody else than themselves. There are those that produce all different kinds and shapes of logframes, and those that continue to agree on weird terminology in the OECD-DAC. There are donors who believe that Conventions are to be signed and implemented. There are those that believe the world is a huge free market place. And there are those who think that the UN hasn’t got its act together! 
Two aspects unite all multi-donors:

• All say they favour pluralism; and

•  All want us to speak with one voice. 

Now I just can’t figure out whether they want us to speak with the Nordic voice, or the EU voice, or the voice of the free, or the free-market voice. And which of these is the voice of the marginalized, exploited and excluded?

And if we raise our one voice, will it provide the sure-fire answer to the troubles of the developing country? Shouldn’t the developing countries not know all the important arguments, and isn’t the debate itself not an essential element of the development process?

Of course it makes sense to coordinate aid and technical assistance. But I thought that the UN is also here to negotiate between the views of the claim-holding developing countries and the often diverging views of the duty-bearing multi-donor community. 

And now, as reform is going to consolidate our leadership role, we wouldn’t mind if the donors send some of their best and brightest over to the UN.

(26 March 2004)

previous         next