Digital Archive....

Is sustainable local development a persuasive alternative to microfinance? Global development: Poverty matters blog | guardian.co.uk Milford Bateman has made a cogent case for community-based financial institutions that prioritise sustainable local solutions Milford Bateman is perhaps best known for his strident attacks on microfinance as an anti-poverty strategy, including his sometimes acrimonious debates with David Roodman , another microfinance analyst. Bateman claims that, by diverting resources away from more productive investments and indebting poor people with no significant return, the microfinance "fad" has been anti-developmental, benefiting lenders most. If, like me, you have been an instinctive believer in microfinance for the past few years, Bateman's critique is worrying. But even more worrying, perhaps, is the fact that Roodman, his apparent adversary on the subject, is also unconvinced. "We do not have credible academic e...

It's time to move beyond aid | John Hilary Global development: Poverty matters blog | guardian.co.uk Countries that have successfully tackled poverty and inequality have done so not through foreign assistance but through the liberation of their own social, human and economic forces The UK should abandon the UN target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid, says the House of Lords economic affairs committee . The aid agencies are outraged. The Daily Mail is over the moon . Who is right? Much of what the noble peers concluded is undeniably correct. Aid can often create dependency among recipient countries, diverting genuine development efforts in a desperate attempt to qualify for the next injection of funds. By the same token, it also undermines democracy – especially where governments depend on aid for large proportions of their national budget. Aid can also be an open invitation to corruption. The international development secretary,...

Existing Forever Versus Doing Some Good SSIR Opinion & Analysis An op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago argued that donors should construct their foundations to spend down assets as rapidly as possible, lest the foundations end up supporting causes their donors would revile. This familiar argument comes with a familiar whipping boy: the Ford Foundation, which has an enthusiasm for assisting the poor and marginalized that was certainly not shared by its eponymous founder, Henry. This focus on donor intent is common in discussions of the ideal lifespan of foundations. I've never cared particularly about the intent of dead donors. First of all, they're dead, and while death may not extinguish intent as a matter of law, it certainly does as a matter of common sense. Second, how much better off do we really think the world would be if Ford's foundation had spent all its money on Ford's enthusiasms, such as promoting pub...