Redistribution takes place between sovereign States

The book have "Fatal help" the Zambian Dambisa Moyo, the negative effects of public development aid in recipient countries seems to have a significant impact. In donor countries, it brings water to the mill of those who believe that aid benefits mainly elites in countries which receive and that should be the limit, particularly in times of budgetary difficulties. For the beneficiary countries, it invites to radically rethink how aid is distributed, as suggested by a recent article by President Kagame in the "Financial Times".

These questions about the effectiveness of the aid are not new. Redistribution operations often involve losses in line, the amount to distribute located in fine less than that which has been taken. The essential question is how to minimize these losses. Since the beginning of the 1980s, date from which there are roughly reliable statistics, poverty affects a roughly constant proportion of the population, slightly more than 50 per cent - far NET 66, and the "massive increase" referred to by Dambisa Moyo. At the same time, the region received an almost 1,000 billion aid flows, approximately 5 of national income. It may be tempting to infer that the aid did nothing to reduce poverty, as suggested in "fatal help." But the real question is what would have been the evolution of poverty without this aid, and therefore what was his actual contribution, and whether it could be greater.

The same type of questions is at the centre of the debate on the cost of the welfare State in developed countries. Over time, however, a consensus seems to be established on the fact that the redistribution to the poor has an economic cost of course, it is important to minimize but cannot call into question the social objectives.

The problem arises in the same terms to the world community with an additional difficulty. Redistribution takes place between sovereign States. The leaders of the beneficiary countries are therefore more or less essential intermediaries between donors and those they would like to help. Their behaviour can make ineffective assistance insofar as they have latitude to dispose of amounts received, directly or indirectly, for personal rather than focus on the financing of collective development strategies.

Such behaviour is however not uniform or systematic. All beneficiaries of the aid are not governed by a Mobutu or an Abacha and many countries today have a sufficiently strong governance to ensure that assistance from rich countries is channelled towards the poorest.

The development assistance is in fact substantially modified in recent years. Among donors, the purely political motivations at the time of the cold war gradually are replaced in order to effectively combat poverty. Good governance has become a major determinant of aid given to a country as guarantor of its use as an instrument of development rather than for any other purpose. It also determines the way in which aid is distributed: as budgetary support without conditionality or rather as financing of identified projects.

Rest of countries in which a rather poor governance is a handicap for ineffective assistance. This is the so-called "fragile" States The principle of providing aid is not called into question, unless as the needs may be greater in those countries. But reflection is ongoing on the optimal way for the international community to distribute the aid.

Contrary to what think Dambisa Moyo, renounce aid to raise funds on international markets is not an option for these countries. The same governance deficit makes them "fragile" to donors makes them "risky" to foreign investors. The aid is essential, even if the way to reach populations in need is not always clear.