Ernie Warner: Aid Partnerships (AP)

> Policy summary

A new approach to foreign aid through “twinning” communities in the UK with communities in developing countries to their mutual benefit. The UK Twin partner becomes the aid delivery vehicle. Its objective is to develop economic achievement and understanding through practical support and appropriate exchange of knowledge and resources. Twins could be cities, counties or both. The scheme could apply to:

• Manufacturing
• Infrastructure and transport
• Agriculture
• Recycling of plant and equipment
• Education
• Health and welfare

> Policy explanation

A region or province of a recipient country produces something that is used or needed in the UK twin community, thus providing the vital link. A manufacturer could set up a factory in the recipient country, for example, employing local labour for everything from the building of the plant and infrastructure through to the eventual manufacture. Supervision would be provided by British organisations until local staff in the recipient country have acquired the skills. Outside of manufacturing, twin partners in Britain could free interchange of personnel and activities, e.g. tourism, health and education.

Products of the scheme would be treated as if produced within the U.K and exempt from import duties. Personnel would move freely without the usual immigration restrictions (movement would be limited to the operation).

The new factory generates revenue initially through a guaranteed market overseas from the outset, then from its home market, expanding locally before moving on to regional export.

The main scheme could be further enhanced by creating ancillary businesses, such as packaging or transport, to operate alongside the manufacturing plant. Production and employment opportunities create a need for homes and infrastructure. Using local labour provides opportunities for Britain to provide trainers, who in turn enhance their own skills and experience, not least by having to learn foreign languages and working within a different environment.

Management would be from within and not by any Government Agency. There should be equal representation among the management from recipient and donor bodies, with a chairman elected by the groups themselves.

> Political risks and opportunities

The biggest risk is that AP’s are set up in countries where the government is corrupt or inept, and funding or product becomes sidetracked.

The reward for Britain is that it offers a way to expand our economy by increasing the size of the developed world, allowing recipients to trade their way out of poverty. Central to this opportunity is the fusion of government with enterprise, the former to enable, the latter to do.

> Costs

Apart from initial “pump priming” from the Overseas Development budget, the cost to the UK taxpayer should be minimal. Eventually, these “Aid Partnerships” would become self-funding and self-governing. Donor Companies would be expected to largely fund any development costs of plant and infrastructure (although UK or European Government grants must be applicable).

   

Comments

[Matthew Dear]

I work for a development INGO, and increasingly our supporters - (particularly town councils, schools, churches etc.) are calling for the sort of arrangement and the sector is (typically slowly!) beginning to shake itself up to facilitate such requests. We can't yet be sure of their success on any significant scale, though they're certainly not a panacea.

The great "added value" of organisations like mine is that they enable aid to bypass corrupt government and be channelled entirely safely and securely to local offices or partner organisations, who are supported, monitored and audited rigourously. So the corruption issue rears its head again under this sort of arrangement, when we believe we have more or less solved it.

We must welcome anything which lowers trade barriers, but the lowering proposed here is limited in scope - but it's a start. Complete removal of all tariffs and subsidies would be preferable, though harder to acheive (I would add that I'm in a minority in my sector in calling for this - though I'm also in a minority being a Conservative!)

So from me - an unequivocal maybe!

[Phil Taylor]

Isn't Ken Livingstone doing this already with Venezuela?

Seriously though, I have always thought that countries, especially in Europe and Africa, should buddy up in pairs so that aid could get more personal and hopefully more effective. I do like this idea in principle but I think it should be allowed to just happen. I would not like to see anyone try to administer a scheme. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

In particular I think we would get a much earlier warnings of problems in the world and we would be much more capable of handling them (cost-) effectively if we were much more engaged, community by community.

[Oliver Henry Cooper]

This is an excellent idea, although one that has been mooted a few times before. Any plan that funnels money directly to local communities in developing countries, thereby bypassing corrupt and militaristic governments, is a good idea.

[aristeides]

This is another idea that sounds nice but is unfortunately not at all practical. Matthew Dear's statement that "we must welcome anthing which lowers trade barriers" is not really true. We can't suspend international trade agreements (let alone UK immigration law!) for an Ipswich-Timbuktu town twinning progam.

Also, Phil Taylor is right to point out, by reference to Ken Livingstone and Venezuela, that such programmes will almost inevitably be hijacked by the left. Oxford twinned itself with Leon, Nicaragua in 1986 out of solidarity with the Sandanistas and we could expect plenty more of the same.

[Mark Wadsworth]

A qualified YES.

What we need, and what the Third World needs, is trade not aid.

[Sam Tarran]

Jeremy Clarkson proposes such a thing in his book, "And Another Thing". Very good idea indeed.