The Aid Dilemma

“Aid would be a great thing if it worked” William Easterly

It has taken a long time for me to get to this point of view and it’s is an unpopular one, but I feel that we should not continue to give aid in its current form. I firmly believe that aid is fundamentally flawed and that giving aid in its current form or simply increasing aid to the poorest nations is not the solution to economic development. Other credible alternatives should be looked at and engaged with. It’s a controversial and unpopular opinion I know, and I didn’t really form this opinion or look into aid much until I saw William Easterly’s debate on it. I would really recommend watching as he is able to summaries everything that I want to say below but in a far better way than I ever could.

First off the idea of aid is that in the earliest stages of development there is a shortage of capital.  There is a market failure, as both domestic and global markets do not wish to finance what is perceived to be “risky” investment in the poorest nations. Aid’s job is therefore to step in and finance these “risky projects” and foster economic development by “bridging the gap between the desired levels of investment and actual domestic savings”. However evidence suggests that “the bulk of aid tends to augment consumption rather than close the financing gap of productive investment”. (Abeaz 2005, p440). There is now increasing academic evidence that the current system of aid has not only failed to promote economic growth and poverty reduction, but can actually do more harm than good, with this failure most clearly seen in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

You could argue as Jeffery Sach’s does that we simply do not give enough, and that the problem lies in the amount of aid we give. And while I believe that he is right in some respects, I don’t think we give enough, Australia’s aid (Government’s budget) in 2012/13 was 40c in every $100 (I think this this has changed with the new budget and its sits around 20c now?) The USA gives 20c in every $100 of their budget. So yes, there is clearly more room for Australia’s on a government and individual level to give more. But I don’t think simply giving more money is the answer. As William Easterly says $600 billion in aid has been given to Africa over 45 years and standards of living and incomes have not risen, in some cases they have even gone backwards. I the idea that simply throwing more money at the situation does not sit well with me.  

The idea of aid is to help the poorest nations, and distribute it on a needs based allocation. However much of the research done on the distribution of aid finds “that the flow of foreign aid seems to have little apparent relationship to human needs in developing countries”(Akram, 2003, p1356).  Essentially the poorest nations aren’t even receiving the most amount of aid. In reality there are other factors that contribute to the way aid is given, that have less to do with a needs or poverty reduction, and more to do with the broader foreign policy goals of countries.

There are many problems associated with the current aid regime including; the asymmetrical relationship between countries, the huge fragmentation and proliferation of aid agencies, lack of coordination and the accountability of aid. You can just take a step back and think about if you hear about anyone losing their job when an aid project fails? When millions of dollars in aid fails who is held accountable? Most common answer is no one. There is no sense of responsibility for the outcomes of aid.  There is a lack of coordination, coherence and focus in aid. Looking at Africa “in a typical country there are 30-40 donors, in addition 75-125 foreign Non-Government Organisations that fund a thousand or so distinct projects, involving 800-1000 foreign experts” (Van de Walle 1999, p339). How could you possibly expect anything ever to get done?  As Abeaz (2005, p439) states “The ultimate stakeholders of the aid relationship may be poor people, but they rarely have an effective voice in the design or in the evaluation of aid-funded programs”.

A lot of people argue that aid is not the problem it is the corruption within these countries. There is now widespread support for ending practices of giving aid to governments with bad records of corruption, human rights abuses and incompetency that would render aid ineffective; in essence making sure aid is given in an informed manner. But how do you avoid punishing the poor in these countries when their governments perform badly? Dambisa Moyo in her book Dead Aid argues that in reality very little of the aid trickles down to those in abject poverty “Too many African countries have already hit rock bottom – ungoverned, poverty-stricken, and lagging further and further behind the rest of the world each day; there is nowhere further down to go”.  And therefore if you were to cut aid off it would have a very minimal effect on those in poverty and harm those most in power. This is still a hard pill to swallow and it will likely never be tested out. There is also emerging evidence that aid actually fosters corruption, the saying goes aid “makes good governments bad and bad governments worse”. Inhibiting democracy and entrenching the ruling elite. Also the standard diagnosis is that all countries within Africa are corrupt, with highly visible examples of terrible governments and widespread war and violence; however this is not the case for all and does not explain the disparity of living standards in equivalent levels of corruption South America or parts of Asia. I’m not arguing that governance has no impact but that its impact is used inappropriately as a single explanation, and a justification to continue to give aid in its current form.  

The issues that face the poorest nations, in particular Sub-Saharan Africa are multifaceted and there is no silver bullet. There is very little incentive to change the way aid is given. Because there is such little incentive, many ideas and alternatives to aid are dismissed and not researched fully. What is the point of all this? Essentially what I am trying to say is that people should stop giving aid, but that this is really hard to do and seems callous and simply horrific in a lot of cases, so instead I’m saying think about the money you are giving. Give to those aid agencies that specifically involve local communities in aid projects from the beginning and that embed projects in local institutions, instead of going around governments, fostering accountability within the community. Even though its hard to do and it’s easy to just give money; look up aid agencies, see how transparent they are when it comes to allocating funds and whether or not they acknowledge local views, what locals think is needed, not what foreigners think is needed.

.  -Mrouge-

Mental Health

When the world gets older

And the nights grow colder

Dreams get darker 

When it all seems naught

And you want to stop

Just for it to get faster

1 in 16 are currently experiencing depression. One in 6 experience are currently anxiety and one in four have a mental health condition. Suicide, is the biggest killer of young Australians, more than car accidents.

These are very easy to find statistics; These are the big picture;  the numbers without the story, the illness without the words to describe them.

Everyone understands, that mental health issues whilst horrible, is not something that people should be ashamed of. Then why are we so afraid to talk about the issue.



As friends, we are taught to always be there for that mate that isn't 100%. When someone close to us is suffering, a common response is to simply be there if we're needed.

Sometimes, its not easy to ask for help from a mate. On this blog last week, Andrea wrote about Emma Watson's speech at the launch of the heforshe campaign. During the speech, Watson spoke about gender inequality using an example about how men are less likely to ask for help if needed, which is a negative product of gender inequality. Many, (particularly men) don't want to burden their friends with their own pains and problems and try to cover it up as much as possible. They don't want to show weakness, and just want to work through it themselves.

For these people, just being there when needed, is not enough. Friendships should go one step further. We should be striving to do something more. More than just simply being there if we're required.

Why should it be the person suffering to have to make the first move?

Josh, wrote a couple weeks ago, the importance of getting all the information before forming an opinion. He went further to emphasis the reliability of any information we use to form our opinions. In a lot of ways, you can never have all the information and you certainly cannot always get first hand, perfection information every time. The issue of mental health is one of them. No one is going to understand another person's mind on an issue so complex. Often we are faced with two options. One, to accept that we're not going to know everything about an issue, yet still give take the most suitable course of action. To accept our "opinionated" bias, yet have the confidence that what we know, whilst perhaps not the full picture, is enough to at least take some sort of action.

Source

The second is to simply give up. To accept we're not going to know everything and never form (and voice) our opinion. Its easier, safer and you are going to end up offending less people. For me though, its not enough for friends and family. If I was placed in that situation, I need to believe that I will always take the first. To accept the risk of offending for the chance that I can help. To suspect that a friend is not okay in terms of mental health and then deciding that its too much of a hard topic to talk about would be downright negligent.

With the death of Robbie Williams earlier this year, the issue of mental health has never been more at the forefront of people's minds. Lets take it as a chance to have that conversation with friends and family to ensure that are where they want to be. Society currently expects those suffering to ask for help when needed. This needs to change. We need to actively help them, rather than passively offering it.

~TastyJacks~

N.B. A small reason for writing this is Friday and not be seen as a hypocrite. 

Blog writing is a daunting affair.

I’m sitting here, facing a blank document on my computer screen the night before we theoretically have to post, in true Andrea fashion. What on earth could I possibly have to say that interests people? What would compel anyone to read the vomit of my thoughts? A few topics have crossed my mind – issues that I’ve been considering, and may or may not have had the opportunity to discuss with others in order to develop my ideas. Recently, there have been a variety of occurrences in the media that have sparked my interest, and there are a few events that I think can be tied together with some potentially tenuous threads. Maybe I haven’t thought this through enough in order for it to properly constitute a blog post. But I’m going to try.

First event: the speech of Emma Watson. Yes, I know what you’re thinking – this is old! This has been spoken about to death! Okay, I hear you, so I’ll try to keep it brief. I really enjoyed her discussion of the definition of feminism, and her demonstration of how fluid it is. It’s a scary word, and with it come images of bra burning and man hating. Emma’s (yes, we’re on first name basis) main argument was that feminism is a man’s issue too, and that no one should be excluded from a discussion that has effect on everyone’s lives. Without going into the potential criticisms that can be raised with her speech, I just want to highlight that one point: gender equality is everyone’s problem. Now let’s move on.

Event number two: The marriage of Amal Alumuddin and George Clooney. Again, yes, I know that this discussion can probably be predicted. Comparative to George Clooney, Amal (yep, first name basis again) was not a household name. Imagine if you were to be thrust into the spotlight, say, ten years from now, after you have achieved a certain level in your career and academia. Imagine that the paparazzi are following you, and media articles begin to surface about you. Imagine that you have put over a decade of hard work, study, dedication and sacrifice into your career. Then imagine that the only good things people can seem to find to say about you, the only things they seem interested in, is what dress you wore on Tuesday and how sleek your hair looked after being caught in a windstorm (okay that last example didn’t actually happen, but we’re IMAGINING things, here). For someone like Amal, the way she looks (and yes, I’m not denying that she’s beautiful or even that I totally love her style) is something that is just coincidental to her incredible intelligence and success. For me, it makes sense that someone is celebrated not for something she can’t really control (i.e. her beauty), but for all the years of hard work she consciously dedicated to becoming an internationally acclaimed barrister and businesswoman. You’re probably sitting there nodding and agreeing with everything I’m saying (it happens all the time), but maybe you’re wondering how I’m going to tie this in. My point here is: imagine it was you. If it were me, I’d be pretty pissed off that all my years of study went relatively under the radar. And I wouldn’t want my (far off in the distance) children to see me represented like that at all. Media misrepresentation is everyone’s problem.

Event number three: phew! And here I was, thinking that I had nothing to write about. It’s funny how, when given the opportunity, it’s so easy to blab on about all your thoughts. Blog writing seems to be quite therapeutic! But I digress – I promise I’ll try to come to a concluding argument with little blabbing from now on. Event number three is the murder of Mayang Prasetyo by her crazy chef boyfriend, who tried to cook her after dismembering her body. This is obviously a shameful, disgusting and horrific display of violence, and I honestly can’t help but shudder whenever I think of it. Despite this, however, some newspapers have chosen to focus on the decidedly unrelated fact that the girl who was MURDERED used to be a man. Some newspapers have made this the focus of the story, one even calling her a “She Man” on the headline – as if that was the reason she was killed. It is an appalling injustice to Mayang and her family, and this headline, in its’ ‘shock value’, draws away from the basic fact that Mayang was murdered. The horrific event of her death was almost overshadowed by issues of gender; whether she was a woman, or a man, or both, or neither. Everyone seems to be so caught up in definitions of gender, and who should do what when, that we’re missing some really vital points.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that a) the media can royally screw some things up, and b) gender equality is everybody’s problem. Discrimination based on gender can happen to anybody at any time, and it’s high time, in my opinion, that this stopped. If we can just look past these somewhat gender tainted goggles that we all seem to be wearing, maybe we can be, just as Emma Watson stipulated, ‘free’. 

Opinions

So when Tastyjacks introduced me in this post, he spent a while claiming that I have a relatively neutral stance on most issues, and rarely take opinions. Back in first year, I was asked whether or not it was ever appropriate to kill a nun; my immediate response went something along the lines of “well, it depends if she was Hitler or not”. Clearly, since this point, I have been known largely as a fence-sitter in most matters.

I have never really explained why I tend to do this. For me, it comes down to two main reasons. Firstly, I may not have adopted a position because I have no particular interest in the issue; this isn't to say that the issue is not nonetheless important – it’s just that I may not have (as yet) deemed the topic to be of too much relevance to me.

The second (and main) reason that I choose not to adopt a position is because of ignorance. Despite its negative connotations, ignorance is, at its heart, simply unawareness (or unwillingness to become aware) of the many facets of an issue. Basically, the upshot is that I feel uncomfortable expressing an opinion on a subject when I know too little about the subject matter.

Contrary to the opinion of many, it is impossible for one to be across everything in enough depth to lend validity to particular points of view. And even then, these points of view may still remain divisive and varied across a spectrum (counter-intuitively, a very good thing). Where I really take issue, is with people forming opinions with little to no “real” knowledge of a subject area (that is, knowledge that is untainted or as unbiased as humanly possible).

One of the core tenets of academia is the principle of reflexivity; that is, a process of recognising and identifying your own inherent biases, and hence being mindful of the way in which these may (usually unconsciously) shape your values and assumptions (and as such, your opinion).

Herein lies the problem. Human beings may spend their lives studying a particular area, and still have neither the mental capacity nor time to become deeply familiar with a minuscule segment (within a larger segment, within a broader area etc. etc.) of a topic. As such, we naturally rely on others’ summations and representations of the facts.

Herald Sun, 24th September, 2014

Facts will always be tainted or misconstrued when heard second hand; this is a fact of life. What really worries me is when people pay complete disregard or fail to acknowledge their own reflexivity (whether unintentionally, or intentionally *cough* Rupert Murdoch *cough*). Examples abound, but the most topical one (and I'm sure you’re already thinking about it) concerns the attempted murder/police station shooting in Endeavour Hills. The moment this man placed that ISIS flag in his pocket, this issue turned from a singular pg.3 newspaper article, into a Herald Sun 10 page-long bonanza (laced with fear-mongering, speculation, and sensationalism). Something as simple as an apparent belief in an ideology turned the perception of this man from a criminal to a terrorist. I am not questioning the gravity of the incident – two attempted murders and a shooting is still a big news event regardless – but the mere presence of a weakly-constructed association with ISIS blows this serious-but-routine crime into a full scale act of terrorism.

This tainting of information gives rise to ignorance. And ignorance gives rise to ill-informed, dangerous opinions. Once these opinions gain a decent foothold, and get turned into actions, we should all indeed be very alarmed.

#J.Nic#

What is Art?

I love interacting with art both contemporary and traditional art. However contemporary art often receives a bad reputation for being something that “anyone can do”.  I was talking with one of my friends who is actually a fine arts student (and in my opinion does some fantastic work). We were talking about what it takes to be an artist and what some of the students are working on currently. What they are working on is often highly conceptual, and the main complaint is that the public often does not enjoy or understand their work and why it is considered art. Most people enjoy traditional art because they can easily see the technical skill involved in its creation. There is often a clear message and story involved. It is seen to be worth a lot because of the amount of labor hours put into the work, expressed in the precise and detailed painting and drawing skills. A talent that few people are seen to possess.

Contemporary art on the other hand is often criticised as something that “anyone can do” with little skill or talent. However I believe that there is a lot of talent and skill that goes into creating a contemporary piece, but that it is manifested in different ways and is harder to discern. Saying that it is hard to justify why a plain mirror in the gallery in London, is artwork and worth a couple of thousand dollars despite the fact it looks exactly like a mirror you could have bought from IKEA for $10. And this is where the intention behind art comes into play. Art is all about intention. Sure “anyone can do it” but they haven’t, and that’s the point. As a Artists you have to convince other people of your artworks worth, you have to have them engage with the artwork for it to be of any value.  You aren’t just putting up a mirror, you have to explain what’s the idea of putting up a mirror in an art gallery. When someone else questioned “Why don’t you just write a book” if art is meant to have all these meanings and ideas behind it. Well that’s a different medium. The point of art is that it is visual manifestation of ideas. It is something physical that all can see, and take from it what they want.

Some of my favourite artworks are by contemporary artists such as Ron Mueck and Patricia Picinini. I think their work easily shows the skill and technical ability that can go into contemporary artworks. Ron Mueck is an Australian Hyperrealist sculptor and I would recommend seeing him if you ever get the chance. 

Ron Mueck, Big Baby II (1997), polyester resin, fiberglass, silicone, synthetic hair. 

These are huge sculptures and even those in my family who have little interest in art of any kind can stand back and appreciate the work. There is an overwhelming sense of scale and grandness to Mueck’s work which contrasts with the brilliant small details in the work.

Ron Mueck, Mask II (2001-2), mixed media.

The other Artist Patricia Piccinini (Another fantastic Australian artist in my opinion) looks at modern issues and concepts that are facing our world. She deals with ideas such as genetically modified organisms, the use of science to enhance nature, and our own ethical responsibilities. She uses all types of media to portray her ideas but I particularly like her sculptures.  

Patricia Piccinini, The Long Awaited (detail) 2008 Silicon, fibreglass, human hair, Plywood, leather, clothing 152 x 80 x 92cm 

Taking it to more extreme forms of Contemporary Art. I was confronted with the fact that even I have limitations to what I think is artistic expression. Casey Jenkin is an Australian Feminist Performance Artist. And when I saw/read about her latest artwork I was turned off and did not like it at all. I felt that it was purely done for shock value. Her artwork is vaginal knitting (no pictures this time). When asked about it Jenkin’s aim was to address taboos surrounding women’s bodies and female genitalia by attaching it to a normal traditional activity; such as knitting. While in theory I agree with what she is trying to do I think her artwork fundamentally fails to engage with its audience and turns people off. And that at the end of the day is what I think makes art valuable and what defines something as art and not something you walk by without a second glance. Its ability to engage with its audience. 

-Mrouge-

The Writers

So a while back I asked Andrea to write a post for me and my friends got offended that they weren't ask. Ok, they weren't offended but you know.

The idea here is to take turns to write one post a week and if we feel the urge, to post more, but hopefully at least one a week.

There isn't a plan on what we'll write. There's no particular topic of posts and conversation that we're all going to write about. I guess if there had to be a plan it would be to write what we want and generate some dialogue. I'm not going to lie, I have no idea how this is going to turn out. Hopefully it'll be fun, serious and a little bit distracting for everyone, readers and writers alike.

Each of the writers are vastly different. We have vastly different personalities, different levels of enthusiasms, different opinions and different styles of writing. But its not like, I chose these three, just randomly. They've all been reading my blog, telling me when they don't agree and when they do. They've all been there to lend advice, an ear or an opinion for me when its been required.

Josh: 

Differences: Not even from Melbourne, calls dinner tea

Became friends like normal people would

I've known Josh the longest. We have had the most conventional of friendship. We've been to all the parties, all the birthdays, all the day trips, the classes and been through stupid drama together. In the whole time I've known him, Josh is the neutral one of any group (or circle); the one listening to all the opinions before gently extracting an opinion out of it. He has tempered some of my more unconventional opinions more than once. Charimatic and disgustingly popular, Josh with all his 'diplomatic' skills and his pacifist stance on the world, makes him the most useful person to think your thought process through with. If anyone makes Josh take a stance on a topic, then you're doing well very (very) well

Andrea:

Differences: doesn't follow world politics (extensively)

Became friends via snap chat (because we're cool kids, My snapchat score would be about half of what it would be if it wasn't for Andrea.)

Andrea and I were placed in the same group for one of our engineering assignments. Over the past few years, Andrea has been the one most likely to challenge my opinions on stuff. Its easy to make friends with people who agrees with you, but so much harder to make friends with someone who is willing to post a challenge.  Without a doubt, Andrea and I have the most polarising opinion. I don't know if its fair to say, but Andrea is more likely than me to adopt the more popular and conventional opinion. But unlike most, Andrea can justify the 'popular' opinion (her opinion) without using the wonderfully useful argument ending line of  "everyone else agrees with me."

Steph:

Differences: doesn't go to Melbourne University

Became friends from that one night

If Josh and I have a conventional friendship, then Steph and I have the opposite. We skipped that stage where you make small talk for months and months and just became friends. Steph and I relish the chance to be proven right and go against popular opinion. In many ways, we're the cynical representing all the dark opinions that normal people would not normally voice out loud. For the most part, we agree on a lot of things and leave a lot of things unsaid, because  lets be honest, small talk isn't the most enjoyable thing in the world. For the most part, we have a good grasp on each other's opinion on topical conversation so we don't argue a lot. We're judgmental of everyone and everything which inevitably means that we're the harshest critic of ourselves. Because we're both stubborn people, too often we just agree to disagree.

At the end of the day, we're not afraid to disagree. Recently former US. President Clinton said, "We are less racist, sexist, and homophobic than we've ever been, but we do have one continuing problem:we don't want to be around anyone who disagrees with us. More than ever before."

Lets see how Sweet Sour Disposition will turn out.

~TastyJacks~