Just finished my essay on Dutch development aid and it made me really interested in all your opnions about it. Since the last few years there is quit some criticism on development aid. Do you think that we should stop development aid at all as Moyo says? Or should we improve?

That's a very complex issue. I'm very curious about the conclusion of your essay!

I do feel a sort of moral duty to help less developed countries. However, I'm doubting whether giving developing aid is the right way to help. I think trade barriers are doing more wrong then development aid can help.

Nice interview with Mojo:
www.nrc.nl/international/Features/articl...Its_just_not_working

The only thing I dont get about her story however (maybe a bit contradicting), is that she's saying that most Arfican presidents like to receive the development check so they can spend it. But what if would stop giving aid? Would those governments suddenly turn into "good" ones? I think it has to be a process lowering development aid, less trade barriers, better governance. Would be a very good experiment. Maybe Rwanda will show us a good example! But the developed countries has to help with the trade barriers though. I'd really like to read her book, I guess that brings a more nuanced view on the problem!

Has anyone read it yet?

well, they won't suddenly turn into good ones, but once the West actually puts pressure on these governments by stopping to give them this development aid, and once these presidents can no longer bribe the right people whose support keeps them in their position, popular uprising may cause change

Yes, that's very good possible.

Bit I think it's very hard to find governments who will stop by receiving aid.. But maybe Rwanda, and when it works others will follow maybe. I'm very curious!

I don't think simple stopping development aid is pressure enough for the regime to change. Look for example at Mugabe in Zimbabwe, after a stop of aid through the country and many sanctions he is still in power. The stopping of aid actually made him powerfull because it gave him a ground to declare the outside world enemy to Zimbabwe. So shouldn't we make development aid smarter, so that it creates a more powerfull middle class that can itself pressure the government into beiing well... better. However I don't know how to do that, anyone ideas?

I think Holland is quite successful in distributing her development aid (at least, I read that several times, in non-Dutch articles ). However, that's maybe only because the rest is 'worse'.

It's such a hard issue to form an opinion on, because you have absolutely no insight whether it's doing good or harming people, or what would happen if the aid flows stopped...

Well, the Dutch might be succesfull in distributing her development aid, I think that all countries should look for a possible improvement.
There's so little improvement to see in the countries that receive aid. Therefore I think it would be best to try if some other options, for instance microcredit, are better working options.

I think the Dutch are only said to be good because they adhere to the o,7% norm, or are there other reasons? I read some articles on Mojo as well and I must say that I competely agree with her; development aid ruins third world countries and only serves as a pretence for Western countries so that they won't have to take measures which will actually help under developed countries such as fair terms of trade.