Development Programs Vulnerable to “Political Capture”

 

When the World Bank in 2006 referred to the threat of “political capture” in Ethiopia, it meant that there was a danger that the government could use its donor-funded structures and services to control and oppress the population; severely impinge upon their rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly; and discriminate against its citizens based on political affiliation. This, it added, would be problematic because a repressive politicized state would be “an environment that may not be conducive to development.” [56]

And yet, this is exactly what Human Rights Watch observed in the villages it visited in 2009.

Researchers found that donor-funded services, resources, and training opportunities were being used as threats or rewards for citizens to join the ruling party and cease supporting the opposition, and that donor mechanisms for monitoring or controlling the misuse of aid programs were inadequate.

International human rights law calls for government assistance to be provided impartially. Denying government assistance, including foreign aid, to individuals and their families because of their perceived or actual political viewpoints or affiliations violates the rights to freedom of expression and association and to take part in public affairs, as provided under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). [57] It is also a form of prohibited discrimination based on “political or other opinion” under the ICCPR and other international human rights treaties. [58]

Denying food aid or educational opportunities because of membership or perceived support for opposition political parties also violates the rights to food and education under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). [59] According to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the expert body that monitors compliance with the ICESCR, it is a violation to discriminate against people because of their political or other opinion, including “both holding and not-holding” particular views or membership in political parties. The committee stated: “Access to food assistance schemes, for example, must not be made conditional on an expression of allegiance to a particular political party.” [60]

The Ethiopian constitution protects fundamental freedoms found in international human rights treaties to which Ethiopia is a party. [61] The constitution also provides that everyone have equal access to government services. In addition, Ethiopian law forbids partisan allocation of state resources or their use to benefit one political party at the expense of others. [62]

In reality, these laws are flouted, and often, by local government officials who have considerable power when it comes to distributing donor-funded seeds, fertilizers, food, micro-loans, and other resources on which Ethiopia’s impoverished majority rural population relies for survival. The resources and personnel used in this way are supported by international funds in the form of various development programs, the most significant of which are World Bank programs channeling money from a range of donors.

World Bank Programs Misused by Ethiopia

In 2008, total aid to Ethiopia was about US$3.3 billion. Official Development Assistance (ODA) to Ethiopia comprises the total amount of funds from abroad, including emergency humanitarian aid.[63] This assistance includes multilateral support (UN, World Bank programs) and bilateral aid (individual government grants to Ethiopia). Table 1 shows the total funds flowing just from multilateral agencies as well as the total aid to Ethiopia from all donors.

A range of sources, not just the World Bank, funds World Bank-administered programs in Ethiopia. They account for a large proportion of the multilateral and bilateral funds coming into the country. The Ethiopian government also makes contributions into the “pooled funds” which are then distributed back to it. These programs provide money directly to Ethiopian government institutions, which “own” the programs and administer them jointly with the World Bank. [65] Table 2, below, lists all the donors that contribute aid to Ethiopia. Table 3 lists the main World Bank programs operating in Ethiopia and who pays for them. Four of these programs are at particular risk of political capture and are briefly described below.

 

 

There are many different World Bank programs in Ethiopia, but the most significant in terms of dollar amounts and political manipulation are the Protection of Basic Services (PBS) program (more than $3 billion over three years) and the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) ($1.7 billion over three years). The first supports basic service delivery (water, health, education, agriculture, and roads); the second delivers food and cash for food-insecure populations in return for their participation in public works projects. These programs, together with the Public Sector Capacity Building Programme (PSCAP) and the General Education Quality Improvement Project (GEQIP), are those most likely to be used by the Ethiopian government as tools of political repression, according to Human Rights Watch’s findings.

In addition, the Democratic Institutions Program (DIP) is intended to support domestic accountability mechanisms to improve the overall governance situation in the country. Since it is a key part of the overall aid picture in Ethiopia, its purpose is also briefly described here.

Protection of Basic Services (PBS)

The Protection of Basic Services program is one of the largest and most complex development programs in the world. Every year, it transfers about $1 billion in a “block grant” to the federal government, which then disperses it to regional and district governments. PBS was first approved in May 2006, and was extended again in May 2009.[68] The donor money is mixed with Ethiopian government resources; in 2008-2009, PBS was 36 percent donor funds and 64 percent Ethiopian government funds.[69] The PBS program, in its second phase, involves $3.3 billion over three years, with the World Bank alone accounting for over half a billion dollars, other bilateral donors contributing around a billion, and the Ethiopian government contributing $1.4 billion.[70]

PBS supports five specific service sectors—health, education, water, agricultural extension, and roads—which are delivered at the local level by civil servants, woreda and kebele officials, teachers, nurses, development agents, doctors, and Ministry of Health officials. The kebele chairman and manager are the key figures in the kebele, which is in turn the key unit of organization. Most block grants fund salaries of officials and recurrent expenditure of local governments.[71] These local officials—teachers, agricultural and health extension workers, and kebele staff, whose salaries are paid through PBS—decide how to allocate resources, control militias, and write references for students and job seekers.Among the key material resources that PBS funds are schools, seeds, fertilizer, and other agricultural inputs.

Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP)

Ethiopia has a long history of relying on foreign food aid in response to natural and man-made disasters.[72] Launched in 2005, the Productive Safety Net Programme aims to provide predictable transfers of food or cash to food-insecure households through a public works program, or direct transfers to those who cannot work. It was intended to address the causes of underlying food insecurity in Ethiopia, with the idea that beneficiaries would over time accrue enough assets to withstand a food shock on their own. Between 7 and 8 million beneficiaries are targeted, based on historical patterns of areas needing food relief. The total program cost of phase three, which was approved in September 2009, is approximately $1.7 billion.[73] Annual spending has been about $350 million.[74]

The safety net program is financed by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the European Commission (EC), Irish Aid, the Netherlands embassy, the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the World Bank. The last three donors provide over two-thirds of the funding. The Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is responsible for the program’s overall operation. [75]

Public Sector Capacity Building Programme (PSCAP)

The board of the World Bank approved the first phase of the Public Sector Capacity Building Programme in May 2004, and renewed it in March 2010. It is intended “a) to improve the scale, efficiency and responsiveness of publicservice delivery at the federal, regional, and local level; b) to empower citizens to participate more effectively in shaping their own development; and c) to promote good governance and accountability in its public sector.”[76]

Capacity building is seen as a “critical underpinning” to reaching Ethiopia’s development objectives because the local, regional, and federal governments need strengthening to enable them to better use the money provided by donors and the Ethiopian government.[77]

The PSCAP program was originally estimated to cost $398 million, of which the Ethiopian government contributed $55 million, the World Bank $100 million, and other donors provided the rest. A range of donors supported the PSCAP program at its outset in 2004.[78] However, by 2010, many had pulled out for unspecified reasons, leaving CIDA, DFID, the EC, and Italy as PSCAP’s remaining supporters.[79] The resulting shortfall in funds led to Ethiopia’s requesting, and being granted, an additional $185 million in March 2010.

General Education Quality Improvement Project (GEQIP)

The General Education Quality Improvement Project was launched in 2008 to improve teaching and learning conditions in Ethiopian schools. [80] It aims to help train teachers, update the curriculum, and support school infrastructure. Regional governments are responsible for the syllabus and for overseeing training programs through teacher-training colleges. Woreda governments are responsible for paying and recruiting primary and secondary teachers. [81]

The GEQIP is financed by a group of donors: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy, Finland, and Sweden. [82] The total program cost is $417.3 million, with $62 million earmarked for the Teacher Development Program. [83] It is scheduled to run from December 2008 to July 2013.

The program aims to address the severe capacity problems in the education sector and the shortage of qualified staff. The Teacher Development Program will consist of pre- and in-service training, extra English training, improving selection of entrants to teacher training, and developing a teacher career structure and licensing system that “recognizes professional development and behavior.”[84]

Democratic Institutions Program (DIP)

The Democratic Institutions Program was approved in August 2007 and aims to build the capacity of institutions seen as promoting and protecting democracy in Ethiopia, the rights of citizens, and their participation in the democratic process. These are the national Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, the Ethiopian Institute of the Ombudsman, the House of Peoples’ Representatives, the Federal Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, and the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia. The program agreement states that the program is intended to enhance “the capacity of democratic institutions to be effective, sufficient and responsive in promoting and protecting the rights of citizens,” and to empower citizens “to be active and effective participants in the democratic process as well as to respect the rights of others.”[85]

The monitoring mechanisms of all of the programs described above—and their flaws in assessing political capture of resources—are examined in greater detail below.