Beyond the rhetoric

---

Mahmudur Rahman
Buzzwords and such that emerge and float around every now and then are often plucked out of the air by well-meaning policy makers. 'Good governance' happens to be one of them; the 'tax payer's money' is another one. When the two are combined it usually means that whatever resources a government can generate through direct and indirect taxation and earnings from other sources is used for the good of the people and development of the country through efficient utilisation and transparent implementation.
While this is, as a concept, a sound theory, the practice tends to get all muddled up. Developed countries such as the UK allocates significant resources of its tax payer's money through its various arms in providing support to struggling economies in fields 'perceived' to be crucial to their development. Yet it is only when there is a economic crunch that the facts come out suggesting that much of these moneys are often used for 'frivolous' purposes. That's when justifications of 'spend' are sought as the tooth comb is applied to weaning out avoidable or duplicative expenditure. And as the onus bears down on UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne to find areas of cutting the deficit in no small change, the focus on the efficacy of Britain's aid programme has come under the microscope. This responsibility falls on International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell whose first steps have involved in a freeze on new funding on several "awareness proj ects," including training nursery school teachers on "global issues" and supporting Brazilian-style dance troupe with percussion in Hackney.
Quick to support this measure was Caroline Boin, project director at London-based International Policy Network. Writing an op-ed in the daily Telegraph on May 18 she was succinct in saying "It's about time. DFID has funded a plethora of ridiculous projects".
Mitchell continues to drum up support for his approach having promised at the Royal Society in London a week ago: "Our aim is to spend every penny of every pound of your money wisely and well. We want to squeeze every last ounce of value from it. We owe you that".
Indeed the government does because it has promised in varying terminology that they will present "not just dense and impenetrable budget lines but clear evidence of real change". Mitchell's first point of contact is obviously DFID, the part of the UK government that manages Britain's aid to poor countries and works to get rid of extreme poverty. The organisation basically seeks to help implement the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to halve world poverty by 2015. It measures progress against objectives and targets set under the UK government's Public Service Agreement (PSA).
Transparency and efficiency evaluation is good and proper. One only hopes that senior executives don't go in to a knee-jerk reaction by disproportionately cutting funding in the wrong places in order to satiate the demands of a bigger cause. That will be a disaster. Aid, properly utilised and implemented ideally, raises living standards, increases income with a spill-over into spending ability. The resultant effect on goods and services cannot be ignored.
(The writer is a former Head of Corporate & Regulatory Affairs of British American Tobacco Bangladesh, former Chief Executive Officer or CEO of Bangladesh Cricket Board and specializes in corporate affairs, communications and corporate social responsibility. He can be reached at e-mail: mahmudrahman@gmail.com)