|
|
 |
Has the dependency myth concerning food aid been defused?
19 September 2006
There is an unfortunate tendency to polarise the debate about food and non-food forms of aid. The growing number of organisations that recognise the need to consider other forms of aid alongside food aid are often accused of being “anti-food aid”. But this is seldom the truth. Few, if any, organisations deny that there are circumstances in which food aid is the best, and sometimes the only, possible response. But there is also increasing recognition of the need for a more balanced assessment of the alternatives, and for an honest and open discussion about the pros and cons of food aid.
In June 2006 the Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity (SENAC) project produced its first Brief, provocatively entitled "Defusing the Dependency Myth", and purports to answer the question "Does food aid create dependency?" SENAC is funded by donors to improve WFP's capacity "to assess food needs through accurate and impartial assessments."
In its first paragraph the Brief is justified by explaining that "When challenged by critics, WFP staff often find it difficult to respond [to the allegation that food aid creates dependency], as they do not always have the facts and in-depth understanding of this phenomenon". The implication is that the Brief will remedy this. Yet a disclaimer (in small print in a footnote) indicates that the authors of a 2005 Cornell/IFPRI review on which the Brief is loosely based "highlight the absence of rigorous studies on the subject. As a result the conclusions are tentative". So the Brief can hardly pretend to supply "facts" or "in-depth understanding".
Then there is the use of the word "dependency" itself. In the Brief's title, the implication is that "dependency" has negative connotations: it is a "myth" that needs to be "defused". It is commonly understood to be a negative term. Yet the paper muddies the issue by introducing a concept of "positive dependency", essentially meaning reliance on food aid supplied during an emergency, which "allows households to meet their basic needs, maintain assets and avoid destitution". Of course this is a good thing. But it is not "dependency" as normally understood. The immediate benefits of food aid on recipients are unquestioned: what needs to be openly debated are the potential negative impacts of households coming to depend on food aid in the longer term – this debate is not helped by the adoption of a misleading concept of "positive dependency".
A number of statements made in the Brief are irrelevant to the arguments they are intended to support. For example the authors accept that "Food aid can also reduce the volume of food traded and disrupt market patterns. These effects ... occur far less in emergency compared with programme or monetized food aid programmes". But the distinction here between emergency, programme and monetized food aid is irrelevant when addressing the opening question "Does food aid [ie food aid in all its forms] create dependency?" What matters is the (uncontested) fact that food aid can reduce trade and disrupt markets.
Even without considering its consistency with the underlying research and the reliability of some assertions, the misguided emphasis and defensive tone of this Brief do not inspire confidence. Can it really be true, for example, that "there is no evidence of any negative impact of food aid on the level of national staple crop production"? The review on which the brief is based states only that "The limited available evidence at the national level indicates no persistent negative effects and no long-term negative dependency impact of food aid on local production" [emphasis added], which is not quite the same thing.
Finally, by expressly limiting itself to "household and community levels", the Brief avoids altogether the contentious issue of the degree to which food aid may create dependency amongst recipient governments: there is a strong argument that the continued flow of food aid enables many to avoid undertaking unpalatable policy reforms that would help to reduce structural food insecurity, and thus perpetuates the cycle of hunger and vulnerability.
We should welcome open debate about the issues of food aid and dependency; and there is also a need to accept that there is an important role for food aid in emergencies and as part of an overall social protection response to chronic hunger and vulnerability. But this particular document makes little positive contribution to that debate. It would be better, as with the underlying review, to accept that the potential for dependency exists, to argue (as the review does) that "context determines whether food aid results in adverse consequences", and to use this to design "a context-based assessment of the various stakeholders before implementation of programming is proposed". Rather than trying to "defuse the dependency myth", this Brief should have made its focus "How to anticipate (and counteract) the very real risks of dependency".
Many of the denials of negative impacts of food aid in the Brief begin with the phrase "there is little evidence that ..." (eg "there is little evidence ... that food aid causes negative dependency, ... that food aid replaces remittances, ... of decreased domestic food production, reduced work effort, or increased leisure as a result of food aid flows"). But, by definition, if there is "little evidence", then there is at least some evidence! And if there is some evidence, what is it? Why is it not presented openly, discussed, and "defused"? Similarly, the Brief states that "claims regarding dependency are not proven". But even if true, that does not automatically disprove the claims.
Image Credit: Edwin Huffman/ The World Bank Photo Library
|
|
|
|
|
