The index is compiled by the Center for Global Development in the United States. It is a privately funded organisation and seeks to rate the policies of 21 wealthy countries in terms of their impact in promoting development in poorer countries.
The index looks at the quality of foreign aid provided; the openness to developing country exports; policies that influence investment; migration policies; support for the creation of new technologies; security policies; and environmental policies. It draws upon contributions from scholars at the center, the Brookings Institution, Georgetown University and the Migration Policy Institute. The Rockefeller Foundation funds the compilation of the index.
I welcome the emergence of the index. Heretofore, appraisals of the effectiveness of the development effort looked only at the resources and programmes provided for the direct development effort. Broadening out the perspective to look at the degree to which the richer countries create and sustain an enabling development environment across all of their policies, such as in migration, peacekeeping and trade offers valuable insights into the overall coherence of policies as they apply to poorer countries.
The index is in its second year and a degree of error is perhaps inevitable at this stage of its development. The center has admitted that its 2004 index is flawed. It states that Ireland funds 404 projects in Tanzania and that they place a huge reporting and management burden on the Tanzanian authorities. This is not the case. The center accepted that there was a fundamental misinterpretation of financial data provided by the Irish programme to the OECD. Financial transactions by our Tanzanian partners were misread as projects and it was assumed that a huge burden was placed on our local partners in Tanzania. The opposite is the case and we made that clear in an authoritative assessment of our programme last year.
In 2003 the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD looked at the Tanzanian programmes of four donors, Ireland, Denmark, Finland and Japan. It concluded that Ireland was a strong performer in putting partnerships into practice. There was also a heavy emphasis on harmonisation with other donors and the Government of Tanzania through pooled funding. Ireland was regarded as a flexible and agile donor in responding to needs in Tanzania.
In addition to the specific flaw on Ireland, there is concern about the methodology used in assessing the development effort. For example, the perspectives in the index on technology and security need revision. It is not clear why up to 50% of defence related research in rich countries is deemed of benefit to poorer countries. Additionally, the rationale for assessing peacekeeping is unclear.
I am confident that the index will improve when it is adjusted to assess more accurately the policies of wealthy countries towards poorer ones. It will also become more valuable as an instrument in promoting greater coherence within and between wealthy countries in the development effort.
