ODA also needs reform

ODA 改革

Whether government assistance to developing countries should be slashed this much across the board is open to question. In light of the sorry state of public finances and the Koizumi administration's commitment to budget reform, however, there is no question that foreign aid should be streamlined along with other big-ticket spending items.

But cutting the ODA budget is not enough. It must also be re-examined in qualitative terms. The decision should accelerate the shift in emphasis from quantity to quality. Improving the quality of aid has always been a top policy priority. A quantitative review should be integrated with a qualitative analysis to develop a more efficient and effective ODA program.

Beyond that, it is essential to reaffirm the importance of ODA as the linchpin of Japanese diplomacy. Opinion polls show that a growing number of people doubt whether Japan should provide such a huge amount of overseas aid at a time when the domestic economy is in trouble. The government must give the public convincing answers.

One weakness in Japan's foreign-assistance program is that aid projects are formulated primarily at the request of developing-country governments, not at the initiative of the Japanese government. Because of this, projects often end up benefiting recipient governments rather than needy populaces.

The United States provides a third of its foreign aid through nongovernmental organizations familiar with prevailing conditions in developing countries. In Japan's case, only several percent of ODA is funneled through NGOs, in part because these internationally active private organizations are not as well developed as their counterparts in the U.S. and Europe.

In an effort to make sure that projects are selected under the Japanese initiative, the Foreign Ministry several years ago began drawing up country-by-country aid programs tailored to more specific and diverse needs. However, there is much more to be done, including efforts to make wider use of NGOs and to bolster cooperation with international organizations.

A review of the ODA program must include a reassessment of aid to China, which receives about ¥200 billion a year in easy-term yen loans. Many Japanese question the need for massive aid to China, now an emerging economic power. Soft loans to that country have been provided since 1979 under long-term plans at the rate of ¥1 trillion every five years. So projects have often been put together to spend the money, not the other way around.

Beginning this fiscal year, however, the amount of China aid is to be decided on an annual basis. The planned reduction of the ODA budget will inevitably affect yen loans to that country, as well. Now is a good time to objectively re-examine both the quality and quantity of aid to Beijing, without regard to the diplomatic quarrels over the history textbook issue and Mr. Koizumi's visit to Yasukuni Shrine.

There is also much room for improvement in the ways technical assistance is provided. As with financial assistance, it is absolutely necessary to eliminate duplication and waste. The ODA budget involves all government ministries, and projects are implemented through nonprofit organizations and other groups under the control of each ministry. To secure project efficiency and effectiveness, implementing organizations should be brought together under the umbrella of the Japan International Cooperation Agency.

The planned cut in ODA should not be taken as a sign of its diminished importance. Although Japan's economy is mired in a protracted slump, its per capita GDP is among the highest in the world. On the other hand, there are an estimated 4 billion poor people around the world, mostly in Asia and Africa, who live on less than two dollars a day. That is reason enough to keep the aid machine running.

Japan should not use its domestic problems as an excuse for shunning its responsibility as a leading donor nation. ODA remains the most effective way for this nation to help combat poverty and promote well-being around the globe. Steady efforts must be made to improve its transparency and efficiency.

Unfortunately, the Foreign Ministry is embroiled in a spate of financial scandals at this critical time. The incidents, though not related to aid projects, could raise public suspicions about the handling of the ODA program. ODA reform must be part and parcel of bureaucratic reform.

The Japan Times: Aug. 24, 2001
(C) All rights reserved

      さらに、日本の外交の要としてのODAの重要性についても再確認が必要だ。世論調査によると、国内経済が停滞している時に巨額の海外援助を行うことに疑問を感じる人が増えているという。政府は国民が納得できる答えを示さなくてはならない。

      日本のODAの弱点は、計画の立案が日本政府主導でなく、途上国の政府の依頼で行われることだ。そのため恩恵を受けるのは援助対象国の政府で、窮乏している国民ではないという状況がよく起こる。米国は海外援助の3分の1を、途上国の状況に詳しい非政府組織 (NGO) を通じて実行している。日本の場合は国際的に活動するNGOが欧米に比べ未発達であるためもあり、NGO経由の援助は数パーセントに過ぎない。

      外務省は日本主導によるODAプロジェクト選定を目指し、各国のニーズに合わせた国別援助プログラム策定を数年前から始めている。しかしNGOの活用と国際組織との協力体制の強化など、まだまだ課題は多い。

      ODAを見直すにあたり、年に2000億円の円借款を受ける中国に対する援助の再評価が必要だ。経済成長著しい中国への巨額の援助の必要性を多くの人が疑問視している。1979年以来5年毎に1兆円規模で実行されてきた円借款では、予算消化のためにプロジェクトが組まれる傾向がある。しかし援助額は今年度から年毎に決定されることになる。歴史教科書や小泉首相の靖国参拝に関する論争とは別問題として、対中国援助の質と量を客観的に見直すべき時期だろう。技術援助についても改善の余地がある。ODAには全省庁が関わっているが、計画遂行機関を国際協力事業団の下でまとめ、プロジェクト運営を効率的、効果的に行うべきだ。

      予算削減をODAの重要性低下の兆候と見なすべきではない。不況に苦しんでいるとはいえ、日本の国民1人当たりGDPは世界のトップクラスだ。一方、世界には1日2ドル以下で生活する貧困層が40億人もいる。それだけでも援助を続ける十分な理由になろう。

The Japan Times Weekly
Sept 1, 2001
(C) All rights reserved