The colour of Addis Abeba is increasingly mixed. Dressing to impress has become the trend, while peculiarity in fashion uplifts status. Despite the supremacy of conservative social values, freedom and individual expression are increasing. Diversity became the apex of radiance.

Amid the changing metropolitan dynamics, however, exceptionality did not lose its role. Instead, it is now indicative of confidence and success.   

No different is the temperament for visibility amongst international aid agencies, claims a new study. The study aimed at evaluating the effective implementation of the Paris Declaration, agreed upon by the international donor agencies in 2005, has brought the incongruence of  aid provision to light. Unlike the beauty of diversity in Addis Abeba, variations in approaches impose huge costs for aid recipients, the study revealed.

Three important aspects of the international aid system were evaluated; the input-output relationship, managing for results and harmonisation. Aid agencies and countries including African Development Bank (AfDB), Department for International Development (DFID), Japan and the US were included in the review. Individual recipient countries were also involved.

The results of the study were shocking for development experts around the world. It revealed that the system is marred with inefficiency, disorganisation and lack of strategic vision. Donors are competing for visibility and distinctness rather than collaboration. Systemic and institutional incapacity is rampant. No coherence exists.

Although the debate on the relevance and effectiveness of aid is decades old, no such detailed study had been conducted to underpin either of the propositions. For proponents of no aid, the results are affirmations of systemic failure. It shows that aid does not result in economic growth. Inherent competitiveness amongst donors restrains cooperation, limiting the role of aid in development. Weak and ambiguous planning disables inter-institutional alignment, promoting dependency, the argument goes.

On the other hand, advocates of effective aid claim that the results do not signify the irrelevance of aid. Rather, it shows the weak edges of global aid provision. Institutional problems breed incompetence. It also raises ineffectiveness. So far as the motives of aid providers vary, they argue, such inaptness is not surprising. It is the same song, although the dancers might change, they argue.

In contrast to the beauty of peculiarity in Addis Abeba, the idiosyncrasy of the aid industry hinders the development efforts of poor countries. Yet, the state of ineffectiveness varies amongst donors.

The Official Development Assistance (ODA) of Japan, for example, is mentioned to have a weak or ambiguous linkage with the bigger picture of development assistance, as stated in the declaration. The Japanese provide little attention for aid harmonisation and accountability, according to the findings. Japan’s aid also lacks linkage with other policies, such as their trade policy. Lacking strong institutional capacity, the Japanese ODA runs after visibility rather than impact. Thus, no strong incentive exists for effectiveness.

Shockingly, ODA from US is found to have no organised conceptual and organisational architecture. Fragmentation of institutional responsibilities promoted inconsistency. Inherent conflict exists between the three core principles of USAID; diplomacy, defence and development. Competition between authorities continues to be a major snag. After all, the US is another dancer on the floor of aid ineffectiveness, according to the research.

Placed at the other end of the spectrum, the UK’s aid is more harmonised to global development targets than any other bilateral aid provider. In view of predictability and harmonisation, the UK tops the chart. Although lagging behind in terms of transparency, aid agencies perform better in institutional flexibility indicators.

As Ethiopia’s economy takes off, the irony of development assistance is vivid. Whereas the growing infrastructure base signifies the face of effectiveness, rampant unemployment and poverty tells the story of inefficiency. Indisputably, the multiple donors that support the city’s development effort would share the story.                               

The new study did not include the review of Ethiopia’s aid effectiveness. The reality on the ground, however, shows that the situation is complicated. Although the debate on aid prevails in the local political discourse, it is heavily influenced by anecdotal evidence. Even in the situation of the severe drought crisis, the aid debate remains all about numbers rather than effectiveness.

With the turning face of the government towards development, a change in strategic direction of most aid agencies was evident. Nonetheless, it did not change the orientation of resource allocation. Most aid agencies spend the lion’s share of their budget on foreign consultants and recurrent expenditures. Sustainability has been pushed aside.

Harmonisation of development assistance is far off in Ethiopia. Most donors compete for visibility rather than focus impact. Inadequate attention is provided for monitoring expenditures. Projects are selected on the basis of financial viability rather than developmental impact. The hoopla is all about infrastructure, while soft skill development and economic empowerment receive lip service.

Incongruity in personal outlook might be taken as fashion, as is evident in Addis Abeba. The same level of inaptness would, however, be taken as inefficiency in the case of policy making. Global aid provision is one such example, while Addis Abeba can serve as a pictogram.