Comments on: Listening to the Minister of Finance of Afghanistan http://registan.net/index.php/2007/04/16/listening-to-the-minister-of-finance-of-afghanistan/ All Central Asia, All The Time Fri, 25 May 2012 03:15:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Safrang http://registan.net/index.php/2007/04/16/listening-to-the-minister-of-finance-of-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-374305 Safrang Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:04:53 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/04/16/listening-to-the-minister-of-finance-of-afghanistan/#comment-374305 C-Span video of Ahadi's talk: http://www.cspan.org/VideoArchives.asp?z1=&PopupMenu_Name=International&CatCodePairs=Issue,I; C-Span video of Ahadi’s talk:
http://www.cspan.org/VideoArchives.asp?z1=&PopupMenu_Name=International&CatCodePairs=Issue,I;

]]> By: Safrang http://registan.net/index.php/2007/04/16/listening-to-the-minister-of-finance-of-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-374293 Safrang Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:04:01 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/04/16/listening-to-the-minister-of-finance-of-afghanistan/#comment-374293 As a side note to BBoyd's comment about about channeling aid in Afghanistan, there is also a third mechanism for aid deliver (apart from Afghan government and US/Donor countries in tandem with their military) - that is, through local and international non-government organizations. And as far as I can tell, the government of Afghanistan's biggest grievance is directed at this group. Once again the issue is corruption and lack of capacity in the Afghan government. By preferring to channel aid through the NGOs the donors do not so much want to undermine the legitimacy of the Afghan government as much as they want to make sure the money gets to those who deserve it and does not end up in pockets of corrupt officials. Take the highly successful model of the National Solidarity Program for instance. Everybody wants to sell it as their own success story- while in reality, the success is an outcome of cooperation and partnership between Donors (Governments, World Bank), Afghan Government's MRRD, and Local and International NGOs. With their long experience in aid delivery, relief projects, and even infrastructure reconstruction (during the money years that the Afghan government did not exist even in name) the NGOs remain indispensable to the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan. Instead of undermining them, the Afghan government would do far better to embrace them as a partner in the effort and work out better models for such partnership that curb any instances of corruption. As a side note to BBoyd’s comment about about channeling aid in Afghanistan, there is also a third mechanism for aid deliver (apart from Afghan government and US/Donor countries in tandem with their military) – that is, through local and international non-government organizations. And as far as I can tell, the government of Afghanistan’s biggest grievance is directed at this group. Once again the issue is corruption and lack of capacity in the Afghan government. By preferring to channel aid through the NGOs the donors do not so much want to undermine the legitimacy of the Afghan government as much as they want to make sure the money gets to those who deserve it and does not end up in pockets of corrupt officials. Take the highly successful model of the National Solidarity Program for instance. Everybody wants to sell it as their own success story- while in reality, the success is an outcome of cooperation and partnership between Donors (Governments, World Bank), Afghan Government’s MRRD, and Local and International NGOs. With their long experience in aid delivery, relief projects, and even infrastructure reconstruction (during the money years that the Afghan government did not exist even in name) the NGOs remain indispensable to the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan. Instead of undermining them, the Afghan government would do far better to embrace them as a partner in the effort and work out better models for such partnership that curb any instances of corruption.

]]> By: Laurence http://registan.net/index.php/2007/04/16/listening-to-the-minister-of-finance-of-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-374289 Laurence Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:25:32 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/04/16/listening-to-the-minister-of-finance-of-afghanistan/#comment-374289 Thank you for this interesting post. I think even Brookings knows about Registan, btw... Thank you for this interesting post. I think even Brookings knows about Registan, btw…

]]> By: Bonnie Boyd http://registan.net/index.php/2007/04/16/listening-to-the-minister-of-finance-of-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-374283 Bonnie Boyd Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:29:47 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/04/16/listening-to-the-minister-of-finance-of-afghanistan/#comment-374283 Dear Joshua, Thanks for the reporting on the presentation by HE Mr. Ahadi. I have to agree with his and your point about funneling aid through the government, in order to legitimize it. At the same time, the legendary corruption in the country has made it difficult for the international community to acquiesce in that state/nation-building method. There is a further reason: troops fighting insurgents are in a structurally losing battle for local public opinion. As Paul Collier writes, the politics of grievance tends to support insurgency (civilians get killed by troops, notwithstanding that said civilians are hiding insurgents by choice, under no choice, or not at all). Aid directly from the states whose military are engaged is part of the PR for the troops--and also a hassle-mitigator and hostility mitigator on the ground. Poor pay for civil service in Afghanistan undoubtedly assists in institutionalizing government corruption. Toward the last, Mr. Ahadi said that Afghanistan was going to increase civil service wages, that wages also made up 60% or so of the national budget already. In short, Afghanistan needs more aid, period--from donors who will funnel into the state and donors who will fund through their own mechanisms alone, as Mr. Ahadi was quite anxious to point out. Dear Joshua,
Thanks for the reporting on the presentation by HE Mr. Ahadi. I have to agree with his and your point about funneling aid through the government, in order to legitimize it. At the same time, the legendary corruption in the country has made it difficult for the international community to acquiesce in that state/nation-building method.

There is a further reason: troops fighting insurgents are in a structurally losing battle for local public opinion. As Paul Collier writes, the politics of grievance tends to support insurgency (civilians get killed by troops, notwithstanding that said civilians are hiding insurgents by choice, under no choice, or not at all). Aid directly from the states whose military are engaged is part of the PR for the troops–and also a hassle-mitigator and hostility mitigator on the ground.

Poor pay for civil service in Afghanistan undoubtedly assists in institutionalizing government corruption. Toward the last, Mr. Ahadi said that Afghanistan was going to increase civil service wages, that wages also made up 60% or so of the national budget already. In short, Afghanistan needs more aid, period–from donors who will funnel into the state and donors who will fund through their own mechanisms alone, as Mr. Ahadi was quite anxious to point out.

]]> By: chicago dyke http://registan.net/index.php/2007/04/16/listening-to-the-minister-of-finance-of-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-374282 chicago dyke Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:29:04 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/04/16/listening-to-the-minister-of-finance-of-afghanistan/#comment-374282 i had a totally different experience at my last brookings talk. they were helpful, friendly, and i got to ask several questions. it was an econ talk, but the people speaking were "just as important." so i guess it's all in the set up. be more confident next time, don't take no for an answer. i had a totally different experience at my last brookings talk. they were helpful, friendly, and i got to ask several questions. it was an econ talk, but the people speaking were “just as important.” so i guess it’s all in the set up. be more confident next time, don’t take no for an answer.

]]>