Research Background

The development philosophy of Gross National Generosity (GNG) is an outcome from Dr. Funaki's doctoral dissertation, proposed as an alternative development framework that is rooted in the principles of reciprocity. This page briefly summarizes the background of his research in order to outline how the results led to realizing GNG. A new understanding of ODA is explored through the different approaches taken by the region’s main donor nations from the perspectives of three Pacific Island Countries (PICs). In particular, the study investigated new understandings of Priority, Disbursement, Dependency and Leverage through case studies conducted in the Republic of Vanuatu (Vanuatu, former British-French Condominium), the Kingdom of Tonga (Tonga, un-colonized, former protectorate of the United Kingdom),and the Republic of Kiribati (Kiribati, war-time Japanese occupation and former British colony). For donor nations, the research explored the approaches to ODA of Australia (DAC[1]member), France (DAC member), Japan (DAC member and first non-European member) and the People’s Republic of China (China, non-DAC member).Since Kiribati recognizes the Republic of China(Taiwan, non-DAC member) over China, the research acknowledged this relationship for a broader understanding of donor approaches to ODA. By projecting a broader view of the research towards answering the research question of whether all donor nations take the same approach to ODA within a given recipient country, four theoretical perspectives were selected from various disciplines to serve as frameworks for the research. 

[1]Development Assistance Committee (DAC) is a forum for donors under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 

1) Development theory was chosen from the field of political economy in order to highlight the principles underlying the foundation of foreign aid as outlined by Wallenstein, the Cold War, Harry Truman’s speeches, the Marshall Plan, and the Washington Consensus, to name a few. Since development is an enterprise initiated by wealthy nations, understanding the nature of the approaches taken by these nations from the perspectives of the recipient countries reveals the recipient nations’ likely future course as developed nations as well as how donor nations shape this development along the way. Dr. Funaki’s analysis utilizing development theory elucidated the rationales of donor nations as resource providers and owners of ODA. At the same time, learning from the experiences of recipient countries about donor nation approaches is most relevant, as new insights enhanced the circumstances in which PICs adjust and adapt to this system of foreign aid. 

Another view used to assess the approaches of donor nations to ODA involved the application of 2) Common Pool Resources (Elinor Ostrom). Common Pool Resources (CPR) explains the motivations of donor nations when PICs are the owners and providers of open access resources in contrast to being the resource appropriator as regards ODA. Although the aim of CPR is to maximize the long-term economic viability of open access resources, the influence of donor nations as appropriators of the resources held by the PICs plays a significant role in framing the governance of these resources. Thus, perspectives from the three PICs as resource owners added value to comprehensions yet to be considered in appropriator’s strategies, including the nature of free riders as argued by the model. The nature of the differences that existed between the approaches of various donor nations who were both ODA providers and resource appropriators, led the researcher to the arguments of 3) Schismogenesis (Gregory Bateson) where destruction is guaranteed when relationships depend on the reactions of others. Schismogenesis is divided into Symmetrical Schismogenesis (where the efforts of one side depend on the positive return expected from the other side and vice versa) and Complementary Schismogenesis (where the behavior of both sides differs, but the two parties are complementary due to their differences). Dr. Funaki analyzed various responses made by the PICs when leverage was identified as influencing decision-making by donor nations regarding flow of aid. 

Dr. Funaki arrived at the solution of “reciprocity” as a way out from the destruction of Schismogenesis as proposed by Bateson, and developed the detailed explanation of this solution through the anthropological arguments of the 4) Gift Giving theory (Marcel Mauss). Assuming these reputable theories to be objective in character, Dr. Funaki inquired into subjective observations of aid relations from the viewpoints and experiences of aid decision makers in Vanuatu, Tonga and Kiribati. By comparing the approaches of ODA providers with the perspectives of ODA appropriating countries, this research contributed to understanding how each of the donor nations approaches international aid in practice, both in the methods they use and the motivations behind these methods. The analysis included identifying which countries are targeted, for what the aid is provided, and how it is provided – including the conditions attached to the aid and monitoring at the implementation stage. 

A Recap of the Findings

Sharing the highlights from the research findings, this section encapsulates new insights into the donor-recipient relationship gained through deeper understandings of Priority, Disbursement, Dependency and Leverage. 

Priority

The study revealed that the priority interests of Australia, France, Japan and China differ based on each country’s individual foreign policy. Thus, these priority interests never coincided with the priority needs of the three PICs included in the study. As a result of this situation, priorities of recipient countries always occupy a weak position in contrast to the exclusive influences of the donor nations. Nevertheless, the priority approaches utilized by Japan and China were mostly successful in matching the priority needs of the PICs. China openly and clearly demonstrates to the PICs that its aid is political and a return is expected, while Japan takes a similar approach but with less clear communications. The ability of the PICs to meet these expectations was observed as leverage the PICs could wield, which took the cultural role of reciprocity and which in turn created a sense of balance in their relationships with these donor nations. From the PICs’ perspective, this phenomenon was perceived as China and Japan becoming recipients and the three PICs becoming donors. The aid priorities of Australia and France, on the other hand, are strategically integrated into soft politics with most approaches being applied through governance, education, health and other sectors as “capacity building.” Running capacity building training not only confuses PIC officials about whose capacity building to follow, knowing the interests and experiences of each donor nation differ, but also belittling as PICs are expected to conform without question due to being inferior in the relationship. As a result, the PICs are more comfortable not only with the mildness of the procedural conditions of Chinese aid, but also with the quality infrastructural development projects from Japan which meet the vulnerability of the PICs and to which, in their thoughts at least, the PICs are able to reciprocate.

Disbursement

Although the study found in all cases that Disbursements are facilitated and controlled entirely by the donor nations according to their interests, the practices for delivery of disbursements vary. Australian and French policies for aid Disbursement were perceived by the PICs as being pre-decided before even hearing the PICs’ priority requests. On the other hand, Disbursement of Chinese aid was aligned with the Priority requests of the PICs, especially when appeals for such alignment originated from the central government or were initiated by influential politicians. In addition, approvals of requests for aid are quickly granted at the resident Chinese Embassy. Taiwanese practices in Kiribati were observed to follow the same system. Disbursement of Japanese aid lies more in the middle, finding a balance between the extreme approach adopted by Australia and France and the relaxed approach taken by China and Taiwan. Japanese aid Disbursement is highly committed to the historical “request based” model, which is centered on Japan’s own experience as a former developing country. Although donor nations shape the Priorities of the PICs and at the same time control Disbursement, a positive correlation of this pattern was found with the Western approaches of Australia and France. In contrast, Priority was negatively correlated to Disbursements according to the Asian approaches of China / Taiwan and Japan. 

Leverage

The study validated Leverage as the most successful tool used by the PICs to influence both Priority and Disbursement. Two types of Leverage were identified: 1) Leverage realized through matching the priority requests of the PICs to the actual Priorities of donor nations; and 2) Leverage capital found in each recipient country that interested each of the donor nations. As both of these types of Leverage connect strongly to the concerns of donor nations, the differences in a donor nation’s Priorities and Disbursement practices and the uniqueness of leverage capabilities found in each PIC, generate destructive competitions among both donor nations and recipient countries. In particular, the Leverage found in regards to the approaches taken by Australia and France was perceived to follow both Symmetrical and Complementary Schismogenesis. On the other hand, the approaches taken by Japan and China, including Taiwan, mostly follow Complementary Schismogenesis while at the same time recognizing “Reciprocity” as a factor in the relationship. 

Dependency

The research revealed that the Dependency of the PICs on ODA for development and the donor nations’ success at influencing the development of the PICs via ODA were both considered natural. As concluded from the three concepts above, Disbursement is controlled by both the Priorities of the donor nations and the Leverage capabilities of the PICs. Therefore, the Dependency concept is a natural phenomenon since the Priorities of the donor nations and the Leverage capabilities of the PICs depend on each other’s responses in order to enable aid Disbursement. Dr. Funaki argued that Dependency only occurs when no advantage is expected or observed from the other party in the relationship. The data collected instead revealed that Interdependency is the appropriate description for the donor-recipient relationship. 

The Critique

The Dignified Pacific Initiative recognizes three main critiques about dependency of developing countries on aid. The first one sees dependency as a relationship that foreign aid created. The second one says that Dependency is an unfortunate by-product that the result did not turn out the way development was envisioned to be. The debate that this initiative seems to fit the most is the argument that dependency is deliberate to preserve the imbalance through exploitative relationship to keep developing countries a franchise. "Dependency is an effective tool of social control and political domination that the only way out is to realize the Pacific’s common capacity and practical potential" (Prof. 'Okusitino Mahina). 

The PICs have been the biggest recipients per capita of ODA for decades, although only 1% of global ODA goes to the region. Nevertheless, aid has turned into a necessity for the PICs as a high percentage of their national budgets are supported by aid annually. Dr. Funaki’s research argues that despite the fact that ODA prioritizes self-sufficiency through the concept of helping recipient countries to help themselves, this approach undermines the potential contribution of recipient countries to the relationship. In addition, foreign aid delivered only according to the agendas of donor nations has the unintentional side effect of preventing recipient countries from experiencing the ‘giver’s glow’, which result in feelings of inadequacy that leads to dependency and stagnation rather than independence and growth.

It is clear that traditional donor nations have not structured the delivery of ODA around the expectation of reciprocation from recipient countries and GNG is proposing to package the development framework of recipient countries as “contributions.” Shaping development as contribution creates a route for PICs to reclaim their dignity by redefining their common value system to consider what they could do for the world as resource owners. 

Motivation, Problems and Situation

The three arguments below define the donor-recipient relationship and illustrates how the nature of this relationship undermines the merits of ODA and has the potential to lead to the inescapable destruction of relationships as argued through Schismogenesis. 

This initiative recognizes a thorough understanding of these encounters which hampers the dignified situation of the PICs.

1. Development aid is a necessity for PICs

Dr. Funaki concluded in his research that traditional donor nations approach ODA as transactional yet only acknowledge a one-way relationship. Although his research confirmed that each donor nation delivers ODA with various conditions attached and has certain expectations of the PICs, the traditional donor nation approach to ODA may have failed to recognize the knowledge and moral values that exist in each PIC. The philosophy of ODA currently promotes self-dependence by adhering closely to the concept of helping you help yourself. In this one-way relationship, development of the recipient countries is a necessity for which donor nations are willing to provide according to the capacity and standards of each donor nation. Since technology and ODA mechanisms are scarce resources in recipient countries, this one-way relationship undermines the full potential of each PIC at the same time as it stimulates dependency. Disallowing recipient countries to contribute to the relationship by not recognizing their giving, places donor nations at the top of the hierarchical relationship. This hierarchy stimulates frustrations in both donor nations and recipient countries. Donor nations continue to desire more resources and better outcome in order to give more aid. Recipient countries, on the other hand, are forced to expect more despite having received less. Instead of improving the standard of living in developing countries, this one-way approach to ODA furthers the gap between the giver and receiver. In addition to the destruction outcome expected from this relationship, global disasters arising from the exploitation of natural resources or pollution could also spiral out of control.

2. Multiple donors with similar approaches but with various interests and policies

Following the one-way relationship as explained above, the PICs perceive that they have lost their spiritual power, mana (Dignity), by failing to reciprocate the benefit brought to them through ODA. Research identified many experiences taking place in the three PICs that demonstrate the central value of reciprocity as a corner stone of everyday living. Furthermore, research also uncovered many experiences that use gift-giving theory to interpret the nature of losing mana or dignity. One of the most effective and peaceful approaches to ODA practiced by the PICs is phrasing their aid priority requests to suit the policy interests of the donor nations while at the same time still meeting the PICs’ development necessities. Otherwise, ordinary practice in the PICs each fiscal year is for a small number of government staff to adjust their priorities to the process schedule, deadline, requirements, conditions, procedures and policies of each donor nation. This balancing act represents some of the common struggles facing government officials in the PICs dealing with ODA operations, without even taking into account other complications, such as those related to the integration of multilateral donors, regional organizations and external partners. The nature of the relationship undermines the potential of the recipients by requiring the relationship to conform to standards set by each donor without investing further efforts in the recipient’s own development initiatives. The destructive nature of this relationship forces recipient countries to favor the donor nations that best fit their conditions while simultaneously appreciating these donors’ contributions, even when the donors’ contributions are not the best option for the PICs. 

3. Multiple recipients sharing common value system and various negotiation capabilities

Interviews with PIC government officials showed that the accessibility of the PICs to the alternative approaches of non-traditional donors, such as China and Taiwan, generates a rival relationship to the one held with Australia, France and Japan, which adopt more traditional approaches. At the same time, the PICs may choose their development partners when multiple donor nations have interest in the same recipient country. Some of the common preferences identified in the approaches of traditional donors included being the main donor nation for years, being a giant trade partner of the Pacific, geographical location, and historical ties. Australian ODA, for example, strongly influences the framing of the PICs’ development policies, especially in the education, health and governance sectors. In the case of China, the most successful approach highlighted visiting diplomacy for government officials and keeping close relations with central government agencies, including influential politicians. Chinese aid was highly admired in the three PICs included in this study, especially for approving remaining funds from the PICs’ priority request list that traditional donor nations typically reject. These rejected priorities are important to the PICs, but usually not well prepared for presentation to donor nations and thus most of the time are ruled out as unqualified under the ODA requirements of the traditional donors. This situation allows the PICs to use the availability of donor nations holding common interests as leverage to choose the development partner that best suits them, regardless of efficiency or consistency in disbursement. Seeking to increase the leverage ability that is unique to each recipient country generates further competition among the PICs. Kiribati’s refusal to charge the amount set by the PIC member countries in 2012 for the Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) fee is one example of such competition. At the time of the researcher’s interview in 2016, Kiribati charged US$12,000 for the VDS fee as opposed to US$6,000, as originally agreed upon by the PICs, due to the discovery that the majority of tuna stock was primarily found between the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Kiribati, especially during El Niño periods. This incident not only created tensions among the PICs unified in their “sea of islands” concept (Epeli Hau’ofa), but also mystified traditional donors, such as the European Union (EU), which are highly invested in pursuing development of this industry. However, alternative donor nations such as China, Taiwan and Korea, which hold similar fishery interests, are willing and able to pay the US$12,000 VDS fee as it supports Kiribati’s economic development which depends highly on fish.

Citation:

Funaki, K. (2017). Official Development Assistance (ODA): Exploring Priority, Disbursement, Dependency and Leverage from the Perspectives of Three Pacific Island Countries (PICs). Doctoral dissertation, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University.