Sir, you conclude your excellent essay with, "A wise people can tell the difference."
Ah, a wise people .... when will such wise people occupy ANY level in the Government of Canada?
You see, you and I shop at the same haberdashery shop, in the accurate observation headgear section. Of course, cynical folk might say that a synonym of the "accurate observation headgear section" is really the "cynics' headgear section" but, really, who cares if the term "accurate observation" and "cynic" are equivalent?
Hans Morgenthau, writing in 1962: "The problem of foreign aid is soluble only if it is considered an integral part of the political policies of the giving country - which must be devised in view of the political conditions, and for its effects upon the political situation, in the receiving country. In this respect, a policy of foreign aid is no different from diplomatic or military policy or propaganda. They are all weapons in the political armory of the nation." www.jstor.org/stable/1952366
I was thinking about your comment while I was writing this article, and at one point I tried to find a way to reference it.
My problem was that, if you're correct (as you very well may be), then the principle completely eliminates the value of public oversight. Frankly, you could send the auditor general home for a well-earned early retirement. That's because all spending decisions - or at least foreign-facing decisions - are directed by unknown and unknowable incentives. It's all about 4-D chess being played by a very small number of backroom insiders and we have no business even asking about it.
Which would mean, to some degree, that there's no real point even trying to understand government - and all those carefully crafted transparency laws are just a convenient cover for what's actually happening.
I guess I'll have to pretend all that's not true. :)
I think it's reasonable to ask questions like: (a) What are the goals of Canadian foreign aid? (Humanitarian assistance in the event of natural disasters? Helping with the slow process of economic and social development? Maintaining a reservoir of goodwill with Canadian allies or with neutrals?) (b) How does this support other Canadian foreign policy goals, such as national security, relations with allies, and trade relationships? (c) What's an appropriate level of funding for Canadian foreign aid? (d) How effective is Canadian foreign aid in meeting the goals described in (a) and (b)?
I could indeed ask those questions, but there won't be any way to get honest or helpful answers. That's because mandated official documentation already offers clear explanations ("Democratic participation and civil society" or "Women's Empowerment and Active Citizenship"). If this is really all about multilateral relationships, then those goals are Potemkin. And there certainly won't be any way to confidently measure the level of multilateral-related success or failure.
So government is essentially a completely closed book. And, to a large degree - since the civil service dances to its own music - elections are pretty much a waste of time (again, at least from the perspective of foreign affairs).
Assessing the effectiveness of foreign policy and military spending is certainly more difficult than assessing the effectiveness of domestic spending, but it should still be possible to enlist independent experts. On military spending, I think of David Perry at CGAI, or Philippe Lagasse at Carleton (who now has a Substack). On foreign policy, I'm thinking of someone like Thomas Juneau at the University of Ottawa, or Kim Richard Nossal at Queen's.
Russ, I offer to you a cynic's (i.e. a realist's) answer to your question of the goal of Canadian foreign aid. It's obvious: more voter support in Canada for the governing party. You subsequent questions are all based on the answer to the first question.
The problem with both military spending and foreign aid is that they're not very popular with voters, compared to something like more spending on hospitals and health care. As Joseph Heath says (describing Olivia Chow's run for mayor of Toronto in 2014): morehousing.ca/altruism
"Her pitch is not 'vote for me, and I’ll make your life better,' it’s 'vote for me, and I’ll make you feel better, by making some poor person’s life better.' Now I don’t want to dispute the moral sentiment here, I just want to suggest that appealing to people’s altruism does not provide a very strong basis for building an electoral majority."
Canada's not a front-line country. The reason for increasing our military spending is to help our allies and trading partners in Europe who are much more exposed to danger. But "more guns, less butter" is not an easy sell to voters, especially when everyone's tightening their belts and cutting spending because prices are up and interest rates are high.
Russ, I agree with all you say. On the other hand ...
[Beware of someone saying "on the other hand" because pretty soon you get about twenty-nine hands.]
You are correct that military spending and foreign aid are not very popular with voters. Until they are. You further say that Canada is "not a front-line country." Until we are. Oops! China and Russia are nosing around in the north and the US is on the way to questioning our ownership of the various passages (think as far back as the tanker Manhattan that was sent on a trip through the northwest passage to flout Canada's sovereignty over that waterway.
Yes, I know the guns and butter discussion always ends up in favor of butter in Canada. And, ultimately, money has to be found somewhere.
If I were trying to advise a government (foolish people for "listening" to me!) I would tell them that the government is simply trying to do far, far, far too much. They need to abandon a lot of areas that are actually provincial jurisdiction and allow the provinces to do or not do as they choose. Then, fire a whole boatload (no, make that an armada) of swivel servants who would no longer be needed.
But, first, have the courage to campaign on a reduced government.
Property rights, common law, rule of law, and a means of registering property to secure and initiate the formation of capital is what is required in a basket case like Haiti. Those things cannot be offered as an aid package from some foreign jurisdiction virtue signaling to their own "progressive" electorate. They need their own Javier Milei or Milton Friedman to lead them away from statism, tribalism and its failure.
Those would certainly be an improvement. But at this point, I'm not sure even that is possible: the Americans have evacuated their embassy and there is no functioning government. I'm not sure that gang rule is quite the same as an unregulated market economy.
Would such practical skills programs have made sense in 2005? It's a hard call. These are tough problems to beat.
Do these foreign aid programs that teach things like entrepreneurship or democracy even work? I feel like there’s a strong undercurrent of paternalism in these aid programs. Im sure poor people from countries like Haiti have to be entrepreneurial to make ends meet. It might look different than them “starting a business” but im sure they need street smarts to survive.
Yeah, I'd be less than optimistic about the real-world value of such programs. And GAC types (along with the US State Department) are famous for their smug contempt for even their own citizens, let alone people from client states.
I don't have any hard sources, but I remember reading that Haitians tend to be extraordinarily successful as immigrants in their new hosts' business environments. I doubt there's too much we need to teach them.
Sir, you conclude your excellent essay with, "A wise people can tell the difference."
Ah, a wise people .... when will such wise people occupy ANY level in the Government of Canada?
You see, you and I shop at the same haberdashery shop, in the accurate observation headgear section. Of course, cynical folk might say that a synonym of the "accurate observation headgear section" is really the "cynics' headgear section" but, really, who cares if the term "accurate observation" and "cynic" are equivalent?
Just going to repeat my earlier comment about foreign aid: https://open.substack.com/pub/theaudit/p/paying-for-bad-government-choices?commentId=48817163
Hans Morgenthau, writing in 1962: "The problem of foreign aid is soluble only if it is considered an integral part of the political policies of the giving country - which must be devised in view of the political conditions, and for its effects upon the political situation, in the receiving country. In this respect, a policy of foreign aid is no different from diplomatic or military policy or propaganda. They are all weapons in the political armory of the nation." www.jstor.org/stable/1952366
Regarding the situation in Haiti, the International Crisis Group (Michael Kovrig's employer) is a good source of information. https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/haiti
I was thinking about your comment while I was writing this article, and at one point I tried to find a way to reference it.
My problem was that, if you're correct (as you very well may be), then the principle completely eliminates the value of public oversight. Frankly, you could send the auditor general home for a well-earned early retirement. That's because all spending decisions - or at least foreign-facing decisions - are directed by unknown and unknowable incentives. It's all about 4-D chess being played by a very small number of backroom insiders and we have no business even asking about it.
Which would mean, to some degree, that there's no real point even trying to understand government - and all those carefully crafted transparency laws are just a convenient cover for what's actually happening.
I guess I'll have to pretend all that's not true. :)
I think it's reasonable to ask questions like: (a) What are the goals of Canadian foreign aid? (Humanitarian assistance in the event of natural disasters? Helping with the slow process of economic and social development? Maintaining a reservoir of goodwill with Canadian allies or with neutrals?) (b) How does this support other Canadian foreign policy goals, such as national security, relations with allies, and trade relationships? (c) What's an appropriate level of funding for Canadian foreign aid? (d) How effective is Canadian foreign aid in meeting the goals described in (a) and (b)?
I could indeed ask those questions, but there won't be any way to get honest or helpful answers. That's because mandated official documentation already offers clear explanations ("Democratic participation and civil society" or "Women's Empowerment and Active Citizenship"). If this is really all about multilateral relationships, then those goals are Potemkin. And there certainly won't be any way to confidently measure the level of multilateral-related success or failure.
So government is essentially a completely closed book. And, to a large degree - since the civil service dances to its own music - elections are pretty much a waste of time (again, at least from the perspective of foreign affairs).
Assessing the effectiveness of foreign policy and military spending is certainly more difficult than assessing the effectiveness of domestic spending, but it should still be possible to enlist independent experts. On military spending, I think of David Perry at CGAI, or Philippe Lagasse at Carleton (who now has a Substack). On foreign policy, I'm thinking of someone like Thomas Juneau at the University of Ottawa, or Kim Richard Nossal at Queen's.
Russ, I offer to you a cynic's (i.e. a realist's) answer to your question of the goal of Canadian foreign aid. It's obvious: more voter support in Canada for the governing party. You subsequent questions are all based on the answer to the first question.
The problem with both military spending and foreign aid is that they're not very popular with voters, compared to something like more spending on hospitals and health care. As Joseph Heath says (describing Olivia Chow's run for mayor of Toronto in 2014): morehousing.ca/altruism
"Her pitch is not 'vote for me, and I’ll make your life better,' it’s 'vote for me, and I’ll make you feel better, by making some poor person’s life better.' Now I don’t want to dispute the moral sentiment here, I just want to suggest that appealing to people’s altruism does not provide a very strong basis for building an electoral majority."
Canada's not a front-line country. The reason for increasing our military spending is to help our allies and trading partners in Europe who are much more exposed to danger. But "more guns, less butter" is not an easy sell to voters, especially when everyone's tightening their belts and cutting spending because prices are up and interest rates are high.
Russ, I agree with all you say. On the other hand ...
[Beware of someone saying "on the other hand" because pretty soon you get about twenty-nine hands.]
You are correct that military spending and foreign aid are not very popular with voters. Until they are. You further say that Canada is "not a front-line country." Until we are. Oops! China and Russia are nosing around in the north and the US is on the way to questioning our ownership of the various passages (think as far back as the tanker Manhattan that was sent on a trip through the northwest passage to flout Canada's sovereignty over that waterway.
Yes, I know the guns and butter discussion always ends up in favor of butter in Canada. And, ultimately, money has to be found somewhere.
If I were trying to advise a government (foolish people for "listening" to me!) I would tell them that the government is simply trying to do far, far, far too much. They need to abandon a lot of areas that are actually provincial jurisdiction and allow the provinces to do or not do as they choose. Then, fire a whole boatload (no, make that an armada) of swivel servants who would no longer be needed.
But, first, have the courage to campaign on a reduced government.
Ah, fantasy.
Property rights, common law, rule of law, and a means of registering property to secure and initiate the formation of capital is what is required in a basket case like Haiti. Those things cannot be offered as an aid package from some foreign jurisdiction virtue signaling to their own "progressive" electorate. They need their own Javier Milei or Milton Friedman to lead them away from statism, tribalism and its failure.
Agreed. Teaching entrepreneurial and business management skills would be a better way to spend those dollars. Help Haitians to become self-sufficient.
Those would certainly be an improvement. But at this point, I'm not sure even that is possible: the Americans have evacuated their embassy and there is no functioning government. I'm not sure that gang rule is quite the same as an unregulated market economy.
Would such practical skills programs have made sense in 2005? It's a hard call. These are tough problems to beat.
Do these foreign aid programs that teach things like entrepreneurship or democracy even work? I feel like there’s a strong undercurrent of paternalism in these aid programs. Im sure poor people from countries like Haiti have to be entrepreneurial to make ends meet. It might look different than them “starting a business” but im sure they need street smarts to survive.
Yeah, I'd be less than optimistic about the real-world value of such programs. And GAC types (along with the US State Department) are famous for their smug contempt for even their own citizens, let alone people from client states.
I don't have any hard sources, but I remember reading that Haitians tend to be extraordinarily successful as immigrants in their new hosts' business environments. I doubt there's too much we need to teach them.