CPSA/ISA-Canada section on International Relations

C03(b) - Foreign Aid Politics

Date: May 30 | Time: 10:30am to 12:00pm | Location: Classroom - CL 312 Room ID:15754

Chair/Président/Présidente : Caleb Lauer (University of Waterloo)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Antonio Franceschet (University of Calgary)

Undermining the Democratic Process: The Illiberal Canadian Government Suppression of Palestinian Development Aid Projects: Jeremy Wildeman (University of Bath)
Abstract: Countless Canadians have for decades been trying to provide support to indigenous Palestinians living under settler colonial occupation in the occupied Palestinian territories. However, they have often faced strong resistance from pro-Israel advocates and elites in Canada, including their own government. This paper looks at the government suppression of Canadian development sector organisations running Palestinian aid projects 2001 to 2012, including from the perspective of the people running them. Based on document analysis, policy analysis and original semi-structured interviews with coordinators running aid projects, it describes how their work was almost universally undermined by the Canadian government. Tactics uncovered include appointing ardent pro-Israel advocates to an organisation’s management, defunding specific projects, defunding entire organisations, launching questionable audits, spurious allegations of terrorism and the forced closure of organisations. This oppression was particularly overt under the Harper Conservative government, but had a basis in earlier Liberal governments. This interference provides an understanding for the fear that exists surrounding Palestinian aid work in Canada and the process by which Canadian aid to Palestinians is rendered ineffective. The paper further suggests that while these tactics were first honed against Palestinian solidarity work, they were then used against other progressive groups, undermining Canadian civil society and democracy. That is because Israel and Palestine exist on the frontline of competing forces of liberalism and illiberalism in Canada, where in this specific struggle illiberalism is predominant and by nature antithetical to the spirit of the ‘Gathering Diversities’ theme of the 2018 congress.

Donor Games: Negotiating Autonomy Within the Political Economy of Aid: Emily K. M. Scott (University of Toronto)
Abstract: Humanitarian international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) are active players in ‘The Great Game’ for geostrategic influence and take on conventional and global governance authorities during crisis. Extant theories of resource dependence and the political economy of aid lead scholars of organizational behavior to expect INGO behavior to flow from the interests of the states that fund them. However, in response to the Syrian refugee crisis in Lebanon and Jordan, three organizations secured variable degrees of autonomy not explained by their relative dependence on state donated funds. These include: the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), and Save the Children International (SCI). By combining over 100 key informant interviews with in-depth field observation during crisis across these three INGOs, I identify drivers that best explain variation in INGO autonomy at a systematic level. Research reveals that an INGO can draw on issue area expertise and publicity power in order to counterbalance some of the material force of donors and alter asymmetrical relationships that favor the donor. INGOs that negotiate as a matter of everyday practice are most likely to establish autonomy in negotiation with donors and despite external conditions within the political economy of aid.

'The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations': Unintended Consequences of Canadian Priority Development Partnerships in Africa: Chris W. J. Roberts (University Calgary / University of Alberta)
Abstract: While Canada’s bilateral aid program has been among the most dispersed among OECD-DAC donors, there were always priority countries that received higher levels of expenditure, human resources, and even military assistance. This is particularly true across Africa. A formal categorization of “core” countries did not begin until the late 1970s, but until quite recently Canada has maintained a hierarchy of priority countries assigned more ODA and diplomatic attention than others. While Canada is never a dominant donor in any state, at certain times its development presence is proportionally higher than its typical OECD-DAC weighting. During the process of mapping these shifting priority countries in Africa since 1960, a disconcerting question emerged: Why do a preponderance of Canadian priority bilateral relationships in post-colonial Africa precede political and/or economic crisis or decline in those partners? This pattern is similar during the Cold War and after. Basic assumptions in the development literature would predict greater attention and resources, particularly from middle powers, should lead to better developmental outcomes, however defined. But that expected pattern – relying on a basic assumption that good intentions plus increased resources should produce good development outcomes – rarely obtains. The Canadian Aid Priorities in Africa Dataset (CAPiAD) cumulatively scores the development relationship between Canada and sixteen African states between 1960-2015 across a number of indicators. CAPiAD scores can be used to illustrate historical patterns of Canadian priority partnerships and to initiate analysis about why Canada’s developmental interventions across the continent often seem to lead to anti-development outcomes.