Do the IRED authors (Fernand Vincent and other contributors) express a criticism of the concept of autonomy as it is sometimes promoted or demanded by external donors? (cf. the criticism of “gift aid” or donors who “demand self-financing”)? funding without providing the means”).
Authors associated with IRED, notably Fernand Vincent and other contributors, express a significant critique of the concept of autonomy as it is sometimes promoted or demanded by external donors. This critique manifests itself in several ways, notably highlighting the inadequacy of traditional aid and the contradictions inherent in the demands of self-financing without adequate support.
A central criticism concerns the project-based approach to external aid, which is deemed unfavorable to the creation of real capital and the long-term autonomy of African organizations. Bernard Lecomte is quoted questioning whether this method fosters initiative, self-effort, and the responsibility of beneficiaries. Project-based aid is often designed before the action is taken and outside of its real context, rather than being negotiated with local actors based on local possibilities and constraints. This approach can lock local organizations into administrative and managerial rigidity that hinders their autonomous development.
The authors point out that donors often call for increased self-financing without providing the necessary resources to achieve it. They note a contradiction between donors’ rhetoric, which emphasizes autonomy, and their funding practices, which maintain, or even increase, dependency. For example, aid is often directed toward micro-projects or specific projects with limited durations (3, 5, or 7 years), without providing mechanisms for building reserves or equity capital that would allow organizations to meet their operating needs sustainably. After project-based aid ends, organizations often find themselves without financial support, jeopardizing their survival.
The notion of “gift aid” is implicitly criticized through the emphasis on the need for “own effort” on the part of local organizations as the starting point for any development. Banks and development agencies often require financial participation from loan applicants (at least 25% of the project cost), but the contribution of volunteer labor, which often constitutes an important part of launching a project, is rarely taken into account. This perspective suggests that external aid, if not complementary to a substantial local effort, can engender a culture of dependency rather than self-reliance.
Furthermore, the authors highlight the power imbalance in the donor-recipient relationship. Whoever holds the money has the power to decide how, where, when, to whom, and why aid will be allocated. Beneficiaries, often in need, cannot effectively negotiate with donors and are largely dependent on their decisions. The demands of Northern donors are sometimes incompatible with the medium- and long-term objectives of Southern organizations. Reporting is often based on imposed templates, generating cumbersome bureaucracy and wasting time and money, without always reflecting the reality on the ground. Evaluations are often focused on the donor-funded project, rather than on the overall institutional development of the local partner.
Fernand Vincent and the IRED contributors therefore propose an alternative vision of development financing, focused on the mobilization of local resources (local savings, diaspora remittances), the development of income-generating economic activities (sales of products and services, business creation), and the creation of reserve funds and equity capital. They emphasize the need for development organizations to professionalize and adopt rigorous management rules, similar to those of private companies, while remaining faithful to their social mission.
The authors also advocate a new partnership between organizations in the North and South, geared toward the pursuit of partner autonomy rather than mere survival or meeting the expectations of Northern donors. Foreign aid is seen as a potentially effective ally to accelerate the process of financial autonomy, provided that cooperation agencies evolve their methods and agree to finance the “unfinanceable,” such as essential operating costs and capital formation. They suggest more flexible financing mechanisms, loans, bank guarantees, and participation in the creation of local capital.
In conclusion, the IRED authors express a strong and reasoned critique of the concept of autonomy when it is disconnected from the realities and constraints faced by African organizations, and when it is demanded by donors whose funding practices do not favor this autonomy. They advocate for an approach to development based on self-effort, the mobilization of local resources, and a more balanced and long-term partnership with external aid, which truly supports the path towards financial autonomy and, consequently, the strategic and programmatic independence of African organizations.
