Here's what I came up with - note that it was written over 2 years ago now so it's not that relevant any more.

Similarly, the views expressed were in response to the particular teachings of the unit at the time and I don't necessary hold them any more.  For instance, I don't think I'd be so critical of the regional focus any more - now that I can see that it's where we can be more effectively focused, and I believe my lecturer responded with remarks to this extent too.

Anyway, just for anyone's who's interested, it's below.

For anyone who'd prefer a summary, I think Regina hit the nail on the head when she said it was largely political.  Other reasons however come into play and I touch on them in my essay too. 

Alice

Discuss why New Zealand provides overseas aid

New Zealand’s official reasons for giving aid are explained as follows: “New Zealand has a moral obligation to help reduce … poverty.  Poverty also helps undermine the stability and security needed for the sustainable growth of the world economy, on which New Zealand's economy depends” (NZAID 2006).  The type of aid New Zealand gives and the recipients favoured, however, suggest that the latter reasons – political and economic – are much greater factors than the former – humanitarian.  New Zealand’s aid is distributed almost exclusively to countries within Asia and the Pacific, with a focus on the trade and educational sectors, reflecting self-serving motives.  As Todaro (1994) predicts, the prevailing reasons are financial and political – including the prioritisation of trade partners as recipients, and New Zealand’sconstitutionalties to certain recipient states.  Humanitarian reasons are secondary to the former more self-serving motives; New Zealand offers little official development assistance (ODA) to the least developed countries – all of which lie outside Asia and the Pacific (UNDP 2008) - or to others unlikely to reciprocate the favour in some way, although occasional instances show that there are exceptions.  

Constitutional ties are a key reason New Zealand gives aid.  “The New Zealand Official Development Assistance (ODA) programme had its origins in Wellington’s colonial relationship with the Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa and Tokelau” and, over a century later, these countries remain major recipients of New Zealand’s aid (Richards, Jeremy & Margot 2002, p. 14).  Niue receives an average of approximately US$4120 per capita in ODA, over 100 times that of the average for sub-Saharan Africa; a large proportion of this comes from New Zealand (UNESCAP 2008; Sachs 2005).  If aid were given for humanitarian motives, we would not expect to see this overwhelming disparity in distribution of aid; rather, in this instance, aid is being given for legal reasons.  NZAID, New Zealand’s recently-established agency for international development, provides approximately 50% of Niue’s total budget and 80% of Tokelau’s total budget “in accordance with constitutional obligations” (NZAID 2008).  Some (see Opeskin 1996) suggest that aid is given to former colonies for moral reasons, as a form of repatriation for past wrongs inflicted upon them by the coloniser; NZAID, however, openly admits they give aid to former colonies to fulfil “legal obligations” rather than out of any sense of moral duty (2006).

New Zealand does however have a second reason for such a focus on these historically-linked countries: economic benefits.  For example, NZAID (as cited in Devasahayam 2004) prioritises Niue, the Cook Islands and Tokelau for disaster relief funding, even in cases where their disasters affect few people, because of the potential damage to the economy if infrastructure is left unrepaired.  For example, though the 2004 Cyclone Heta in Niue resulted in only 2 fatalities, NZAID responded with $2.2 million in disaster relief (Devasahayam 2004).  The justification NZAID gives for this seemingly over-proportionate response is that the disaster “affected an economy, not people” (as cited in Devasahayam 2004, p. 29).   [shortened here]

Economic reasons are also a key factor in New Zealand’s focus on other Pacific countries, despite the fact some of these currently receive over 40 times the average ODA per capita of sub-Saharan Africa (UNESCAP 2008; Sachs 2005).  The Pacific comprises “New Zealand’s own neighbourhood” and, as such, is New Zealand’s greatest source of labour in times of shortage (NZAID 2008, p. 2).  Recently, for example, the New Zealand government has implemented a Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme in an attempt to solve the overwhelming seasonal worker shortage by attracting workers from eleven Pacific Island nations (Department of Labour 2008).  As the Pacific has historically been an important source of employees in times of need, it is not surprising that education has been a key focus for development funding from New Zealand, as the donor country benefits when its seasonal workers are literate and skilled (Development Assistance Committee 1996).  This economic advantage also explains why NZAID will pilot an educational initiative designed to teach RSE workers literacy and numeracy, which will be of benefit to employers – and, as such, the wider economy - as well as workers (Clark 2008).

Economic reasons also prevail in NZAID’s decision to focus on Asia.  Though none of NZAID’s assistance is officially tied, New Zealand has traditionally had a policy that “NZ (and Australian) goods and services will be used where these are cost effective and compatible with the principal purpose of NZODA” (Development Assistance Committee 1996, p. 27) and NZAID often employs New Zealand contractors in Asia (NZAID 2006).  Both these directly and immediately benefit the New Zealand economy, as does the provision of scholarships for study in New Zealand which NZAID offers select Asian countries (NZAID 2008).  Besides such immediate economic benefits to New Zealand, aid to our Asian trading partners benefits us in the long-term as their capacity to trade increases.  Historically, both the type of assistance and the specific recipient countries targeted “have been closely related to New Zealand’s economic interests” (Rooney 1986, p. 127).  As South East Asian countries are becoming increasingly significant trade partners, NZAID has chosen to focus almost exclusively on this region of Asia (NZAID 2004).  NZAID’s Asia Strategy document (2004), for example, explains that their development work in South East Asia is part of a broader intensifying of links between New Zealand and this region, as the government explores a potential Free Trade Area between Australia, New Zealand and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).  It is also telling that NZAID’s strategy for Asia has a strong emphasis on developing trade and human resources (NZAID 2004); improvements in trading partners will undoubtedly have a positive  flow-on effect on the New Zealand economy.  Supporting newer ASEAN members to become viable market players and advocating for policy change regarding their treatment by the World Trade Organisation are other expressions of New Zealand’s desire to contribute to economic growth in trade partners (NZAID 2004).

Besides Asia and the Pacific, a portion of New Zealand’s ODA is given to African and Latin American nations.  Albeit a small portion, it is significant and shows that NZAID also gives aid for moral reasons, as giving to these regions is unlikely to result in much economic or political benefit for New Zealand.  Streeten (as cited in Riddell 1997) suggests that aid is sometimes given based on the logic that wealthy countries, such as New Zealand, have obtained their wealth partly through exploitation of poorer countries and, as such, the former have a moral obligation to assist the latter.  “New Zealand is a much richer country than the countries we help through our aid programmes” NZAID explains, exemplifying this with a comparison between New Zealand’s GNI and that of some of the countries NZAID works in (2006).  The Agency goes on to explain that giving aid “is about New Zealand being a good international citizen,” suggesting a sense of moral obligation as one of the wealthier players in today’s global society (NZAID 2006).  An example of this is the allocation of 21% of NZAID’s 2004 emergency and disaster relief budget toward helping those affected by conflict in Sudan, a country geographically distanced from New Zealand and, as such, of minimal economic or political significance (Devashayam 2004).  Devashayam suggests this action was “shaped by a purely humanitarian imperative to assist those most in need” (2004, p. 28).  Although such instances are rare, with only 1.6% of NZ’s ODA allocated to Africa in the last financial period, NZAID explains that they prioritise the Pacific over Africa because they can deliver aid more effectively where they are closer (NZAID 2008; NZAID 2006).  Furthermore, other donors tend to neglect the Pacific, with the United States giving only 1% of their ODA to the region (UNESCAP 2008); New Zealand gives to fill this gap.

It is therefore clear that New Zealand’s distribution of ODA reflects economic, political and humanitarian reasons.  New Zealand’s focus on the Pacific and Asia is influenced by New Zealand’s constitutional and trade relationships, as well as a desire to focus aid where it will be most effective.  The type of aid given – with focuses on the trade and educational sectors – serves New Zealand, as well as the recipient country, well.   As Sachs notes, “Foreign policy strategists have long recognised that acts of altruism” such as providing development assistance “are also acts of enlightened self-interest.  That self-interest does not diminish such generous acts” (2005, p. 331) as long as the benefit to recipient countries is maximised too.  As New Zealand moves forward, with a commitment to increase the level of aid given, it is crucial that while the donor country benefits, it is the recipient countries’ best interests that are kept at heart.

References

Clark, H 2008, RSE Scheme extended to Solomon Islands’ workers,Beehive, retrieved 30 August 2008,                 <http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/rse+scheme+extended+solomon+islands+workers>.

Department of Labour 2008, The recognised seasonal employer work policy, Department of Labour,          retrieved 30 August 2008, <http://www.dol.govt.nz/initiatives/strategy/rse/index.asp>.

Devasahayam, S 2004, Dead people don’t need help, unpublished Honours thesis, University of Otago,      Dunedin.

Development Assistance Committee 1996, Development Co-operation review series: New Zealand,             Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

NZAID2004, Asia strategy, NZAID, retrieved 30 August 2008, <http://www.nzaid.govt.nz/library/docs/nzaid-asia-strategy.pdf>.

NZAID 2006, Frequently asked questions, NZAID, retrieved 30 August 2008,  <http://www.nzaid.govt.nz/faqs/>.

NZAID2007, Annual review 2006/07, NZAID, retrieved 30 August 2008,            <http://www.nzaid.govt.nz/library/docs/ar-2007-full.pdf>.

Opeskin, R 1996, ‘The moral foundations of aid’, World Development, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 21-44.

Richards, R, Jeremy, R & Margot, S 2002, New Zealand Abroad: the story of VSA’s work in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Bridget Williams Books Ltd, Wellington.

Riddell, R 1997, Foreign aid reconsidered, 2^nd edn, James Curry Ltd, Oxford.

Rooney, L 1986, Why small states donate aid: a case study – New Zealand development assistance to South East Asia, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

Sachs, J 2005, The end of poverty: how we can make it happen in our lifetime, Penguin Books Ltd, London.

Todaro, M 1994, Economic development: 5^th edition, Longman Publishing, New York.

UNDP 2008, 2007/2008 Human Development Index rankings, retrieved 6 September 2008,             <http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/>.

UNESCAP, ‘The role of official development assistance’, Implementing the Monterrey consensus in the Asian and Pacific region: achieving coherence and consistency, UNESCAP, N.Y., pp. 89-106, accessed 19 May 2008, http://www.unescap.org/publications/detail.asp?id=1036