Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

tiations between Sida and the authorities in Vietnam were never-ending
and the Vietnamese really knew what they wanted to do and what to request
from Sweden. On a number of occasions, Sweden put up conditions
– most often as a result of political discussions in Sweden, many times introduced
by the media. One example was the working conditions of female
forestry workers. How we worked with that project! After several years, it
was decided that Sweden was going to support the upgrading of the factory
and then withdraw. The pressure from different groups, such as suppliers of
goods and services from Sweden and abroad was enormous. They stated
that the result of this decision would be disastrous and that the whole project
would come to an end. The Vietnamese would also have preferred to see an
extension of the assistance. Sida, however, insisted, and I am happy to say
that all went well, perhaps because of all the commotion and good preparations
for the withdrawal. It can of course be discussed if it turned out well
with reference to the original ideas, but, as it developed, it became quite a
success and I’m therefore tempted to conclude that the long and tough
discussions together with the conditionalities within this particular project
contributed to that success.
As can be seen from this tale, lobby groups can be very insistent, but,
according to my experience, their influence is not very strong. Political
pressure groups, on the other hand, are usually more successful since they
affect the government more directly. There is no question about the fact
that many decisions are made in Sweden and then implemented in the
partner country without much dialogue. During my time as head of Sida,
I initiated the reduction in technical assistance and also ended a number
of projects that had been supported for many years. The dialogue is then
solely a way of transmitting the message of a decision taken by the donor
and agreeing on how this is going to be implemented. It is an illusion that
the development dialogue is run on equal terms. In the end, the donor
decides whether it wishes to give support or not and the recipient has
very little to add. A partnership is also a kind of dialogue based on the
same inequality. Aid is and has always been related to conditions put forward
by the donor.
I would like to return to the Bai Bang project. The Vietnamese originally
asked for support to this project right from the beginning. Sida and its Director
General were not so keen and neither was the Swedish government,
including Olof Palme, which questioned the idea of the project. At the
time, it was very hard to say no to the Vietnamese who were very insistent.
When a positive decision had been made, the project developed in spite of
many big problems and the Vietnamese were very committed all the time,
something I think is absolutely necessary in order to be successful. Today,
too few governments are interested in the well-being of the poor in their
own countries. They are eager to discuss these issues at international conferences,
but do very little to develop policies for the redistribution of income.
67