Correspondence
| DOI | 10.1177/002070205501000427 |
| Published date | 01 December 1955 |
| Date | 01 December 1955 |
| Subject Matter | Correspondence |
CORRESPONDENCE
The
Editor,
International
Journal.
Professor Barber's
summary
report,
in
the
Summer,
1955,
issue,
of
the
views
of
a
CIIA
study
group
on
the
problem
of
Canadian
aid
to
under-developed
areas
deals
with
a
number
of
significant
issues.
There
is,
however,
one
highly
important
question
which
is
treated
only
in
incidental
fashion
in
the
report,
and
which
seems
to
invite
comment.
I
refer
to
the
matter
of
the
channels
through
which
Western
aid
to
under-developed
areas
should
move.
There can
be no
serious
dispute
that
advanced
Western
countries
can
and
should
provide
funds
for
the
more
rapid
development
of
under-developed
areas,
and
probably
in
considerably
larger
amounts
than
at
present.
But
this
capital,
outflow
can
take
many
forms.
Should
it
be
public
or private capital?
If
public, on
a
loan or
grant
basis?
Bilaterally
negotiated,
through
regional organizations
or
through
the
United
Nations
and
its
specialized
agencies?
If
private,
portfolio
or
direct?
There
is
a
surprising
lack
of
discussion
in
professional
circles
of
questions
such
as these,
surprising
because of
their
obvious
ideo-
logical
and
political implications.
Much
of
Professor Barber's
discussion
is
concerned
with
the
problem
of
Western
financing
of
the
development
of
under-developed
areas,
but
the
specific
issue
at
hand
is
whether
the
Canadian
Govern-
ment
should
increase
its
contribution
to
the
Colombo
Plan.
The
study
group
concluded
that
the
Canadian Government
should
increase
its
contribution
to
the
Plan
about
fourfold.
But
is
it
quite
clear
that
this
necessarily
redounds
to
the
advantage
of
Canada-and
of
the
West
generally? Grants
to
Colombo
Plan
countries
are
in
fact
bilaterally
negotiated.
In
view of
the
widespread
and
deep-rooted suspicion
of
Western
motives
in
South
and
South
East
Asia,
it
is
quite
possible
that
governments
accepting such
bilateral
aid
lay
themselves
open
to
charges
of
"selling
out" to
foreign
capitalist
powers. This
is ideal
grist
for
the
Communist
propaganda
mill,
the
effects
of which
might
well
be
to
contribute
to
the
overthrow
of
the
regimes
which
the
West
is
seeking
to
bolster.
These comments
are
offered
as suggestions
only.
(A
further
suggestion
is
that
additional
aid
be
channelled into the
United
Nations
programs,
rather
than
into
bilateral
programs.)
The
study
group
has apparently
not
dealt
at
all with
this type
of
problem.
Professor
Barber
simply
asserts
that
"Western
aid
to
under-developed
countries
is
essential
to
stem
the
spread
of
communism
and
to
promote
the
growth
of
friendly nations with
liberal
institutions
like
our
own,"
but
does
not
attempt
to
demonstrate
why
these desirable
consequences
should
follow,
particularly
from
an
increased
contribution
to
the
Colombo
Plan.
(Parenthetically,
what are
these liberal institutions?
Private
enterprise?
Western-type
political
institutions?)
This
writer
feels
quite
strongly
that
serious
discussion of
these
and
related
problems
in
the
political
economy
of
international
aid
and
investment
is
impera-
tive,
not
only
in
Canada,
but
in
the
West
generally.
It
is
to
be
hoped
that
the
CIIA-and
other
similar
organizations-will
continue
to
provide
a
forum
for
these
discussions.
BERNARD GOODMAN,
Assistant
Professor
of
Economics, Wayne
University.
To continue reading
Request your trial