contributes to aid reduction. Changes in budget often translate
into decreased funding. Budgets can be cut for specific regions
because they no longer would like to provide the same level of
development, due to changes of interest or lack of funds.
External private aid reduction can hinge on policy disagreements between countries, regime changes within the host
nation, competition for resources, and a lack of transparency
or perceived corruption. Changes in both the host nation and
donor organization can cause disagreements and misunderstandings between the two parties. For example, nuclear proliferation could cause problems to arise because it is threatening
to the actor, whether or not it is the host nation or the donor
organization, which does not have nuclear power.
Internal host nation politics could lead to reduced aid when
there is a lack of communication between CSOs and the host
nation. In such an instance, CSOs may not be properly allocating, utilizing or accounting for financial aid in accordance with
host nation protocols and mandates. Host nation government
officials may not be willing to implement certain recommendations offered by donors, therefore forcing the donor to either be
more selective in the allocation of funds to certain areas, or to
retract funds altogether. A host nation CSO can also become
overly focused on processes and procedures, creating a highly
bureaucratic system that makes it difficult to create change and
sustainability. In contrast a lack of timely notice from donors
to local civil society actors inhibits planning and adaptation.
For small organizations without core funding – the situation
of local civil society organizations in conflict-affected states – a
sudden loss of donor funding can cause organizations to cease
operation and close.
Instances of Donor Aid Reduction
A clear example of donor aid retraction occurred in the response to the Haiti earthquake in 2010. Immediately after the
earthquake, donors wanted to pour billions of dollars to rebuild
Haiti and see instantaneous results. However, the Haitian
CSOs did not necessarily have the absorptive capacity to handle the huge inflow of aid, and did not have procedures in place
to identify the specific locations requiring the various types of
aid. Donors became tired of funneling money into development projects and not seeing dramatic and immediate changes,
so they began to reduce the donations to Haiti.
Another clear example of aid reduction in the aftermath of a
natural disaster, was Pakistan, but for a very different reason.
USAID pulled much of its program funding when Pakistan
continued its nuclear proliferation initiatives. USAID’s sudden
15