Tuesday, August 28

JM and I had an interesting conversation yesterday about responsibility. This was in response to an article we read in our International Health Policy class which I don't think I will take simply because it is too much work.
This article quoted an ADB representative as advising that HIV transmission may increase as a result of infrastructure projects and we must intergrate HIV prevention strategies in infrastructure projects in developing countries.

JM argues that the ADB, a bank should not just make such statements but also implement the policy involved, in this case they should make sure that all investments in infrastructure funded by ADB must include HIV prevention programs and more importantly ADB should invest some money in such activities themselves.

I disagreed with him and suggest that every institution has certain primary functions and secondary functions. ADB's primary function does not include funding, organising or implementing HIV prevention programs, although their secondary and moral responsibilities means they should ensure that if such a problem exists they integrate it as part of their funding projects.

So, whose responsibility is it to implement HIV prevention programs in infrastructre projects - ADB,World bank that fund such projects or governments that take this money to realise such projects or other private/public entreprise that work in the field of HIV?
My reaction would be that its up to the ADB to make sure that governments integrate health programs in infrastructure projects and the governments then employ whichever agency they believe is best able to implement the project.

2 comments:

Shreyas said...

I think you're quite right to an extent. The ADB lends at concessional rates for infrastructure projects that no private bank would be willing to fund, simply for reasons of risk portfolio management. But at the same time, we musn't forget that the ADB is really a conglomeration of 'n' number of countries' bank accounts and that, I think, puts the ADB at a somewhat different plane to just a lending institution. That is to say,I think HIV prevention measures are not merely a secondary function - but rather more in the region of an 'A-' obligation where an 'A' is primary.

The other alternative is that HIV prevention measures are added to the obligations of the borrowing country. This gives the ADB leverage to ensure that it is implemented.

I prefer the second...

Saranya said...

I suggest the second as well, however there are problems with the second option. The ADB and the World Bank which mainly fund such projects are political bodies whose lending is directed by international politics and governmental alliances. Most developing countries have no option but to accept such money irrespective of the terms and I fear that this may lead to strengthening the power of these "impartial" lending agencies.