{"id":235492,"date":"2016-04-02T02:16:46","date_gmt":"2016-04-02T02:16:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/scandal-of-privatized-aid-free-market-consultants-cream-off-450mn-in-uk-govt-funds\/"},"modified":"2016-04-02T02:16:46","modified_gmt":"2016-04-02T02:16:46","slug":"scandal-of-privatized-aid-free-market-consultants-cream-off-450mn-in-uk-govt-funds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/scandal-of-privatized-aid-free-market-consultants-cream-off-450mn-in-uk-govt-funds\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Scandal of privatized aid\u2019: Free-market consultants cream off \u00a3450mn in UK govt funds"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

Free-market consultants in Britain are taking hundreds of millions of pounds ring-fenced to alleviate poverty in the developing world, as the government continues with its agenda of privatizing aid, a damning report has warned. <\/p>\n

\n

A study conducted by British NGO Global Justice Now (GJN) raises grave concerns over the sheer amount of aid money the Department for International Development (DfID) has given to consultants Adam Smith International (ASI) for overseas aid projects.<\/p>\n

The report, titled \u2018The Privatization of UK Aid\u2019<\/a>, was published on Friday.<\/p>\n

It found that ASI has won a minimum of \u00a3450 million (about US$640 million) in aid-funded contracts over the last five years. DfID funneled almost \u00a390 million of its budget through the consultancy firm, more than the total amount given to human rights and women\u2019s rights groups. This figure is almost double that spent on projects to tackle Aids and HIV, according to the report.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Aid consultants protesting at Westminster this morning demanding higher wages & a bigger slice of the aid budget. pic.twitter.com\/PmCfbPpwms<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Global Justice Now (@GlobalJusticeUK) April 1, 2016<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

The study examined how much of DfID\u2019s work was geared towards supporting market-based development and the private sector in poor states. Recent projects included backing for a \u201cbusiness advocacy capacity development program\u201d<\/em> in Zimbabwe, and projects to increase private schooling in Kenya.<\/p>\n

The report also analyzed a number of existing case studies on ASI projects, such as the consultancy firm\u2019s role in privatizing Nigeria\u2019s energy system and making Afghanistan \u201cinvestor friendly\u201d<\/em> by helping to rewrite energy extraction legislation there.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The NGO said the legislation, which was later passed into law, lacks transparency and does not protect local citizens\u2019 rights. ASI has also helped to develop new mining legislation and regulations in Papua New Guinea, where the energy extraction technique has a legacy of violent conflict. GJN\u2019s report says the laws have been branded \u201cauthoritarian and regressive\u201d<\/em> by critics.<\/p>\n

The NGO argues that Westminster\u2019s increasing use of consultancy firms forces out smaller companies in impoverished states and highlights DfID\u2019s tendency to embrace private partnerships and back private-sector development schemes that risk jeopardizing communities in the developing world. It has called on DfID to explain why it chooses to hire profit-driven British firms like ASI rather than using its own employees or companies in the developing world.<\/p>\n

GJN also urged DfID to be more transparent on contractors\u2019 costs, and to release a robust plan on spending more through organizations in developing countries.<\/p>\n