"Private Profite für das öffentliche Wohl?"

"Können Investionen in Privatfirmen den Armen nützen", fragt Eurodad in einer neuen Studie. (Hat tip The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.) Denn immer mehr Entwicklungshilfe-Gelder aus öffentlichen Kassen gehen an private Unternehmen. Besonders tun sich die Internationalen Finanzinstitutionen (IFIs) hervor:

In 2010 external investments to the private sector by IFIs exceeded $40 billion. By 2015, the amount flowing to the private sector is expected to exceed $100 billion – making up almost one third of external public finance to developing countries. 

Während die Entwicklungshilfe stagniert, fließt ein immer größerer Anteil davon in private Taschen. Aber wo bleibt das Geld genau?

Commercial banks are by far the largest recipients of IFI and DFI funds amongst financial intermediaries, although private equity funds are quickly becoming a favoured vehicle. (...)

Aber das ist noch nicht alles:

Only 25% of all companies supported by the EIB and IFC were domiciled in low-income countries. Almost half goes to support companies based in OECD countries and tax havens. Around 40% of the companies in Eurodad’s sample are big companies listed in some of the world’s largest stock exchanges.

Zudem musste Eurodad während der Recherche feststellen, dass es "fast unmöglich" ist, den Verlauf der Geldströme zu verfolgen, und eine transparente Wirkungsanalyse besteht offensichtlich gar nicht:

(...) it is almost impossible for external stakeholders to actually track whether DFI and IFI lending and investments reached the intended beneficiaries as commercial banks, private equity funds and other financial intermediaries do not provide disaggregated data on which projects and companies they support and what development impacts are achieved.  

Die Finanz- und Geberorganisationen (DFIs) argumentieren, dass auf diesem Wege weit mehr Mittel sinnvoll für Entwicklungshilfe eingesetzt werden können, als über klassische Durchführungsorganisationen. Dem widerspricht der Autor der Studie nicht grundsätzlich. Aber er mahnt:

DFIs, IFIs and aid agencies have introduced confusion into the issue by applying the term in a lax and confusing fashion. This report shows that, as currently defined, the concept of leverage  has a number of critical problems, including:
(...) The greater the leverage ratio, the smaller the overall contribution of the public body, and the lower its influence in design and implementation of the investment.
(...) Leveraged finance increases debt – it is lending to companies, usually at market rates, which must be repaid.  This may means borrowers are more directly connected to global financial markets and thus will be more exposed to exogenous shocks and speculative capital flows.

Die Empfehlungen der Studie:

Align to developing countries’ investment priorities. (...)
Target domestic companies as a preferred option whenever possible, including by ensuring that by 2015 at least 50% of companies receiving financing are domiciled within the developing country where they are active.
Prevent tax dodging, and observe high corporate social responsibility standards, (...).
Improve transparency of financial intermediary investments and review their use.
Set high standards for transparency.