Beyond the merchant and the clergyman: assessing moral claims about development cooperation

Abstract

This article proposes to move beyond the categories of altruism and self-interest in the analyses of the motives for development cooperation. This opposition ignores the inherently moral nature of development policy. The article illustrates the shortcomings of such a perspective by tracing the metaphor of the merchant and the clergyman as archetypical figures shaping Dutch development policy. Through these images the suggestion of an opposition between moral and amoral motives in the history of development has gained a strong foothold within the interplay of scholars, policy makers and public opinion. We go on to assess claims about economy, security, solidarity, prestige and guilt, and ecology, which have been brought forward to legitimise Dutch foreign aid. This analysis calls for research on the dynamics of the transnational exchanges of ideas, interests and expectations, especially during episodes when the moral validity of policy has been explicitly contested.

Keywords:

• development cooperation
• altruism
• self-interest
• morality
• metaphor
• the Netherlands

Acknowledgement

Research for this paper has been funded by the nwo-project, ‘Moralising the Global Market: Fair Trade in Post-war Dutch History’ (275-52-012), and by the University of Amsterdam.

Notes

1. Cited by Dierikx, “In Arren Moede,” 4. All translations from Dutch by the authors.

2. Meier, Biography of a Subject, 9–12.

3. Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe; and Bhambra, Rethinking Modernity.

4. Cooper, “Writing the History of Development.”

5. See Easterley, The White Man’s Burden; and Sachs, The End of Poverty.

6. Mahbubani, The Great Convergence, 199. A similar claim is presented by Moyo, Dead Aid.

7. Berthélemy, “Bilateral Donors’ Interest.” See also Nunnenkamp and Thiele, “Are ‘New’ Donors Different?”

8. Alesina and Dollar, “Who gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why.”

9. Schäfer, “Historicizing Strong Metaphors”; Ankersmit, History and Tropology; and van Dam, “Constructing a Modern Society through ‘Depillarization’.”

10. Luhmann, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, 426.

11. Hoebink, “Hoe de dominee de koopman versloeg,” 580. Kuitenbrouwer and Schijf have argued for a different periodisation. Kuitenbrouwer and Schijf, “De Koopman, de dominee en de ambtenaar,” 284, 279.

12. Smits, “Main Topics of Dutch Development Policy, 1949–1989,” 51. See also van Wijnen, “De koopman en dominee in de buitenlandse politiek,” 10.

13. Voorhoeve, Peace, Profits and Principles, 281.

14. Malcontent and Nekkers, “Introduction,” 12; Kuitenbrouwer, De ontdekking van de derde wereld, 31; Heldring, “Nederland in de wereld”; and Hellema, Buitenlandse politiek van Nederland.

15. Hoebink, “Hoe de dominee de koopman versloeg,” 578.

16. Frey, Control, 397.

17. Meier, Biography of a Subject, 6.

18. de Jong, “Flying the Ethical Flag,” 60, 76–77.

19. Kuitenbrouwer, “A Shining Example?,” 181–184.

20. Malcontent and Nekkers, “Introduction,” 36–37.

21. Hellema, “A Special Place in the World,” 325; and Kuitenbrouwer, “A Shining Example?,” 184–185.

22. Malcontent and Nekkers, “Introduction,” 15–18.

23. Kuitenbrouwer and Schijf, “De koopman, de dominee en de ambtenaar,” 278.

24. Ibid., 284; and Kuitenbrouwer, “A Shining Example?,” 175.

25. Malcontent and Nekkers, “Introduction,” 38–40.

26. van Dam, “A Civil Servant in Politics,” 110–111; and Malcontent, “Het blijft voortmodderen,” 188–190.

27. Hellema, “Shameful Institutions,” 119.

28. Malcontent and Nekkers, “Introduction,” 40–41. See also Dierikx, “Introductie,” xxvi.

29. Dierikx, “‘Mister Ontwikkelingshulp’,” 150; and Malcontent and Nekkers, “Introduction,” 43.

30. Wijmans, “De solidariteitsbeweging,” 121–140.

31. The following memoranda were analysed: Nota 1950, Nota betreffende de Nederlandse bijdrage aan het programma der Verenigde Naties voor technische hulp aan economisch laag-ontwikkelde landen, Handelingen Tweede Kamer, no. 1734, nota nr. 4 [Memorandum 1950]; Nota 1956, Nota inzake de hulpverlening aan minder ontwikkelde gebieden, Handelingen Tweede Kamer, no.4334, nota no. 2 [Memorandum 1956]; Nota 1962, Nota over de hulp aan minder-ontwikkelde landen, Handelingen Tweede Kamer, no. 6817, nota no. 1 [Memorandum 1962]; Nota 1966, Nota hulpverlening aan minder ontwikkelde landen, Handelingen Tweede Kamer, no. 8671, nota no 4 [Memorandum 1966]; Nota 1976, Nota bilaterale ontwikkelingssamenwerking – om de kwaliteit van de Nederlandse Hulp, Handelingen Tweede Kamer, 14.300, chapter V Buitenlandse Zaken, bijlage 4 [Memorandum 1976]; Nota 1979, Nota ontwikkelingssamenwerking in wereldeconomisch perspectief, Handelingen Tweede Kamer 16.400 [Memorandum 1979]; Nota 1984, Nota herijking bilateraal beleid, Handelingen Tweede Kamer 18.350 [Memorandum 1984]; Nota 1990, Nota een wereld van verschil – nieuwe kaders voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking in de jaren negentig, Handelingen Tweede Kamer 21.813, nota no 4 [Memorandum 1990]; Nota 1993, Nota Een wereld in geschil: De grenzen van de ontwikkelingssamenwerking verkend, Handelingen Tweede Kamer 23.408, nota no. 1–2 [Memorandum 1993]; Nota 2000, Nota ondernemen tegen armoede: Notitie over economie en ontwikkeling, Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2000-2001, 27 467, nr. 1 [Memorandum 2000]; Nota 2007, Nota een zaak van iedereen: Investeren in ontwikkeling in een veranderende wereld, Beleidsnotitie Tweede Kamer (2007) [Memorandum 2007]; Nota 2013, Nota wat de wereld verdient: Een nieuwe agenda voor hulp, handel en investeringen, Beleidsnota (2013) [Memorandum 2013].

32. Zeiler, “Opening Doors in the World Economy,” 218–222.

33. Judt, Ill Fares the Land, 47; Judt, Postwar, 73–77; and Hu and Manning, “The Global Social Insurance Movement.”

34. Kuitenbrouwer, “A Shining Example?,” 177.

35. Garavini, “The Colonies Strike Back,” 301; Hellema, Buitenlandse politiek, 202.

36. Memorandum 1950, 7–8.

37. Memorandum 1956, 4.

38. Kuitenbrouwer, “A Shining Example?,” 187; and Frey, “Control,” 227.

39. Arens, “Multilateral Institution-building and National Interest,” 464–466.

40. Memorandum 1962, 6.

41. Memorandum 1966, 23.

42. Memorandum 1966, 24–25.

43. Kuitenbrouwer, “A Shining Example?,” 183–200.

44. Memorandum 1979, 3.

45. Hellema, Buitenlandse politiek, 333.

46. Baneke and Jepma, “‘Dutch Interests and Development Interests,” 258; Beerends, 30 jaar Nederlandse ontwikkelingshulp, 62.

47. Breman, “Ontwikkeling en de kwaliteit van het bestuur.”

48. Memorandum 1993, 8.

49. Memorandum 2000, 27.

50. Memorandum 2013, 4.

51. Smits, “Main Topics of Dutch Development Policy,” 50.

52. Memorandum 1950, 8.

53. Beerends and Broere, De bewogen beweging, 21–22.

54. Memorandum 1956, 3.

55. Memorandum 1984, 5.

56. Memorandum 1990, 72.

57. Memorandum 1993, 8–10.

58. Inspectie Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en Beleidsevaluatie, Van projecthulp naar sectorsteun: Evaulatie van de sectorale benadering 1998–2005, The Hague, 2006.

59. Memorandum 2013, 24.

60. Memorandum 1950, 8–9.

61. Memorandum 1956, 4.

62. Memorandum 1962, 1.

63. J. Winkler, ‘Nu wij,’ Vrij Nederland, March 7, 1953.

64. Nederlandse Stichting voor Statistiek, Novib opinie-onderzoek, 6, 47.

65. de Goede, “Publieke opinie over ontwikkelingssamenwerking,” 36.

66. Memorandum 1950, 7.

67. Malcontent and Nekkers, “Introduction,” 31–34; and Baneke and Jepma, “Dutch Interests,” 255.

68. Memorandum 1976, 4–5.

69. Kuitenbrouwer, “A Shining Example?,” 180–182.

70. Memorandum 1976, 5.

71. Memorandum 1984, 5.

72. Memorandum 1993, 85.

73. Memorandum 2000, 6.

74. Memorandum 2013, 8–9.

75. Memorandum 1950, 8–9.

76. Arens, “‘Mission Interrupted?’”

77. Memorandum 1966, 7.

78. Constandse, “Nederland en de Sowjet-Unie,” 22–24.

79. Meijer, Oostindisch doof.

80. Kennedy, “Nederland als het meest progressieve land ter wereld.”

81. de Gaay Fortman, “De vredespolitiek van de radicalen.”

82. Kuitenbrouwer, “A Shining Example?,” 175; and Kuitenbrouwer and Schijf, “De koopman, de dominee en de ambtenaar,” 283.

83. de Gaay Fortman, “Nederland gidsland in noord–zuidbetrekkingen.”

84. Memorandum 2007, 5.

85. Memorandum 2013, 4.

86. Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth. Cf. McNeill, “The Environment.”

87. Memorandum 1976, 5.

88. Memorandum 1990, 72, 73.

89. Beerends and Broere, Bewogen beweging, 159–162.

90. Ibid., 162–163.

91. Buch-Hansen and Lauridsen, “The Past, Present and Future of Development Studies,” 297–298.

92. Memorandum 2007, 35–38.

93. Memorandum 2013, 4.

94. Memorandum 1966, 22.

95. Robertson, The Three Waves of Globalization; Mazlish and Iriye, “Introduction,” 4.

96. A similar tendency to avoid ideological debates by focusing on technocratic issues has also been attested to in the pragmatic style of politics which has dominated the Netherlands since the 1980s. Daalder, Van Oude en Nieuwe Regenten.

97. Cf. De Graaf et al., De Nederlandse buitenlandse politiek; and Kuitenbrouwer, “De rol van de mensenrechten.”