Restoring Sweden's lead role as aid country

In Dagens Nyheter's issue of April 3, 2010 two former heads of the Swedish Development Aid Agency (SIDA)criticised Aid Minister Gunilla Carlsson's direction vis-a-vis the country's development aid policy as being nonchalant and lacking in genuine commitment.

Former SIDA heads Go Göransson and Carl Tham of the Social Democratic government stated that " it requires more - not less -of international responsibility-taking, cooperation and solidarity" and that Sweden must retake it leading position in international discussions on development aid. Accordingly, Carlsson along with the Moderate party secretary suggested a cutdown of development aid to 0.7 percent of the GNP.

Carlsson is promoting an "epoch-making reforms" - meaning, going from "passive payment policy" to "active developmental aid policy". She also wants results and auditing with reference to previous policies which she says were without requirements. Göransson and Tham stated that Swedish aid was never without requirements and auditing. But measuring results posed a greater challenge especially if several donors are involved in the same project, not to mention the contributions by the receiving countries themselves.

The basic problem accordingly, lies in the societies that need the most help and it is in this area where Carlsson ought to begin her analysis and discussion. She presumably considers development aid as a political area where the main issue is not what underdeveloped countries need and what form of aid is appropriate but rather what the Moderates can win approval for at home with Swedish voters. Development aid money is being cut down without deeper analyses and discussion with aid donors. In Ms. Carlsson's counting, the recipients should come down from 70 to 33 countries.

Göransson and Tham also stated that SIDA today has around 200 regular employees as a result of its cutdown and that Carlsson was critical of this, discounting the fact that there are around 250 well-qualified local employees who deliver a better performance and expertise in the field.

The issue on Swedish development aid policy needs greater discussion especially in defining what "developmental aid policy" means in actuality, with reference to the impact of the economic and financial crises that affected many poor countries, as well as the current environmental problems that plague both poor and rich nations. The discussion, according to the writers should be based on facts and experiences and not on ideological solutions and media bluffs.#

Saving SAAB...Saving SAS

It has been a tiring start of the year for many involved parties in the gigantic task of saving first SAAB automobile and now saving SAS. For many small investors, the moments of anguish is even greater. It is not the intention just now to analyse what went wrong in the management of these blue chip companies and who did the worst damage that has led to the financial bleeding of both.

Today, Dagens Nyheter's editorial gave a pretty good analyses on the situation of SAS - the airline owned by the three Scandinavian countries. If one looks at the economies of these three owner-countries, one can only say that all three have handled well the financial crisis that nearly bankrupted the world economy. According to DN, the main problem of SAS lies in the composition of its major owners, the 30-plus unions sitting in the negotiation table and the difficulty of understanding just what, how and why decisions are made by whom among the major decisionmakers.

SAS has become a dinosaur that can hardly move in the tightly competitive aviation business. The service is bad if not lousy and for ordinary passengers expecting a modicum of comfort during travel time, SAS stands way back the other airlines in terms of service and competitive air ticket prices. Why is it so difficult to set standards of good service? What does it mean to be a Scandinavian airline as against an Asian airline?

SAS need saving, but how does one restructure an organisation that moves sluggishly? Where should the changes begin? What does the unions want? Until then, when such crucial management questions are answered then SAS is already doomed before it gets a new shot of billions in its arms#