"No One Owes Us Anything!"
What should be done about international aid to Africa?
More than 1 trillion dollars has been provided to African countries over the last several decades, in the form of humanitarian and developmental aid, yet almost every sub-Saharan country is worse off today than they were in 1950.
The average lifespan for most Africans is under 40 years, in some countries, under 35. Per capita income runs, on average, a few hundred dollars a year. Since 1950, tens of millions of Africans have died from famine, disease, and civil wars.
Despite the generosity of the west and the hard work of thousands of aid workers, Africa seems to slip further away from the rest of the world. It is clear that the model that has been in place for decades has not "worked".
But what is to be done? There is an interesting "point/counterpoint" over at bbc.com on the subject (links below).
Is the current amount of aid enough to "solve" Africa's problems? Or should we provide more?
Noted economist Jeffrey Sachs wants to ramp up aid dramatically , calling for a "massive push" over the next few years. While Sachs clearly has a "plan" that addresses the problems with aid distribution, (including massive micromanagement of the aid programs that would be funded with the increase in funds), he also makes it clear that the amount of aid provided has not been enough. In particular, he points to the wealthiest nation in the world:
"All donor countries, including the US, have committed to making concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7% of GNP in aid, but the US, unlike Europe, has not followed through."
(Last time I checked a map, France, Germany and Great Britain were all part of Europe. None of these countries have met the .7% commitment. Currently, only Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Holland and Sweden are at this level. A curious bit of misinformation on Sachs' part.)
OK, more aid, problem solved. Actually, it is hard not to want to agree with Sachs. Only the hardest heart would not want to help the poorest of the poor. And, for many in the West, "help" comes willingly with a dollar sign.
On the other hand, are we providing too much aid? Is the aid itself part of the problem? Have we made the poverty of Africa worse by creating a cycle of dependence and corruption?
Frederick Erixon, of the Swedish think tank Timbro wants to curtail aid, at least to the extent that it is tied to strict economic and political guidelines. He sees the African aid "project" as a failure.
"The new 'big push' of development aid has been tried many times before but always with dismal results. The call for redoubling aid to eradicate poverty has been responded to many times over, but it has never delivered what it promised.
In spite of more than US$1 trillion in aid to Africa over the last 50 years, the big push in development has yet to occur."
Why?
To Erixon, the system of providing massive aid to spur development itself is flawed.
"Why has aid failed to deliver higher economic growth for developing countries?
Partly because aid has not been spent in the way it was intended. Instead of gearing up investments, money was spent on current spending and public consumption - which, in turn, led to a rapidly growing public sector in the economy."
And, Erixon points out what seems to me to have been the "Achilles heel" of African economic development in the last 50 years, the embrace of socialist and Marxist economic policies:
"Needless to say, this strengthened other socialist tendencies in the economy and investment became, in many developing countries, mainly a government activity.
In addition, aid boosted fiscal budgets and led to a rapidly growing number of parastatals and state-owned enterprises. Largely supported by the donor community at the time, these soon became arenas of corruption and this corruption spread like wildfire to other parts of the society. "
Instead of feeding people, aid has fed bureacracy.
They say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", but the "good intentions" of the west and the aid world does not seem to have adequately paved the roads of Africa.
Erixon sees a solution in both a halt to additional aid, and strict guidelines for current, committed aid programs. He would rather focus on economic policies, such as trade agreements and the promotion of free markets. His mantra is "trade, not aid".
In the end, however, this is not a debate of "aid vs. no aid". Sachs will not guilt the US into .7% of its GNP, and Erixon will not see a dismantling of the aid industry. The debate is about and should be about "more aid vs. more accountability".
And, ultimately, neither Erixon or Sachs will be able to "solve" the problem of Africa. I am convinced that only Africans will be able to do this.
I have noted this before, in a post referencing an article by South African intellectual Moeletsi Mbeki.
Mbeki is one of a growing number of Africans that are calling for an end to what they see as a debilitating cycle of aid, dependence and corruption:
"Successful development in Africa will not be achieved by throwing more fuel on the flames. Merely handing more aid money to African governments only reinforces the pattern of abuse"
His solution involves developing and supporting western style economic solutions, including improved individual/private (as opposed to communal/state) land ownership rights, reduction in the notorious African red-tape and regulations related to business development, and more favorable trade agreements with established economies.
I have a feeling that this view, in Africa, is more common than is is generally thought. Africa may be "tragic" but I refuse to believe that Africans do not have the interest in, and capability of, fixing their own problems. This is not indifference on my part, it is faith in human perseverance and ingenuity.
A refreshing, (albeit obviously anti-aid) perspective can be found at the Nigerian blog African Bullets and Honey. The blog links a recent William Easterly article from Foreign Policy.com critical of the "aid industry", and offering views similar to Erixon's and Mbeki's.
(Read more of the posts at this site, however, for some great insight from someone born and raised in Africa. Westerners can be written off as cold and uncaring when they criticize aid, but what of Africans? )
Finally, while not explicitly referring to developmental aid, Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda, has an interesting response to a question from journalist Akinyi Arunga, that may hold the answer to this dilemma.
(Read this entire post as well, preferably after you have watched Hotel Rwanda. A brief but very interesting account of life in post-war Rwanda. )
Kagame, looking to the future of a country that may represent the iconic modern African tragedy, when asked about what Rwanda may have learned from "genocide", stated emphatically:
"No one owes us anything!"
This comment, to me, is not a reaction to the paternalism of donors, but a larger statement about the need, ultimately, to fix one's own problems.
This holds true for individuals, it is what we teach our children. And it holds true for nations....
Kagame:
"...he gave this answer very quickly and then continued to elaborate that if you make a habit of ignoring your problem, choosing not to understand it and then effectively deal with it, then the ultimate result is what happened in Rwanda."
Rather than looking to the west for answers, Kagame seems intent on looking at Rwanda, and perhaps Africa, itself.
In the long run, it is this attitude, not the largesse of the West, that will help solve Africa's problems.
More than 1 trillion dollars has been provided to African countries over the last several decades, in the form of humanitarian and developmental aid, yet almost every sub-Saharan country is worse off today than they were in 1950.
The average lifespan for most Africans is under 40 years, in some countries, under 35. Per capita income runs, on average, a few hundred dollars a year. Since 1950, tens of millions of Africans have died from famine, disease, and civil wars.
Despite the generosity of the west and the hard work of thousands of aid workers, Africa seems to slip further away from the rest of the world. It is clear that the model that has been in place for decades has not "worked".
But what is to be done? There is an interesting "point/counterpoint" over at bbc.com on the subject (links below).
Is the current amount of aid enough to "solve" Africa's problems? Or should we provide more?
Noted economist Jeffrey Sachs wants to ramp up aid dramatically , calling for a "massive push" over the next few years. While Sachs clearly has a "plan" that addresses the problems with aid distribution, (including massive micromanagement of the aid programs that would be funded with the increase in funds), he also makes it clear that the amount of aid provided has not been enough. In particular, he points to the wealthiest nation in the world:
"All donor countries, including the US, have committed to making concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7% of GNP in aid, but the US, unlike Europe, has not followed through."
(Last time I checked a map, France, Germany and Great Britain were all part of Europe. None of these countries have met the .7% commitment. Currently, only Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Holland and Sweden are at this level. A curious bit of misinformation on Sachs' part.)
OK, more aid, problem solved. Actually, it is hard not to want to agree with Sachs. Only the hardest heart would not want to help the poorest of the poor. And, for many in the West, "help" comes willingly with a dollar sign.
On the other hand, are we providing too much aid? Is the aid itself part of the problem? Have we made the poverty of Africa worse by creating a cycle of dependence and corruption?
Frederick Erixon, of the Swedish think tank Timbro wants to curtail aid, at least to the extent that it is tied to strict economic and political guidelines. He sees the African aid "project" as a failure.
"The new 'big push' of development aid has been tried many times before but always with dismal results. The call for redoubling aid to eradicate poverty has been responded to many times over, but it has never delivered what it promised.
In spite of more than US$1 trillion in aid to Africa over the last 50 years, the big push in development has yet to occur."
Why?
To Erixon, the system of providing massive aid to spur development itself is flawed.
"Why has aid failed to deliver higher economic growth for developing countries?
Partly because aid has not been spent in the way it was intended. Instead of gearing up investments, money was spent on current spending and public consumption - which, in turn, led to a rapidly growing public sector in the economy."
And, Erixon points out what seems to me to have been the "Achilles heel" of African economic development in the last 50 years, the embrace of socialist and Marxist economic policies:
"Needless to say, this strengthened other socialist tendencies in the economy and investment became, in many developing countries, mainly a government activity.
In addition, aid boosted fiscal budgets and led to a rapidly growing number of parastatals and state-owned enterprises. Largely supported by the donor community at the time, these soon became arenas of corruption and this corruption spread like wildfire to other parts of the society. "
Instead of feeding people, aid has fed bureacracy.
They say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", but the "good intentions" of the west and the aid world does not seem to have adequately paved the roads of Africa.
Erixon sees a solution in both a halt to additional aid, and strict guidelines for current, committed aid programs. He would rather focus on economic policies, such as trade agreements and the promotion of free markets. His mantra is "trade, not aid".
In the end, however, this is not a debate of "aid vs. no aid". Sachs will not guilt the US into .7% of its GNP, and Erixon will not see a dismantling of the aid industry. The debate is about and should be about "more aid vs. more accountability".
And, ultimately, neither Erixon or Sachs will be able to "solve" the problem of Africa. I am convinced that only Africans will be able to do this.
I have noted this before, in a post referencing an article by South African intellectual Moeletsi Mbeki.
Mbeki is one of a growing number of Africans that are calling for an end to what they see as a debilitating cycle of aid, dependence and corruption:
"Successful development in Africa will not be achieved by throwing more fuel on the flames. Merely handing more aid money to African governments only reinforces the pattern of abuse"
His solution involves developing and supporting western style economic solutions, including improved individual/private (as opposed to communal/state) land ownership rights, reduction in the notorious African red-tape and regulations related to business development, and more favorable trade agreements with established economies.
I have a feeling that this view, in Africa, is more common than is is generally thought. Africa may be "tragic" but I refuse to believe that Africans do not have the interest in, and capability of, fixing their own problems. This is not indifference on my part, it is faith in human perseverance and ingenuity.
A refreshing, (albeit obviously anti-aid) perspective can be found at the Nigerian blog African Bullets and Honey. The blog links a recent William Easterly article from Foreign Policy.com critical of the "aid industry", and offering views similar to Erixon's and Mbeki's.
(Read more of the posts at this site, however, for some great insight from someone born and raised in Africa. Westerners can be written off as cold and uncaring when they criticize aid, but what of Africans? )
Finally, while not explicitly referring to developmental aid, Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda, has an interesting response to a question from journalist Akinyi Arunga, that may hold the answer to this dilemma.
(Read this entire post as well, preferably after you have watched Hotel Rwanda. A brief but very interesting account of life in post-war Rwanda. )
Kagame, looking to the future of a country that may represent the iconic modern African tragedy, when asked about what Rwanda may have learned from "genocide", stated emphatically:
"No one owes us anything!"
This comment, to me, is not a reaction to the paternalism of donors, but a larger statement about the need, ultimately, to fix one's own problems.
This holds true for individuals, it is what we teach our children. And it holds true for nations....
Kagame:
"...he gave this answer very quickly and then continued to elaborate that if you make a habit of ignoring your problem, choosing not to understand it and then effectively deal with it, then the ultimate result is what happened in Rwanda."
Rather than looking to the west for answers, Kagame seems intent on looking at Rwanda, and perhaps Africa, itself.
In the long run, it is this attitude, not the largesse of the West, that will help solve Africa's problems.
posted by paul at 12:54 PM
9 Comments:
Nobody Knows What Blogging Is Nor Should They
Most of you have heard of this thing called blogging but that's because you work in areas where blogging is commonplace.
I thought this website would be helpful Gall Bladder
Did a search for info on "Screenplay Analysis", and this came up. As a screenwriter, story consultant, and authro, I'm just trying to connect to interesting people with interesting ideas, stories, etc. Never know where the next great idea may be hiding! Thanks!
i wonder where you are?
your blog gives food for thought
in the meantime, i'll see if it's the velocity or the location that's causing the glitch...
like the blog. Like the colors.
I have a corporate limousine service, site. It pretty much covers corporate limousine service, related stuff.
Come see it when you can please.
New Search Engines Help Users Find Blogs
OTHER FREE FEATURES The Easy Money People Ignore As open-enrollment season dawns, we review the four big excuses that people make for not setting money aside in flexible-spending accounts -- and we find them ...
Find out how you can buy and sell anything, like things related to music on interest free credit and pay back whenever you want! Exchange FREE ads on any topic, like music!
Paul
Once again, a wonderful and thought provoking write. I, though, am already sold on the idea that aid is a failing proposition. For supporters of the welfare state, it is a hard sell. The old "more money" mantra will never go away. It will not be seen for what it is, an unwitting form of oppression.
I Visit African bullets and honey often and quite enjoy MMK's writing and pros. I would also suggest his site right along with this one. Another good site is http://www.squattercity.blogspot.com/ although his updates of late has been a bit sporadic, it is a wonderful site.
African Bullets and Honey is a Kenyan Blog... Not Nigerian...
Good Writing!
Thank you for correcting that. I knew it, just didn't proof read enough.
It is impossible to describe solutions for Africa without acknowledging the problems associated with the historical legacy of colonialism.We think of the continent as some blank slate upon which we impose our modern economic systems, all very mechanical and engineered.Ideologues rail against collectivisation and the welfare state yet fail to acknowledge the devastating effects of neo-liberal economic policies of privitazation and export based commodification on Latin America,the ex-soviet nations or India.This "shock treatment" may benefit global capital but further oppresses the working class.
Post a Comment
<< Home