Is aid really the solution to Africa's problems?

[financeguy]

I remain to be convinced by the arguments of Bono, Geldof etc, and the Make Poverty History campaign. Can we be satisfied that Africa has got rid of corruption in its political classes? It is this corruption factor, more than anything else, that has Africa in the mess it's in, in my view.

Charity begins at home, I believe. U2 don't even pay taxes in their own country. I pay more income tax than Bono and I don't earn a lot.

Having said all that I fully agree with moves to liberalise trade and allow developing countries access to our markets.

As for the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, I say :- dismantle it.

Thoughts?

 

[melon]

Throwing money at Africa is how rich, Western nations feel better about themselves. And the only reason we even care about Africa is because we're afraid of getting AIDS from them; so, really, I'd say that most of the emphasis on Africa is latently self-serving.

Our real attitudes on Africa boil down to economics: when Africa is plunged in political chaos or a nation is seized by a dictator, we frankly don't care, because they are strategically and economically insignificant. But Iraq...oh well, now it turns into the end of civilization as we know it, if we don't "liberate" them!

As it stands, I find most political attitudes towards Iraq to be condescending, at least and self-serving, at best. In fact, blaming all of Africa's problems on AIDS is mainly a device to absolve the Western world from guilt. After all, their crumbing infrastructure, lack of sanitation, etc. is all because of AIDS! Yeah right.

Melon

 

[financeguy]

And the only reason we even care about Africa is because we're afraid of getting AIDS from them;

Well I'm not sure about that. Anyway, what's wrong with enlightened self interest?

 

[VertigoGal]

I agree with you on the corruption. Even if we were responsible for putting some of the dictators in place, there's still no point in giving them money. I do think increasing aid/dropping debt in those countries with a transparent democratic process is beneficial. Not only in helping that particular country, but in proving the benefits of democracy to other countries.

I feel your pain about the tax thing...if U2 paid all the taxes they've been exempt from for the past 20 years, you all could probably revamp your entire public education system or something.

 

[financeguy]

I feel your pain about the tax thing...if U2 paid all the taxes they've been exempt from for the past 20 years, you all could probably revamp your entire public education system or something.

Thanks for your response. On the tax thing, it's not a major gripe of mine. It wasn't as though U2 lobbied for it or anything, as it was introduced before they made it big.

But equally I don't see Bono out there making pronouncements arguing for it to be amended. Some might see his stance as hypocritical. Granted, U2 have given a net benefit to the economy and certainly a huge cultural benefit.

 

[verte76]

It seems like if enlightened self-interest fights a pandemic, it's not all bad. It might not be the loftiest of motives, but if it helps someone, why not?

 

[Dreadsox]

At the NE Anglican AIDS conference last fall....

Many groups came and presented their projects....

One of the founders of a project said very clearly that there was NO WAY around the corruption over there. That if there were an organization that was advertizing themselves to be such, that they were lying.

I liked his program because he works only with people he knows over there. He tries his best to make sure he has a personal relationship with the people in the community he is working.

 

[starsgoblue]

The corruption factor is such a huge myth. Africa's governance is poor because Africa is poor. I mean seriously, think about it.

Africans don't want aid forever. They want to be able to sustain themselves and climb up the development ladder, but the truth is, the way things are set up now they simply can't do it. The burden of debts, the fact that they can't trade in a free market, the fact that many are simply unable to sustain agriculture because they're dying from lack of a 20 cent immunization or clean water.....

The comment about charity beginning in the home....sure I can take that. But what's right is right...and that's universal. It's not a question of charity for what's going on in Africa to me at all...because the fact is that Africa wants to be equal to us and NOT have to rely on aid, but the way the situation is the rest of the world has them in a form of economic slavery.

 

[financeguy]

The corruption factor is such a huge myth. Africa's governance is poor because Africa is poor.

Not always. Nigeria has significant natural resources but its political classes have a history of corruption - Abacha, etc. I'm not saying this applies to other countries there.

 

[starsgoblue]

Everything seems to always come back to the idea of corruption and misrule. Let's try to think how it got to that state and what responsibility people besides Africans have as creating that. Western officials argue all the time that Africa simply needs to behave itself and allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers.

Western government enforced budget polices in Africa during the 80s and 90s. The IMF and World Bank nearly virtually ran the economic policies of the the African continent, usually through what was called 'structural adjustment programs'. These programs had very poor results and not much merit. By the begginging of the 21st century, Africa was even poorer than during the 1960s, when the IMF and World Bank first came to the scene.

The West should be more thoughtful of its own hand in some of Africa's situation: three centuries of slave trade, followed by colonial rule that left Africa void of a basic infrastructure and educated citizens, and the fact that Africa was used as a pawn in the Cold War.

This is my main point though. Criticizing Africa's governance is backwards. Even placing the blame fully on Western meddling isn't totally accurate either. Politics simply can't explain away Africa's prolonged economic crisis. There have been well governed African countries such as Ghana, Mali and Senegal that have failed to prosper, while definete corupt countries in other parts of the world such as Bangladesh have had accelerated economic growth. There is many factors involved here in Africa's plight....but just throwing up your hand and saying that the whole continent is corrupt and it'd be a waste to try and help isn't right.

 

[melon]

Well I'm not sure about that. Anyway, what's wrong with enlightened self interest?

Because our self interest is not solving their problems. Our "solution" is to pump them full of anti-HIV drugs, while ignoring their ineffectual governments and lack of infrastructure. Exposure to raw sewage and malaria will destroy an immune system just as effectively as HIV. Hell, even their malnutrition mirrors the lipodystrophy of anti-retroviral drugs.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

The corruption factor is such a huge myth. Africa's governance is poor because Africa is poor. I mean seriously, think about it.

Please explain why it is a myth? It either is or it isn't. When I meet with people who run organizations and travel there multiple times throughout the year admitting there is corruption, then why would it be a myth.

It is reality...there may be reasons for the reality, but that doe not make it a myth.

 

[VertigoGal]

I don't think corruption there is "a myth." Certainly some people convince themselves the entire continent is corrupt to make themselves feel better about doing nothing, even in transparent countries. But on the flipside, to say there is no corruption doesn't seem right.

 

[starsgoblue]

Corruption isn't the root....poverty is. Like I said before, Africa's governance is poor because Africa is poor. The whole economic problem there is a lot more complicated than just that ...Like I also said earlier there is plenty of example of corrupt countires in other parts of the world that have had rapid growth...

 

[Jamila]

I will try to find some time to enter this discussion personally, but until then, here is what DATA says about development assistance to Africa and how the programs that DATA has helped to develope with the Bush administration and which has been passed by Congress (but which remain WOEFULLY UNDERFUNDED) like PEPFAR and the MCA directly funnel monies into programs and governments in Africa who will use the money in prudent ways to help their people.

So a lot of the discussion is is made a bit mute because The ONE Campaign and other organizations (like Oxfam) who are doing the bulk of the advocacy work for Africa are ALREADY ADRESSING YOUR CONCERNS.

Here is the page from the DATA site:

The Development Assistance Crisis

Millions of people in Africa, and elsewhere around the world, depend on financial support from wealthy governments, the United Nations, and private organizations to provide basic necessities they cannot afford such as clean water, health care, textbooks and food. In the best cases, this assistance helps communities become more independent — so that in the long run, they won't need to rely on handouts. Too often, though, development assistance has been wasted, ineffective or given for the wrong reasons. As a result, “aid” has become a dirty word to some people. But effective aid, or development assistance, is one of the best investments we can make — in the lives of others and in our own future. We can do it better and we must do more of it.

Back in 1970, wealthy nations agreed that 0.7% of the money their countries made in a year (or Gross National Product — GNP) would be a fair amount to share with poor countries. That doesn’t sound like very much, but the richest nations aren’t even halfway to that target. Overall, they gave just 0.25% of national wealth for development assistance in 2003. Only five countries have reached the 0.7% target — Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The U.S., the world’s richest country, gives the smallest percentage of its wealth, 0.14%, to poor countries.

So what is development assistance trying to achieve? Is it just a bottomless pit? No. In 2000, world leaders committed to a set of concrete ‘Millennium Development Goals’ for all poorer countries — halving poverty, fighting AIDS, giving all children the chance to go to school and every person access to clean drinking water, among other things. But two-thirds of the poorest countries which are off-track and very unlikely to meet these goals are in Sub-Saharan Africa (that portion of Africa which is located south of the Sahara Desert).

The United Nations has estimated that Africa will need more than twice what it receives today in development assistance in order to reach these goals by 2015. But simply pouring more money is not the answer. In order to truly help Africa—and in order to make sure taxpayers’ money is not wasted—the quality of development assistance has to be improved as the quantity goes up. For example, much of the money given by rich countries to poor countries is actually ‘tied’ to the interests of rich government. This means that poor countries have to spend a portion of the money buying goods and services from the country that gave it, rather than giving them the option to shop around for the best value for money. This reduces the quality of much foreign aid considerably. One World Bank survey estimated that ‘tied’ aid was 20% less effective than untied aid. Studies also show that aid is also more effective if it is “country-owned”. This means that the recipient countries should be deciding how to spend the money for themselves after consulting with their citizens, especially the poorest groups.

WHAT MUST HAPPEN


The quantity of aid needs to be increased so that no country with clear and accountable plans lacks the necessary resources to provide basic health care or education. In particular, special emphasis must be placed on increasing resources for the fight against HIV/AIDS.


Funding the Millennium Development Goals means that we have to increase the current global amount for development assistance to an extra $75 billion a year. Governments need to make rapid progress towards 0.7 percent to reach this sum.


The quality of aid needs to be improved by ending the practice of “tied” aid that can only be spent on goods and services that come from wealthy nations. The quality can also be improved through better coordination amongst donor countries and by including groups which represent the poorest people in deciding how increased aid is spent.


Pledges that have been made to increase both the quantity and quality of assistance, like the U.S. Millennium Challenge Account, must be supported and fully funded.

 

[anitram]

Corruption isn't the root....poverty is.

No, they are both the root. They play into the same cycle and arguing here which is worse is like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg.

I have family in Africa, notably the stunningly beautiful nation of Namibia. I work with two people who are originally from Uganda, and one of my best friends spent most of her life in Kenya. They will all tell you tales of stunning corruption. They are regular people, two of them are incredibly well educated, both PhDs (one from King's College, London, another from the UofCape Town).

Corruption is most certainly not a myth. Bono will and has said as much himself. And for all his subtle and intelligent criticisms of Theroux, the man has made some stunningly accurate descriptions about the governance of many African nations.

 

[starsgoblue]

I feel as though some here are completley misunderstanding me...

 

[pax]

I don't think anyone's misunderstanding you, really...just that there are obviously a lot of views on a subject as complicated as that of Africa, and people have differing opinions on how to solve the problems there. All of which, I'm sure, are well-reasoned and compassionate theories.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Mark Steyn raises some good points in this opinion piece about Live8

The point is we all know Africa can produce wild, vibrant, exciting jungle rhythms. What's unclear is whether it can produce anything boring, humdrum and routine. Accountancy firms, for example. I mentioned in The Spectator a few weeks ago the extraordinary number of US tax returns that are now prepared by accountants in India.

Small hospitals in America have their patients' CAT scans analysed overnight by radiologists in India. These and a thousand other niche businesses were not facilitated by government leaders meeting at international summits. That said, government leaders did not actively obstruct their creation and growth, as governments do all over the Dark Continent.

According to the World Bank's Doing Business report, in Canada it takes two days to incorporate a company; in Mozambique, it takes 153 days. And Mozambique's company law has been unchanged since 1888. In the midst of the unending demands that Bush do this, Blair do that, do more, do it now, would it be unreasonable to suggest that, after 117 years, the government of Mozambique might also be obligated to do something about its regulatory regime?

Meanwhile, next door in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe's government is being given hundreds of thousands of tons of emergency supplies from the UN's World Food Programme. At the press conference, James Morris, head of the WFP, was at pains to emphasise that the famine was all due to drought and Aids, and certainly nothing to do with Mr Mugabe's stewardship of the economy. Some of us remember that during the 2002 G8 summit, also devoted to Africa, Zimbabwe's government ordered commercial farmers to cease all operations.

The issue in Africa in every one of its crises - from economic liberty to Aids - is government. Until the do-gooders get serious about that, their efforts will remain a silly distraction. But, if you want some black music to cheer up the silly distraction, I recommend the lyrics of Andy Razaf, nephew of Queen Ranavalona III of Madagascar. If they ever clean up their kleptocratic act, Ain't Misbehavin' would make a great group anthem for Africa's heads of state. Until then, more than a few of their hapless peoples must wonder, "What Did I Do to be so Black and Blue?"

link

 

[anitram]

Mark Steyn sometimes brings up some interesting points (and I agree with him on a number here).

However, he more often than that sounds like an ignorant racist hick and even in this, relatively restrained article, I can see it popping up. I'm somewhat familiar with his writings since he was being published in that rag, the National Compost, and he has multiply made comments which were either borderline racist or completely unwarranted.

I really kind of cringe when I see his name mentioned.

 

[melon]

Yeah...the "Queen Ranavalona III" comment is pretty racist, considering she's been dead since 1917 and Madagascar has been a democracy for most all of its time since gaining independence in 1960.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that context can be important, I have read Steyn for a few years now first in articles published in 'The Australian' and subsequently online and I have not really come across anything that I would consider racist; I would distinguish between some of the sarcasm that peppers articles and 'statements of fact' that are racist, context is key. Writing ilicits different responses, I would not consider him to be on par with say Victor Davis Hanson in terms of historical analysis but his columns are lively enough on specific issues to warrant some attention (the almost hysterical treatment of the EU, UN for instance).

 

[melon]

Potentially racist comments aside, there's some interesting points in there. We need to make African nations partially responsible for the mess there. There's the potential for African nations to get lazy on Western aid and downright refuse to fix anything.

I'm reminded of the Northwest Territories/Nunavut in Canada, where the Canadian government, with all the best intentions, forced the Inuit et al. to settle and made them fat on welfare. Now they have a high suicide rate and spend a lot of their time getting drunk and high off of inhalants, because they've got nothing to do.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

Government paternalism really does a lot of harm with native people, in Australia we have an almost identical situation with Aborigines ~ welfare dependence, petrol sniffing, prison and poor healthcare and life expectancy. It is impossible to get property ownership off the ground so the cycle continues down the generations regardless of how much money is spent or how many people give a compassionate head tilt about their plight.

 

[trevster2k]

Government corruption is one aspect in the difficulty of Africa to climb out of poverty but of course not the only one. I am sure everyone who has posted here does not think it is the sole reason for the problems. Geography, climate, social norms, discrimination, debt repayment, trade laws, and infrastructure all have an impact on the ability of many African nations to compete with the industrialized world.

But when people are dying because they don't have a mosquito net or a simple vaccine, then aid is an attempt to assist with a basic survival need. Many parts of the impoverished world aren't thinking about how to open a business or compete, they are just trying to survive the day through any means necessary. Of course, I don't mean all of Africa before anyone jumps on me for saying all of Africa is in extreme poverty. But much of the continent is suffering and doesn't have the time or resources to focus on organizing a democratic government in a nice tidy box.

Many people have advocated for Iraq's debt to forgiven and Iraq is in far better shape than many of the countries in Africa. It is a complex problem with a complex solution requring contributions from governments, NGOs, citizens and private business. Will foreign aid be the solution? No, but it helps along with debt forgiveness and other instruments of assistance to lead to an eventual solution. We cannot have an entire continent living decades behind the rest of the world and allow millions to die over the next decades because of politics. Although I fear that nothing will come of it because humanity has yet to embrace itself as one entity, we still see in colours.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Of course we see in colours, Africa is in the red.

 

[nickypiemcg]

It surprises me when people talk about corruption in Africa as an excuse for their problems. Every country is corrupt to a certain degree. People are generally corrupt. We may have attained a certain level of non-corruption but it still goes on in the west all the time, how many people think that some police and public officials don't take bribes for example. International banks seem to be quite happy to let certain corrupt African leaders launder money through them and they are western organisations. I think we have to accept that a certain amount of aid money is going to fall into the wrong hands. It would be unrealistic to think that all the money is going to go to it's intended target.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But what if that aid money entrenches the corruption, then you are supporting these fundamentally flawed systems of governance making it even harder for these countries to get out of aid dependence.

 

[BostonAnne]

I remain to be convinced by the arguments of Bono, Geldof etc, and the Make Poverty History campaign. Can we be satisfied that Africa has got rid of corruption in its political classes? It is this corruption factor, more than anything else, that has Africa in the mess it's in, in my view.

Charity begins at home, I believe. U2 don't even pay taxes in their own country. I pay more income tax than Bono and I don't earn a lot.

Having said all that I fully agree with moves to liberalise trade and allow developing countries access to our markets.

As for the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, I say :- dismantle it.

Thoughts?

I'm sure I'm repeating someone here, as I didn't read through the thread.

DEBT
The debts that need to be dropped were incurred by corrupt leaders a generation or so ago. We should not make the children of these leaders pay back money that never even benefited them. Instead of spending their money on old debt, they should be spending it on infrastructure, education, health care.

AIDS (and other financial assistance)
AID is being given with conditions. Countries that have proven that they have gotten rid of corruption receives most of the aid. Africa is being held accountable for the money it receives in aid.

TRADE
I see that you already realize the importance of fair trade.


financeguy, read what has been working:

http://www.data.org/whyafrica/whatworks/

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I think the title of this thread is misleading. Is aid really the solution (singular) to Africa's problems (plural)? Of course not. We are talking about a lot of different problems, some related, some unrelated, some simple, others unfinitely complex. But can aid make a difference? Can it help solve some of the problems and create some of the conditions for a future resolution of others? Yes it can.

I know there is corruption. I see it here everyday. Hell, most of my colleagues at work whom I like and enjoy being with are corrupt. But I think it has more to do with the fact that they are poor and living in a society where there is no future, no reward for hard work, where it's who you know rather than what you know that gets you ahead, not because they are lazy bastards that just want to sit around and get handouts. Imagine that you are the head of an African family living in the capital city. You work for the government as some basic clerical worker. You are expected to support not only your nuclear family but any extended family that decides to uproot and move to the city, as well as send money back to ma and pa and the myriad of relatives back in the village. And you're getting paid a salary that doesn't even start to cover the cost of your lodging, let alone food and transport, clothes for your kids and school costs. Not only that, but when you go to get your salary, you have to pay off the guy that is handing it out...that's right...you have to pay in order to get paid! Are you going to keep playing fair and ignore an opportunity to take your piece of the pie, should it become available? Of course not!

So given that corruption is a reality of life, what is the solution? Well, again, there is not one hard and fast solution, but having an economy where there are jobs to be had would be a start. That way you wouldn't have ten people sitting around being fed by a single bread-winner. Having a justice system that punishes corruption and treats the rich and poor as equals would also be essential. Having an education system so that people can read and write, are aware of their rights and have the ability to become fully functioning members of society also would be important. Having a healthcare system so that children could live past the age of five without dying of malaria and dysentary, encouraging parents to have less children, this would also be necessary. All of these things and more are crucial. And for many of the poorest nations in the world, including where I live, these are unavailable to them because they quite simply DO NOT have the resources. And whatever resources they have are being sucked up in incessant debt repayments.

So is aid necessary? I guess we will all draw our own conclusions, but I would submit that for the moment, to stand back and do nothing is not an option. By all means, we must continue to look for the best ways to distribute aid and to ensure equal and fair reception, but I don't think that just writing off Africa and telling it to get its act together before we will help is a moral choice I want to make.

That's just how I see it from where I am standing. In Africa.