After reading and annotating pages 3-28 of the book, please post responses to the following questions:
1. Describe “emergency aid” mentioned by Moyo and if she think that this is effective?
2. Explain how Moyo breaks down post-war aid into her “seven broad categories” Why does she think aid granted to Europe after WWII worked better there than it would in Africa today?
3. Why does Moyo think Africa was “ripe for aid” by the end of the 1950’s?
4. How did the US and USSR compete in Africa during the Cold War? Explain your answer.
5. According to “Dead Aid”, why did Britain and France start aiding African countries after the flood of independence on the continent in the 1950’s and 1960’s?
6. How did the 1973 oil embargo cause a deterioration of poor African economies?
7. What did the IMF do in the developing world in the 1980’s to stave off an economic meltdown brought on by the 1979 oil crisis? Do you think Moyo is suggesting that this helped the situation in Africa? Why or why not?
8. How did the end of the Cold War in the 1990’s affect the “aid agenda for the continent?”
Monday, April 15, 2013
"Dead Aid" -Reading Questions pages 3-28-
After reading and annotating pages 3-28 of the book, please post responses to the following questions:
1. Describe “emergency aid” mentioned by Moyo and if she think that this is effective?
2. Explain how Moyo breaks down post-war aid into her “seven broad categories” Why does she think aid granted to Europe after WWII worked better there than it would in Africa today?
3. Why does Moyo think Africa was “ripe for aid” by the end of the 1950’s?
4. How did the US and USSR compete in Africa during the Cold War? Explain your answer.
5. According to “Dead Aid”, why did Britain and France start aiding African countries after the flood of independence on the continent in the 1950’s and 1960’s?
6. How did the 1973 oil embargo cause a deterioration of poor African economies?
7. What did the IMF do in the developing world in the 1980’s to stave off an economic meltdown brought on by the 1979 oil crisis? Do you think Moyo is suggesting that this helped the situation in Africa? Why or why not?
8. How did the end of the Cold War in the 1990’s affect the “aid agenda for the continent?”
1.
ReplyDeleteEmergency aid is a form of aid where money and supplies are “mobilized and dispensed in response to catastrophes and calamities.” There are both pros and cons to this form of aid but the cons greatly outweigh the benefits. The positives would be quick relief to a shaken area and the ability to purchase necessarily supplies, but the downsides are summarized as “poor implementation, high administrative costs and are coerced to do donor government’s bidding.” This means that as necessary as emergency aid is, the job is not done very efficiently in some cases. Thankfully, Moyo mentions that it is not as harmful to the suffering countries as large systematic cash transfers from rich countries are.
2.
“Post- war aid can be broken down into seven broad categories: its birth at Bretton woods in the 1940’s; the era of the Marshall Plan in the 1950’s; the decade of industrialization of the 1960’s; the shift towards aid as an answer to poverty in the 1970’s; aid as the tool for stabilization and structural adjustment in the 1980’s; aid as a buttress of democracy and governance in the 1990’s; culminating in the present-day obsession with aid as the only solution to Africa’s myriad of problems. Moyo believes that aid granted to Europe after WWII worked better because of the Marshall plan, but even more importantly, there was a presence of social, political, and economic stability. Despite the obvious war-torn areas, Europe had been much more stable before the war, and it was clear that the country needed a loan to meet that area once again. Aid, just like anything else, will be dealt with in a much more organized and efficient manner if there is a concrete foundation.
3.
Moyo believes that Africa was ripe for aid because of the make up of the continent at the time. She mentions, “The continent was characterized by a largely uneducated population, low-salaried employment, a virtually non-existent tax base, poor access to global markets and derelict infrastructure.” Due to the great success of the Marshall plan, many assumed that Africa would surely be a similar target for aid.
4.
The US and the USSR competed “economically on foreign soil” through aid to Africa. It is not clear what the true motivations to Africa were, but it was speculated that Aid was the tool used to turn the world capitalist or communist. Essentially each country fought for control over African nations in a political sense, whether it be with the communist Patrice Lumumbia in Congo and Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethopia or the Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko.
5.
ReplyDeleteBritain and France started aiding African countries after their independence to “maintain strategic geopolitical holds.” Essentially, they wanted to keep their once owned land, but since they could not physically possess the countries, Aid provided a way to economically control the area.
6.
The oil embargo increased the price of oil worldwide, spinning the market into turmoil. This forced poor African economies to start borrowing even more money. In addition, food prices began to rise and scarcity increased, making it very difficult to afford food for most of the continent. Lastly, Ghanas GDP contracted by 12%, and inflation rose from 3% in 1970 to 30% in 1975 to 116% in 1977.
7.
In response to the economic meltdown from the oil crisis, and failed previous plans for reconstruction, the IMF formed the Structural Adjustment Facility in order to lend money to defaulting nations to help them repay what they had owed. Moyo suggests that instead of easing the pain of debt, it actually forced the nations deeper into a hole. This happened because it increased the poor countries’ aid-dependence, when really countries need a finite loan, instigating the necessity of economic independence.
8.
The majority of the aid during the Cold War was focused around Africa as there was competition for political control (Communist vs. Capitalist) and it was projected that the Soviet Union had donated roughly $300 million a year, 58% to Ethiopia. As it came to an end, African aid began to simmer down allowing “donors to pick and choose when, why, and whom they doled out aid-if at all.”
1. Emergency aid is a dispensed and mobilized response to disasters. Moyo believes that even though there are "obvious and fundamental merits" (7) to the distribution of emergency aid, the programs implementing these aid programs are often heavily criticized for poor implementation and high implementation costs of their work. Also, she states that many emergency aid programs come with "strings attached." (7) The aid given by these organizations could not be distributed amongst other programs within Africa; there are strict stipulations as to what the money can be used for and what percentage of the donated money must go where. All this being said, Moyo highlights her opinion that emergency aid based organizations, even though the intention is good, are providing more harm than help for the countries and governments within Africa.
ReplyDelete2. The seven broad categories of post-war aid highlight the transformation and growth of donations and aid. Moyo refers to these categories like one referring to the developmental stages in life. For example, Moyo states that aid was "born" at Bretton Woods in the 1940's, then proceeds to explain the "Marshall Plan in the 1950's; the decade of industrialization of the 1960s; the shift towards aid as an answer to poverty in the 1970s; aid as the tool for stabilization and structural adjustment in the 1980s; aid as a buttress of democracy and governance in the 1990s; culminating in the present-day obsession with aid as the only solution to Africa's myriad of problems." (10) As time progresses the concept of aid changes, seen throughout every decade starting from the 50s. In her breakdown of post war aid strategies, Moyo explains the stark differences between aid given to Europe shortly after the second world war and the aid given to Africa. After the war in Europe there was massive social, political, and economical instability which, with the help of aid infusions from the United States, was able to be fixed. Unlike Africa, the aid given to Europe was "going into already existing physical, legal and social infrastructures which simply needed fixing," (11) or in other words the aid given by the World Bank "targeted reconstruction, rather than development." (11) This is alone the biggest difference between the aid effectiveness in Africa versus the aid effectiveness in Europe. Since Africa was once an entire colonial ruled continent, after countries gained independence there was no government, legal system, or social system in place. The aid that proved to be so effective in rebuilding Europe is not so effective (if at all effective) in Africa today do to the stark contrasts in the development of the continent.
3. Africa was so "ripe for aid," according to Moyo, because of the success the infusion of aid in Europe. The aid given to Europe after the second world war helped to essentially revive the failing continent. After the success of rebuilding Europe the United States adopted the idea of: if aid infusions revived Europe, "why couldn't it do the same everywhere else?" (13) With this question the West sought out to "save" Africa because the entire continent was characterized by a "largely uneducated population, low-salaried employment, a virtually non-existent tax base, poor access to global markets and derelict infrastructure." (13) Since this continent was so obviously suffering the United States assumed that the success of rebuilding Europe could be easily translated into saving Africa from a sense of impending financial doom. At the end of the 1950's "foreign aid was seen as the only way to trigger higher investment, from which would thus lead to higher economic growth." (13)
4. The US and USSR fought for a growing presence in Africa which would be representative of geopolitical power, it was the "key tool in the contest to turn the world capitalist or communist." (14) The USSR and the US distributed aid as a means to gather political support -- to attempt to convince a country to choose a political side regardless of the relevance to the country's needs. As Moyo characterized, aid took on a new and complex dimension: aid was distributed not based upon "how deserving a country might be or the nature of its leadership, but rather the willingness of a desperately impoverished country to ally itself with one camp or another." (14) Unfortunately, distributing aid under these pretenses shelters underlying motives and false intentions proving to be ultimately harmful. The US funded the leaders of the countries that were in "support" of capitalism and the USSR funded the leaders of the countries that were in support of communism, such as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Africa was seen as the only "unsettled" place in the world, the only place where countries could be influenced by money to choose one geopolitical side over the other.
ReplyDelete5. Britain and France used aid as a means to combine their new-found sense of altruism and maintaining geopolitical holds. France and Britain both sought to maintain a presence in Africa, despite the fact that the countries in Africa were moving away from the colonialism era into the independence era. As Moyo stated, "Independent [the countries] may have been on paper, but independence dependent on the financial largesse of their former colonial masters was the reality." (14) With the switch of attention toward Africa, France and Britain were able to maintain geopolitical interests within Africa due to the simple fact that by providing aid to these countries, they were allowing both groups (the British, French, and Africans) to have what they want -- geopolitical strength and independence.
6. The 1973 oil embargo caused a massive chain of reactions. The oil exporting countries were receiving huge sums of money which they in then turn deposited to international banks. These international banks in then turn sought to lend the money deposited to the developing world. However, what the international banks did not account for was the following: severe drop of interest rates, the rapid increase of food prices, and a gripping recession to take hold. The amount of lending to the poorest and the most un-creditworthy countries within Africa was the root cause the economic deterioration. The recession that gripped the continent encouraged the countries with the poorest economies to start borrowing even more in order to attempt to repay previous debts.
7. The IMF, in order to prevent increases unemployment, increase in inflation, and further economic depression, restructured the debt. Through the formation of the group Structural Adjustment Facility the IMF sought to lend money to defaulting nations to help them repay what they owed. Moyo states that even though the restructuring of the debt was necessary "the end result only served to increase poor countries' aid-dependence and put them deeper into debt." (19) The reality of the situation created by the IMF only recreated a different form of the aid-model which proved to be ineffective in the past. Many African countries that were effected by the restructuring go the IMF debt had been reduced to a state of near destitution and renewed dependency which brings them farther from their goal of independence.
ReplyDelete8. The end of the Cold War signified the transition from aid given for maintaing geopolitical control to aid being given because it was the "moral" thing to do for Africa because Africa didn't seem capable to achieve prosperity itself. The idea that good governance was the root of Africa's problems also emerged followed quickly by a willingness of international donors to give African country leaders money in order to "realize their dreams." (23) In general, when referring to good governance, one is referring to a nearly impossible thing/idea to achieve -- good governance is a euphemism for strong and credible institutions, transparent rule of law and economies free of rampant corruption. Yes this is what Africa as a continent lacks, however, don't all countries lack good governance to a certain extent?
1) Emergency aid is a large transference of food, financial and financial aid that is usually a direct response to an emergency, such as a flood or armed conflict. These forms of aid, while morally sound, tend to be fairly ineffective. The funds are often severely mismanaged and much of the actually benefit from the aid fails to reach those who need it; instead, it is directed into the pockets of corrupt officials or is blown on projects that do nothing to deal the problem at hand.
ReplyDelete2) Moyo breaks down the history of aid into seven stages; “it’s birth at Bretton Woods in the 1940’s; the era of the marshal plan in the 1950’s; the decade of industrialization in the 1960’s; the shift toward aid as an answer to poverty in the 1970’s; aid as a tool for stabilization and structural adjustment in the 1980’s; as a buttress for democracy and governance in the 1990’s; culminating in the present day obsession with aid as the only solution to Africa’s myriad of problems.” There are two key reasons that Moyo gives to explain why aid for a post WWII Europe was more effective than current aid in Africa the first is that the nature of the problems that the two areas faced were vastly different. Though it had been ravaged by war, post WWII Europe already had legal, fiscal and tangible infrastructure in place, while many parts of Africa do not. This means that American aid in Europe only had to make repairs, while the aid In Africa had the much more difficult task of building a system from the ground up. The other reason Moyo gives is the Marshal plan. The fact that there was a concrete plan of action, enabled the aid in Europe to be used more effectively than the aid that is presently being used Africa.
3) There are several reasons that Africa was ripe for aid at the end of the 1950’s. Africa had huge rates of unemployment, horrible levels of education, poor infrastructure, and virtually no financial institution. Seeing the success of the Marshall plan, much of the west assumed that these social ills could be solved by aid just as well as Europe’s had.
4) As the cold war began to ramp up, Africa became an important geopolitical battlefield. Both the US and the USSR wanted the strategic asset that Africa provided and used aid to secure these assets. Both nations began the practice of bankrolling friendly African nations under the guise of providing aid. America and England propped nations like South Africa, while the USSR did the same with Africa’s burgeoning communist countries.
5) Britain and France began funneling aid to Africa because they wanted to continue to have influence over their former colonies. While the nations were now technically independent states, their former rulers wanted to maintain some of their old power, and aid was the easiest way achieve it.
6) The massive increase in oil prices that the oil embargo caused devastated many developing African countries. The price of food exploded across the continent, inflation began to increase, GDP fell and many nations slumped into recession.
7) In order to prevent a large number of developing nations from going bankrupt and the Global economy that this would result in, the IMF restructured the debt of said nations. This meant that struggling nations would receive very cheap loans to help pay off the debts that were destroying their economies. While Moyo admits that this was absolutely necessary in the short term to prevent another global economic depression, in the long term Moyo says that this policy lead to many African nations becoming more dependent on foreign aid.
8) The end of the cold war marked the end of international aid being given as a front for bankrolling nations. Many corrupt despots who had previously enjoyed the full backing of either the US or the USSR, found their inflows of cash going dry. It also opened the doorway for international organizations and individual donors, to dictate where funds went.
1. Moyo describes emergency aid as money distributed during “catastrophes and calamities.” She says that there can be different types of emergency aid, including, charity based and systematic aid. Charity-based aid is collected by charities and organizations and given to either other organizations or directly to the victims. Systematic aid is when governments pay the victimized government that is suffering. She says that although emergency aid can be inefficient and not extremely helpful in the long run, it is still “a good thing.” In other words, it can make a positive impact, but isn’t something significant enough to talk about.
ReplyDelete2. Moyo’s “seven broad categories,” for post-war aid include, the Bretton Woods conference, the Marshall Plan, industrialization in the 60’s, the “shift towards aid as an answer to poverty”, “aid as a tool for stabilization and structural adjustment”, and aid as a way to initiate democracy. These categories of aid took place during a time span of more than half of a century, highlighting both positive and negative impacts on the countries receiving aid and the changes in reason to supply aid abroad. Moyo suggests that Africa will not have the same, successful outcome that Europe did after receiving aid from the United States. After WWII, Europe was demolished in more ways than one. Although there were many cities to rebuild and economies to strengthen throughout the European nations, the funding given by the United States brought Europe back on its feet in a matter of years. The aid given to Europe acted as a “kickstarter” to quicken their progress in becoming what they once were. The scenario in Africa is different because the problems need efficient solutions and plans for change before they can be solved. Throwing money at a problem without considering the impact it might have on the cultures, common livelihoods and trades, and the government corruption first, shows that the monetary aid going toward Africa may not be the most effective use of the funds.
3. The success in Europe after WWII, led America to believe that aid could bring political stability, give hope, and even benefit itself. (pg. 12) The United States essentially looked to the rest of the world to pinpoint areas that could also benefit from aid. In the 1950’s, Africa was known in the U.S. to be a continent with weak economies, “poor access to global markets”, (13) and uneducated, unemployed citizens, who lived in areas with little to no infrastructure. Because the U.S. could see potential for a thriving Africa, and because they had seen proven success with Europe, it became a new goal to deliver aid to Africa.
4. Moyo says that, “...much of the battle for world hegemony between the US and USSR was fought economically and on foreign soil. The choice of weapon-- aid. Africa saw many such battles. Aid became the key tool in the contest to turn the world capitalist or communist.” (14) This statement sums up the main reason how the United States and USSR were both involved in Africa during the Cold War. The two countries would “aid” the different African countries according to which “side” they were on, either capitalist or communist. Though it was common on both sides to gather other countries as their allies, Africa was a perfect place to look for nations that were at the time, neither capitalist nor communist to begin with.
5. Though the newly independent countries wanted their freedom from their former colonizers, they could always benefit from creating a strong relationship with them and as a result, receive aid. I think that this situation probably flowed smoothly seeing as it was a symbiotic relationship. Britain and France were able to maintain their “strategic geopolitical holds” on these countries, and the African countries were able to start thriving on their own as an independent nation, with some financial help from France and Britain.
6. A series of bad decisions and results catapulted the poor African economies, along with much of the world, into further despair. The oil embargo appeared to be reliable, anticipating that those profiting mass sums of money from oil would put the money into the developing countries. However, poverty levels skyrocketed as a result of the embargo. The interest rates and high prices for food made it difficult for the poorest African economies to climb out of the inevitable spiral downward. The only option for these countries was to borrow even more money to simply survive, resulting in an enormous amount of debt.
ReplyDelete7. The IMF created the Structural Adjustment Facility which was supposed to serve the purpose of providing loans to struggling countries on the brink of bankruptcy. However, like many of the foreign aid payments do, these loans actually had a reverse effect, and made the struggling countries’ ability to pay back the loan more difficult. When taking into account the high interest rates, the loss of money in the foreign exchange, and the complete dependency of another wealthier country, these poorer African economies will again, suffer more than they had previously. In this endless cycle of building debt, the African countries become completely dependent on the developed, western nations that are lending the funds, which reverts the African country almost back into the days of colonialism.
8. Because millions of dollars were spent on Africa by both the US and the USSR, when the Cold War did finally end, so did the aid. This shocked the main recipients of the aid, seeing a large source of financial income suddenly evaporate. However, this led to the instigation of aid being used as a way to ensure democratic and/or well governed societies in Africa, which later evolved into an African-aid obsessed era.
1. Moyo believes that foreign aid is helping to a certain extent, but not enough to make a greater impact as a whole continent. Moyo writes, “Africa growth rates averaging 5% a year…is still short of the 7% that needs to be sustained to make substantial inroads into poverty reduction.” Foreign aid becomes restricted from helping certain causes and groups of people. This is definitely a problem since the “World Vision had spent less than a quarter of the US $100 million it had raised” and still has lingering money to help people in need. Moyo still views the aid as having a positive impact because without it the countries would be in even greater despair.
ReplyDelete2. Moyo believes that the post-war aid was effective in providing relief to Europe after WWII because the country had already initiated the Marshall Plan, which brought “strong economic footing, and providing the US with the vehicle to influence foreign policy”. Unfortunately this plan did not work for Africa because the investment capital was too heavily dependent on economic growth, which Africa had not achieved unlike Britain.
3. Because Africa was “characterized by a largely uneducated population, low-salaried employment, a virtually non-existent tax base, poor access to global markets and derelict infrastructure” made it certain that Africa was desperate for a new beginning and needed aid to achieve this.
4. We see that the US and USSR provided aid during the Cold War to ultimately gain political support from the country and this was continued in Africa to secure all economic, political, and social aspects for the US and USSR’s own self interests.
5. Britain and France started aiding African countries in order to conserve and sway the newly independent nations. They feared that without little control over the countries they would fail; but if they were successful, Britain and France would take credit.
6. The oil embargo “produced financial pressures of insurmountable proportions”. Oil prices skyrocketed, which caused other products to become inflated that ultimately put a hold on the weak African economies.
7. The IMF basically set up a system where nations would borrow money, which eventually would be paid back, but could help them in the short term because of the recent oil crisis. Moyo suggests that these loans helped cease the situation in Africa but did not pave the way for a long-term sustainable future, thus causing Africa to rely on foreign economic aid that brought them into further debt.
8. After the end of the Cold War complete foreign aid began to halt because these nations were now completely “independent”. Also, the foreign aid could not last forever, but that is not to say that private donations were not accepted.
1.) Emergency Aid is essentially a sudden spurt of money or materials that a country or organization needs (i.e. medical supplies, food, etc.) after something devastating occurs. A recent example of emergency aid was when foreign governments and NGOs alike donated a large amount of resources after the earthquake hit Haiti. Though Moyo feels as if there may be a place for emergency aid in some situation, she also thinks there are some fundamental issues with it. Namely, this form of aid is inefficient, a lot of it gets tied up in organizations, and it is very hard to disperse.
ReplyDelete2.) Moyo breaks down the 7 categories of aid into generations. Essentially, she explains each decade of aid in Africa as having different motivations or objectives. Not only was the Marshall plan detailed in its objectives, Europe as a whole, though torn apart by the war, had a pre-existing fabric of solid government, stratified society, and good social systems. Moyo attributes the success of postwar European aid to the strong societal foundation of Europe. When aid in postwar Europe and aid in Africa are compared Moyo highlights the lack of a strong social and government system in Africa. In essence, since many parts of Africa don’t have a strong and consistent government then aid is often lost to corrupt officials or never reaches the intended target.
3.) It is said that Africa was “ripe” for aid at the end of the 1950s due to several conditions: poor infrastructure, lack of access to international markets, low-salaried people, no tax base, and poorly educated people. All of these conditions when combined make for a situation that appears to lend itself well to aid.
4.) The US and Soviet Union competed for a presence in Africa. Basically, both countries provided aid all over Africa for the implicit goal of spreading political ideals. That is, when the soviets provided aid to countries those countries were more likely led to be communist. Whereas places the US provided aid too were more likely to lean in a democratic direction. This created an interesting dimension to aid as it was unclear what the true motives were for generous aid.
5.) According to Dead Aid European countries, namely Britain and France, started major aid campaigns in the 50’s and 60’s. The motives for this giving are slightly blurred. It is said that a lot of this aid was for the indirect, or direct for some, reason of having strong geopolitical holds. Basically, aid was a way that they could implicitly stay in control and ensure a good strategic foothold.
6.) During the 1973 embargo oil prices, for obvious reasons (supply & demand), shot up. This meant that countries, companies, and individuals had less disposable income; therefore, the funds that would have been allocated to aid were now non-existent. Moreover, the increase in oil prices caused African governments to borrow and thus increase debt. This debt and the cost associated with it (interest rates) became debilitating.
7.) In response to more oil caused economic turbulence, the IMF created a program that restructured developing nations debt and helped them repay what they already owed. Though this may appear to be beneficial for developing nations, it actually had an adverse effect. In essence, all this external management caused Africa to be even more dependent on aid.
8.) At the end of the Cold War there was a fundamental shift in the “attitude” or perhaps even motives for aid. As made clear above, aid was strategic during the Cold War, but with the Cold War over there was a shift to people and organizations giving for moral reasons. Moreover, governments could more selectively choose who and where they could give aid too.
1.) Emergency aid is a sudden surge of aid being brought to a country in the form of money and supplies, usually after a catastrophe. Moyo believes that while emergency aid can be effective, it usually is not the case. Emergency aid stunts the countries growth in its ability to effectively change and aid itself. In essence emergency aid gives the country the means to survive without first showing them how to survive.
ReplyDelete2.) The 7 categories explained by Mayo are basically split between 7 decades of aid in Africa, and how and why aid was being given. Moyo furthers on the subject of aid in Europe post-WWII by describing how Europe already before the war had strong governments and functioning societies. In which case the emergency aid did not help Europe become something new, but simply bring them back to the position in which they were in before the war started.
3.) Africa was “ripe” for aid in the 50’s because it lacked basic health needs, poor infrastructure, its international presence was almost nonexistent, and education was extremely low. In this state Africa needed outside assistance to get back on its feet.
4.) The United States and Russia competed in Africa to spread ideologies. Russia with the spread of communism and US with the spread of democracy, both were giving aid and spreading their beliefs in excess.
5.) Britain and France didn’t want to miss out on all the fun, in essence they did not want to loose the sense of an even playing ground, being ground/land and metaphorical fingers in Africa. Africa was still a playing ground through the 50’s and 60’s, other countries had indirect control, with the US and USSR spreading their ideologies, Britain and France did not want to lose all their ties in Africa and therefore sent “indirect aid.”
6.) The oil embargo of 1973 put Africa into increasingly amounts of debt. With the economy crumbling the embargo made easy throwaway cash nonexistent leaving Africa to call for more money from other countries spiraling them deeper into debt.
7.) IMF made a system for borrowing money, which seems logical and sustainable, however only in the short-term. Long-term problems surround unself-sustainability in Africa. Moyo suggests that the system was beneficial for the oil crisis, but only taught Africa to rely on other countries for assistance.
8.) Independence in Africa made it difficult to give aid from foreign counties. Furthering there was a shift from a strategic outlook to a moral outlook, in which organizations and people were taking on. Lessening country involvement but still a form of aid.
1. “Emergency aid” is aid given in response to a catastrophic event, such as a natural disaster. Moyo does not think that emergency aid is effective because the execution of the distribution of aid is often inadequate. Some charities take a large part of the donation for operating costs, and sometimes failure to plan renders the charities incapable of actually giving the aid they promise.
ReplyDelete2. Post-war aid is broken down by time periods into seven eras: its inception in the 1940s at Bretton Woods; the Marshall Plan in the 1950s; industrialization in the 1960s; the move to the realm of thought that considers aid a solution to poverty in the 1970s; the use of aid to stabilize and change the government in the 1980s; and the current “obsession” with the idea that aid is to only solution to Africa’s problems. Moyo believes aid granted to European countries following WWII was more successful than aid in Africa today because its purpose was reconstruction, not development. Money was given to countries to fix the governments and infrastructure that had worked in the past, and surely had the potential to work again.
3. Africa was “ripe for aid” by the 1950s because the continent’s population was largely uneducated and living on low incomes in countries where the governments provided inadequate infrastructure and failed to generate revenue through taxation.
4. The US and USSR fought on African soil by providing aid to countries in hopes of gaining their support and therefore their allegiance to either Democracy or Communism.
5. Britain and France provided aid to African countries in order to regain footing on the continent lost upon the liberation of former colonies. Their altruistic ways were actually almost entirely selfish.
6. The 1973 oil embargo caused oil prices to rise rapidly. As food prices rose alongside the oil prices, African countries plunged into economic recession and inflation rose.
7. The IMF restructured the debt by lending money to nations struggling financially so that these countries could repay their debts, but Moyo suggests that doing so only perpetuated the aid-dependency of the poor countries. Countries made no actual progress; they only created more debt.
8. The end of the Cold War saw the US and USSR decrease their aid agendas in place to gain political support. The World Bank and UN Development Program became predominant aid-givers in Africa.
1. Emergency aid is a type of aid in which the aid is given out in response to some sort of mass catastrophe. Moyo believes that the organizations involved in handling donated money and implementing aid programs into affected countries do a poor job. Moyo believes that emergency aid, in fact, hurts African countries rather than helping them.
ReplyDelete2. Moyo breaks down post-war aid into seven categories. “it’s birth at Bretton Woods in the 1940’s; the era of the marshal plan in the 1950’s; the decade of industrialization in the 1960’s; the shift toward aid as an answer to poverty in the 1970’s; aid as a tool for stabilization and structural adjustment in the 1980’s; as a buttress for democracy and governance in the 1990’s; culminating in the present day obsession with aid as the only solution to Africa’s myriad of problems.” In Europe post WWII aid acted as an initial push in the right direction and a means of getting europe back on it’s feet and recovering. In Africa aid has had the opposite effect, the money has gone to the wrong sources and it has only encouraged African political officials to pocket the money and continually claiming the need for aid, starting a vicious cycle.
3. Moyo claimed that Africa was “ripe for aid” in the 1950’s because of the success of aid in Europe. The mindset was that aid worked in Europe so why shouldn’t it work in Africa. This was a false method of looking at aid because obviously the situation in Africa in 1950 was much different than post WWII Europe.
4. The situation during the Cold War in Africa was very similar to that of the rest of the world. The United States was “campaigning” for democracy while the USSR was doing the same for communism. The United States formed alliances with certain countries to promote democracy and Russia to promote communism. Communist aid led to the eventual rise of Mugabe. Both countries were essentially giving out blind aid in the name of a selfish cause rather than a genuine interest in the well-being of the country.
5. Britain and France wanted to maintain geopolitical holds and continue to hold an economical stake in the continent, specifically the countries that they ruled prior to their independence.
6. The oil embargo increased oil prices. This was not good for African countries. Inflation began to rise, GDP’s began to deteriorate and many countries slumped into a recession.
7. The IMF created the Structural Adjustment Facility to lend out money in response to the economic crash caused by the oil embargo. This essentially forced African nations deeper into debt because they could not pay back their loans, which, in turn, increased their dependence on aid even more.
8. The prevalence of aid slowed down after the cold war because there were the U.S. and USSR no longer had personal-motives to give aid in Africa. According to Moyo’s theory this should have actually helped the nations receiving aid because it cuts the cord, allowing them to grow independently.
1. Moyo describes “emergency aid” as aid dispensed to nations afflicted by disasters or other catastrophes, often coming in the form of charity-based aid or bilateral (government to government) aid. Moyo acknowledges that emergency aid has its share of problems, from mismanagement of funds on the part of the donating organization to interference in implementation on the part of donor governments, but overall, she states that emergency plays an important role in helping countries address pressing issues.
ReplyDelete2. Moyo breaks down post war aid chronologically, analyzing economical plans made by the US and its allies during WWII and onward by decade until 2000 to gain a full picture of the developed world’s response to African nations’ underdeveloped status. She believes aid to Europe in the 1940s and 1950s in the form of the Marshall Plan worked better than aid distributed throughout Africa because there was a persistent belief that African nations would not be able to growth without sufficient financial capital, and aid was seen as a way for the IMF and World Bank to provide this capital and pave the way for future economic growth. However, this belief caused a tremendous amount of aid to be donated to African nations, which most likely made quite a few African leaders and governments to become lax in their leadership duties. This along with the fact that aid currently given to African nations does not have a clear limit, unlike the money given to European nations through the Marshall Plan, fosters laziness on the part of African leaders.
3. Africa in the late 1950s were in a poor state, as its nations were riddled with poverty, an uneducated workforce, and were simply lagging behind the rest of the world. Developed nations saw this is an opportunity to apply the lessons they believed they learned through the Marshall Plan and believed they were in a good position to help African nations grow.
4. Both superpowers in the Cold War saw nations in Africa as potential allies in their battle for ideological supremacy, and gave disproportionate amounts of aid to African leaders who were willing to support their cause, even if they were tyrants who subjugated their people.
5. As many of the African nations that were achieving independence in the 1950s were former British and French colonies, both Britain and France provided aid to these countries in order to maintain influence and have access to the resources these nations provided.
6. The rise in oil prices caused many nations to deposit cash with international banks as the world economy descended into chaos. As a result of the economic mindset and lax lending policies implemented at the time, international banks gave large loans to “even the poorest and most un-creditworthy countries.” Seeing all this sudden influx of cash, poorer economies were encouraged to borrow even more to pay off debts. This heavy borrowing and lack of forward thinking hurt these countries in the long term as they could not pay off their loans later on.
ReplyDelete7. In response to the 1979 oil crisis, major economies like the US and UK raised interest rates that in turn caused the cost of borrowing and debt in African countries to skyrocket. Other countries throughout the world threatened to default on their debt, and the IMF responded with the Structural Adjustment Facility, an initiative to restructure debt. This allowed Bretton Woods institutions to lend to emerging economies in place of private lenders and commercial banks. Moyo seems to be hinting that while this allow the IMF to restore the flow of aid to developing countries, the very nature of the aid that was going to the countries and the way it was managed caused the IMF’s plan to do more harm than good in the long term.
8. With the end of the Cold War, the impetus for aiding dictators who were in support of the US and its allies largely disappeared, and a desire to institute full democracy with free and fair elections took its place in the heart of many donor countries. In addition, international agencies such as the UNDP and World Bank became the leading aid donors as developed nations retracted much of their aid in response to the conclusion of the Cold War. Overall, the western tendency to dump aid onto Africa largely vanished during the 1990s.
1.Moyo Describes Emergency Aid as mobilized and dispensed in response to catastrophes and calamities. She thinks it is not effective because of the bureaucracy of the aid and how little money actually goes to the issue at hand.
ReplyDelete2.
1. its birth at BRetton Woods in the 1940’s. 2. the ear of the Marshall plan in the 1950’s. 3. the decade of industrialization of the 1960’s. 4, the shift towards aid as an answer to poverty in the 1970’s. 5. aid as the tool for stabilization and structural adjustment in the 1980’s.6. aid as a buttress of democracy and governance in the 1990’s. 7. culminating in the present-day obsession with aid as the only solution to Africa’s myriad of problems. She thinks aid granted to Europe after WWII worked better there than it would in africa today because of the Marshall plan, where the money given to european nations was then funneled back into the US. Not into the black hole of africa.
3.
“The continent was characterized by a largely uneducated population, low-salaried employment, a virtually non-existent tax base, poor access to global markets and derelict infrastructure. (13)
4.
The soviet Union supported and financed some of africa’s greatest communists while the us rewarded their supporters.
5.
Britain and France started aiding African countries because they wanted to retain control over their former colonies.
6.
The price of PEtrol quadrupled, sending the global economy into turmoil. This led to an excess of amount of money in banks which in turn led to poor African countries being able to get loans very easily, causing them to eventually spiral into more debt.
7.
The IMF was able to give very cheap loans to african countries that helped them pay off debts they already had. At the time this was a very effective way to solve a looming economic crisis, but in the long run, it caused many problems, including an african dependence on aid.
8.
The end of the Cold War signified that governments no longer needed to give aid to Africa to further political agendas. Countries like the Soviet Union that were giving of US $300million in aid each year were now able to “ pick and choose when, hwy and to whom they doled money out to.”
1. According to Moyo, emergency or humanitarian aid is aid rendered during a catastrophe or emergency situation (e.g. during natural disasters, the aftermath of an attack, and etc). This aid is usually distributed through charities or governments. However the aid usually never ends up actually helping the people in need of it because of endless transfers and loopholes. So, in short, she does not think that humanitarian or emergency aid is as effective as it could be.
ReplyDelete2.
Breakdown of Aid:
1940’s → Beginning of aid at Bretton Woods (end of war. Aid to rebuild social, political, and economic stability.)
1950’s → post WWII Marshall plan (Aid given to people in war ravaged areas of Europe)
1960’s → Industrialization – jump-starting economies (getting people working, and businesses back up and running)
1970’s → “Aid as the answer to poverty”
1980’s→ “Aid as the tool for stabilization and structural adjustment”
1990’s → Aid as a perpetrator of democracy and stable governance
As Moyo says, this leaves people thinking that the only solution to Africa’s problems is just an endless cycle of aid. In post-WWII Europe, they had someplace where they could return. They could restore their infrastructure to where it had been in a previous time with a lot of aid from abroad. However, because Africa had been controlled for European powers for so long, they do not have a state of stability to return back to, at least not that anyone remembers
3. At the end of the 1950’s, Africa’s population was largely uneducated, very poor, and had crumbling infrastructure. So Africa seemed to be a prime place to bring in aid, because real change could actually happen if the aid given was used correctly.
4. In a sense, the US and the USSR fought for control over certain African countries. It was almost like the scramble for Africa part 2, except for the fact that they were fighting for capitalism or communism.
5. Even though the countries that gained their independence in the 1950’s and 60’s had the title of being independent, they were still largely financially dependent on their previous colonizers. So they were independent on paper, but in reality, they were in even deeper water with their former colonizers than they were before.
6. The oil embargo of 1973 caused the price of oil to rise worldwide. This was disastrous for many of the African economies that were already struggling to keep on top of debt. Because oil is such an important part of the economy, the raise in oil prices set off a domino effect with multiple African economies. African countries were forced to borrow more money, inflation started to become a problem, and the price of other things started to rise as well. Most noticeably, the price of food went up drastically, making it hard for the vast majority of African people to afford food.
7. The IMF decided that the best solution to this problem would be to restructure the debt. So they created Structural Adjustment Facility, and then later the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility. This would lend money to nations in debt to help them pay back debt to other countries. However, this just sank many countries into deeper hole of debt, and made them even more dependent on foreign aid.
8. During the Cold War, the US and USSR were focused on sort of converting as many countries into a communist or capitalist economy as they could. After the Cold War ended, however, their motivations to be in Africa dissipated as well as the aid that they had been previously providing. Now the main givers of aid are the World Bank and the UN.
1. Moyo describes emergency aid as aid brought about in direct response to catastrophic events, i.e. an earthquake or tsunami. Moyo considers this to be ineffective, as it often comes with strings attached, leaving much of the resources out of the hands of those who need them.
ReplyDelete2. Moyo breaks down aid into the seven broad categories, each explaining the thought process behind aid in that time period. She thinks aid granted to Europe post-World War Two was more effective than aid in Africa now, because Europe had more of an (albeit damaged) infrastructure, needing only holes to be filled rather than creating an entirely new system.
3. Africa was considered “ripe for aid” because of the general traits associated with the continent: poor education, extremely low salaries, a limited market, and an entirely broken infrastructure.
4. The US and USSR competed in Africa by seeing who could provide more aid. This aid came at the cost of siding with the donor, though few countries would so openly reject such deep-pocketed offers. It was, to downscale the issue, a popularity contest, and the US and USSR only cared about who voted for them. It didn’t matter if it was even the most tyrannical leader on the whole continent: if he picked a side, he was good as gold.
5. Britain and France began aiding African countries after the massive gains of independence because they could still have a hold on these countries. Though no longer a technical colony, each African country the European powers contributed aid to was still economically tied to centers of fallen empires.
6. The oil embargo made it more difficult for any form of aid to reach Africa, making food prices skyrocket, as well as the interest rates on the loans to the African countries.
7. The IMF “restructured” the debt, loaning money to help the countries pay off their debts. Moyo states (and I agree) that this system merely perpetuated the debt of the Africans by adding more money they’d have to pay back.
8. The end of the Cold War made the “aid agenda” less desperate, allowing for more freedom with the placement of funds. There was no longer a scramble to gain allies before the other party, so now, donors could give to whomever they pleased, if they pleased.
1. Describe “emergency aid” mentioned by Moyo and if she think that this is effective?
ReplyDeleteThe ‘emergency aid’ described by Moyo is aid given to nations that are facing natural disasters or other misfortune. For the most part, Moyo believes that emergency aid is helpful, but expresses displeasure that it is often wasted by greedy government officials or inefficient policies.
2. Explain how Moyo breaks down post-war aid into her “seven broad categories” Why does she think aid granted to Europe after WWII worked better there than it would in Africa today?
Moyo breaks down post-war aid by time period. She thinks aid granted to Europe after WWII was effective because of differing beliefs in its effects – money sent to Europe was limited, and people believed Europeans needed just a slight boost to get their economies jump-started again. In Africa’s case however, people believed it was hopeless to begin an economy without billions of dollars, so aid flooded in – too much aid – as governments and people became accustomed to this influx of unlimited money, they felt there was no need to work as long as the cash kept rolling in.
3. Why does Moyo think Africa was “ripe for aid” by the end of the 1950’s?
She thinks Africa was “ripe for aid” by the end of the 1950’s because of its vulnerable state – similar to Europe, it had a very weak (nearly nonexistent) economy, very little infrastructure, and a poor, uneducated populace. Spurred by their success with the Marshall plan, developed countries thought they could recreate their accomplishments in Africa.
4. How did the US and USSR compete in Africa during the Cold War? Explain your answer.
In the Cold War, both America and the USSR flooded Africa with aid, as a means of swaying them to their side in case all hell broke loose and they needed more allies.
5. According to “Dead Aid”, why did Britain and France start aiding African countries after the flood of independence on the continent in the 1950’s and 1960’s?
Britain and France started helping African countries in the 50’s and 60’s because they wanted to keep a physical foothold and maintain geopolitical power in Africa without literally ruling the country.
6. How did the 1973 oil embargo cause a deterioration of poor African economies?
The 1973 oil embargo hurt African economies by causing economic crashes across Africa. As oil prices rose, African governments poured their cash into international banks. At the time, loans were very cheap, and few African governments could resist taking the opportunity to possibly expand their economy by bringing in more money. Unfortunately, few of these loans resulted in the type of economic expansion hoped for, and the governments began incurring debt, further damaging the already weak African economies.
7. What did the IMF do in the developing world in the 1980’s to stave off an economic meltdown brought on by the 1979 oil crisis? Do you think Moyo is suggesting that this helped the situation in Africa? Why or why not?
In the 1980’s, the International Monetary Fund created the Structural Adjustment Facility that allowed countries to restructure debt. Moyo believes that although this briefly alleviated the economic problem, it resulted in the continuation of African aid, which she sees as one of the primary causes of Africa’s economic misfortune today.
8. How did the end of the Cold War in the 1990’s affect the “aid agenda for the continent?”
The end of the Cold War in the 90’s resulted in more of a focus on human rights and the African people rather than the military strength of their governments and the support of their leaders. Where we had once been concerned with finding a potential military ally, we instead became concerned with the common African man. Realizing we had been funding dictators and tyrants, we quickly cut the majority of our foreign aid.
1. Emergency aid or humanitarian aid is given to countries that have been affected by a natural or man-made disaster. Two examples of countries given emergency aid in recent years are Haiti and Japan as each country was affected by a natural disaster that resulted in thousands of lost lives and destroyed these nations’ infrastructure. While well-off nations have moral obligations to help others nations after such tragic events, emergency aid is not without problems. Often emergency aid programs have high administration costs and the organizations running them often have ulterior agendas based on their government’s policies in addition to cultural reasons.
ReplyDelete2. The seven types of post-war aid described by Moyo are “the original” aid package created in Breton Wood during the 1940’s, the era of the Marshal Plan in the 1950’s, industrialization based aid of the 1960’s, poverty-reducing aid of the 1970’s, spreading capitalism aid of the 1980’s, spreading democracy aid of the 1990’s, and the modern day feel-good aid. Moyo states that primary reason why aid given to European nations after the Second World War was successful at revitalizing the continent while aid given to Africa failed to achieve this was that European nations, like Germany, still had an existing economic infrastructure after the war, which helped quicken recovery. Most European nations also had social stability, as they still retained a common sense of nationalism. Also, countries like the United States listened to the people in post-war European countries to see where aid money should be spent as opposed to African nations where western nations believed they knew what was best for the future of the country.
3. Moyo states that Sub-Saharan Africa was an ideal place for western nations to invest aid after WWII. The success of aid programs in Europe convinced many politicians in western nations that similar aid programs could work in underdeveloped regions of the world. By infusing the continent with aid money, western nations could create an African economic boom that they could profit from. However, Cold War and Colonial politics played a huge part in the increased aid spending, as countries like Britain wanted to maintain its influence on nations that had recently achieved independence and the United States used aid to counter a growing Soviet presence on the continent.
4. As many countries were gaining independence from their former colonial masters, the Soviet Union and the United States were scrambling to create new allies in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Soviets were keen to support any revolution based upon Marxist principles and the United States would throw aid money at governments who promised to be their allies. In the post-independence era, however, the competition between the Soviets and the Americans fueled countless proxy wars across the continent, furthering poverty and decreasing the average standard of living.
5. The reason that European nations, such as Britain and France, began to throw aid money at former colonies is that they had just achieved independence and this was a means to control their former colonies. Because of the contributions that aid would bring to these newly created nations and the long term debt it would create, European nations would be able to exert control over their breakaway colonies and maintain a significant presence on the continent.
ReplyDelete6. The Yom Kippur War and the subsequent oil embargo caused the price of basic goods such as food to skyrocket due to increased fuel and shipping cost. This resulted in a major economic downturn across the region and suddenly many nations throughout Sub-Saharan suddenly did not have the tax revenue to pay off their depts. Therefore they ended up getting more aid loans from other nations in order to pay off their existing debts as well as fund basic government services.
7. The oil crisis during the Iran-Iraq War caused many nations in Sub-Saharan Africa to begin defaulting on their initial aid loans. If these nations were allowed to default, the global financial system would have collapsed. As a result, IMF began to loan these nations aid packages with low interest rates in order to pay off their old debts, which created a spiral of debt for African nations similar to using a reverse mortgage to pay off a loan on a house. While this prevented a short-term financial crisis, the rest of the world essentially threw the long-term interest of African nations under the bus in order to maintain global economic stability.
8. With the threat of the “red menace” no longer on the minds of politicians and the people in western nations, aid being sent to African nations began to be viewed more as a means of helping people rather than winning political victories. Western nations suddenly believed that western democracy would be the key to solving the issues in Sub-Saharan Africa and much of the new aid was geared towards promoting democracy in the region by only giving aid to “democratic” governments.
1.Emergency aid is one of the three types of aid that Africa received, in Moyo’s opinion, the emergency aid never worked well, she uses the example of United States fight against AIDS in 2005 and Asian tsunami in 2006 to explain that the money donors gave will never be fully used in efficient way. Like “Two thirds of money had to go to pro-abstinence programmes” (7) and “the charity World Vision had spent less than a quarter of the US$100 million it had raised” (7). On the other world, the amount of money people announced is different from the money will actually put into solving the problem.
ReplyDelete2. The seven broad categories highly indicated the goals of those aids (grants), directing those recipients how to use those money. Also, the European countries were the rulers of the world before World War I, people were already highly educated, unlikely, the education system is not that good in Africa, and many people even have never been educated. The skills of workers determine how efficient a project can be done, similarly, people who were educated before have better idea how to make money more efficient than the people who were never been educated. On the other side, the money is limited from United States, the recipients have to think about the best way to use those money to bring back their economy and life; but in Africa, the aid programs are never stopped, people from all over the world put money into this continent, sadly, the corrupt government officers aim at this “opportunity” to get the “free” money for themselves.
3. Because this is a continent that “was characterized by largely uneducated population, low-salaried employment, a virtually non-existent tax base, poor access to global markets and derelict infrastructure” (13) Easily can be seen in this text, the lack of infrastructure and extreme poverty in this continent wake up the “sympathy “of the rich countries.
4. “The US and the USSR was fought economically and on foreign soil” (14), like bride, US wanted more countries join the capitalism group and USSR wanted more countries join the communism group. “The Soviet Union was a staunch supporter of some of Africa’s greatest communist – Patrice Lumumba in Congo and Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia. And the US, rewarded its suporters, suc as Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko” (14). Aids were like an great opportunity for those countries to strength up their govern power or the power that they can potentially became the leaders of their countries, which could be determine the situation of the world either turn to capitalist or communist.
5. Even African countries free from the colonialism, but the “independence dependent on the financial largess of their former colonial masters was the reality” (14). This text can explain why the US, Britain and France still not lost their interest in this continent, also “aid became a means by which Britain and France combined their new0found altruism with a hefty dollop of self-interest –maintaining strategic geopolitical holds” (14). Western countries still want to get benefits from Africa, however, their colonizer was existing no more, the only way to maintain master position seems like giving those countries money and let them still depend on those former masters.
6. Because of the oil embargo, the price of oil soared, and those “oil-exporting countries lend addition cash to lax economic and financial policies which meant the volume of lending to even the poorest and most un-creditworthy countries. the wall of freely supplied money led to extremely low, and even negative, real interest rates, and encouraged many poorer economies to start borrowing even more in order to repay previous debts” (16). The worst way to pay a debt is to borrow money from somewhere else, also, because of the increase of oil price, the food price got soared too, which led an extreme deterioration in Africa.
ReplyDelete7. “The solution to the crisis was to restructure the debt. Thus IMF formed the Structural Adjustment Facility- specifically to lend money to defaulting nations to help them repay what they owed. Necessary though this was, the result only served to increase poor countries’ aid-dependence and put them deeper into debt” (19). Moyo thinks it got worse, the IMF just worsened the debt situation in Africa, and put more troubles in Africa.
8. “The Cold War had provided richer countries with the political imperative to give aid monies even to the most corrupt and venal despots in Africa” (23). The corrupt countries cannot use money wisely, and that money can be used in a better way, it could be sent to another country or organization that helps poor people. “Despite this corrupt environment, everyone continued to lend” (23). More and more money came to Africa is not a good thing because all the countries are already in deep trouble of the previous debts. “If anything, the evidence of the last fifty years points to the reverse- slower gowth, higher poverty and Africa left off the economic ladder” (28). Moyo thinks that Cold War had already messed up the African economy, the only thing left is a mess of competition of those super power’s fighting.
1) Emergency aid is the aid given by people and governments in response to a national disaster or catastrophe. Moyo believes that emergency aid has its merits but also sometimes has poor implementation when it comes to charities.
ReplyDelete2) Moyo separates the post-war aid by decade: its birth at bretton woods in the 1940’s, the era of the marshall plan in the 1950’s, the decade of industrialization that occurred in the 1960’s, the shift towards helping extreme poverty and hunger in the 1970’s, a tool to stabilize volatile countries in the 1980’s, in order to help along democracy and government in the 1990’s, to the current view of aid which is supposed to be the end all be all to Africa’s problems. Aid worked better for Europe in the 1950’s because there was also an expectation from the Europeans that they eventually would return to being developed
3) Africa was ripe for aid in the 1950’s because they had relatively no infrastructure, a poor salary base, and almost no education. This meant there was a lot of area for improvement and almost nowhere to go but up.
4) Aid was used as a way for the USSR and the USA to exercise their power and resources without needing to escalate the cold war. This meant that they basically waved the offer of money at governments in order to gain their allegiance. The USSR and the USA often fought these types of proxies throughout different continents. What it meant for the countries however, was that the governments were not investing in Africa to be stable in the future, but throwing money at them just for the sake of throwing money at them.
5) Countries such as Britain and France provided aid for countries throughout the 50’s and 60’s because they could still maintain at least somewhat of a hold on the countries. Just recently independent, it was easy to invest in and therefore influence the direction the vulnerable and newly independent country would go.
6) The 1973 oil embargo was very detrimental to the poorer African nations. Higher oil prices caused food prices to skyrocket, and the banks allowed more to be loaned to less creditworthy countries. This meant that African nations with debts took out loans in order to pay those debts and prices rose across the board. As a result of this, there was growing poverty in Africa as many people could barely afford the basics.
7) After the 1979 oil crisis, many countries ended up defaulting on their IMF loans. This threatened to turn the global financial landscape on its head and withered away the trust between the lender and the recipient of the loan. The IMF responded by providing these countries with aid in order to pay of their loans. People seemed to think this was a good idea but in reality it just made the countries more aid dependent and sabotaged any hopes of them being self-sufficient.
8) After the cold war, many countries decided to only give aid to countries that were truly deserving of it. This caused the end of countries pumping money into african nations with corrupt leaders. During the cold war even the most corrupt of countries were given aid because the lending countries didn’t care how their money was being used, however, as the cold war ended, so did this era of foreign aid.
1. Emergency aid is aid in response to catastrophes also known as humanitarian aid. The instant relief from this aid is the only benefit from having it. Otherwise, there are “poor implementation and high administrative costs” and a lot of string attached to the organizations trying to help.
ReplyDelete2. The seven broad categories: the birth ar Bretton Woods in 1940s; era of the marshall plan in the 1950s; decade of industrialization of the 1960s; shift towards aid as an answer to poverty in the 1970s; aid as the tool for stabilization and structural governance in the 1980s; aid as a buttress of democracy and governance in the 1990s; culminating in the present-day obsession with aid as the only solution to Africa’s myriad problems. The aid worked well because of the stability in the economy of Europe before the war. It worked well because of the Marshall Plan and was better of than Africa would be today because they were able to regain semblance of social, political and economic stability.
3. Africa was “ripe” for aid because of its “largely uneducated population, low-salaried employment, a virtually non-existent tax base, poor global access to global markets and derelict infrastructure.” Since the Marshall Plan had worked so well in Europe they thought it was able to help anywhere. “Richer countries saw Africa as a prime target for aid.” They believed that aid could work rebuilding a country anywhere since it was very prosperous in Europe.
4. “For the US, aid became the tool of another political contest - The Cold War” The cold war was a fight economically and on foreign soil with the weapon as aid. It was tool to turn the world capitalist or communist. The willingness of an impoverished country to side with the US or USSR was all that was needed, with no care if they were a leader or a tyrant.
5. Britain and France started aiding Africa to have a way to economically control the area in which they once owned.
6. An embargo on oil was placed by the Arab states to retaliate the US support for Israel. This meant the price of oil quadrupled, “sending the global economy into turmoil.” Countries had to then stop funding countries with as much money because they needed to be able and purchase oil. It also made poorer economies start borrowing even more money to repay the previous debts.
7. The solution to the economic meltdown was to restructure the debt. The IMF form the Structural Adjustment Facility, which lent money to defaulting nations to help repay what they owed. Though the end result of this just put the poor countries into deeper debt. It was supposed to restructure, but it was just a reincarnation of the aid model.
8. The Cold War was focussed on aid helping the fight for a communism or capitalism world. Towards the end “it was left to Western Democracy to save the day.” Donors could now pick an choose, when, why and to whom they doled out aid and the USSR was no longer a tangible threat.
1. Emergency aid is a form of rapid relief that is distributed to countries that are determined to be in need. Emergency aid is highly regulated and can only be allocated to certain sectors. Moyo believes that emergency aid organizations mean well, however their methods do more harm than good. This form of aid is usually distributed as a direct response to an “emergency” in the area. The main flaw with this system is that these funds are commonly mismanaged.
ReplyDelete2. Moyo breaks down aid into the categories of “Post- war aid can be broken down into seven broad categories: its birth at Bretton woods in the 1940’s; the era of the Marshall Plan in the 1950’s; the decade of industrialization of the 1960’s; the shift towards aid as an answer to poverty in the 1970’s; aid as the tool for stabilization and structural adjustment in the 1980’s; aid as a buttress of democracy and governance in the 1990’s; culminating in the present-day obsession with aid as the only solution to Africa’s myriad of problems”. She believes that post-war aid was effective because of the staging and regulations laid out by the Marshall plan. Also, the aid given to Europe was provided for reconstruction, which in many ways is easier than the development needed in Africa.
3. Africa was seen as ripe for aid because of the success seen in Europe with seemingly similar issues. Africa was seen as having a largely uneducated population, low employment, low salaries, and a non-existent tax base. Many though this made it perfect for targeted aid that was hoped would have the same effect as it did on Europe.
4. The US and USSR competed economically in Africa for control of the continent. As with many other parts of the world, Africa was a stage for the battle between democracy and communism. Aid was used as a tool to convince African countries of align themselves with either the US or USSR, and was distributed accordingly. In this way, aid did not reach the places where it was needed most.
5. Britain convinced France that they needed to maintain spheres of influence in the African continent as to keep a presence after independence. By providing aid, Britain and France maintained some of their pre-independence influence.
6. The 1973 oil embargo raised the prices of commodities all over the world, hurting the poorest countries the most. Inflation increased, and the GDP severely declined in these areas.
7. The IMF formed the Structural Adjustment Facility in an attempt to help developing countries repay their loans. The IMF lent money to these countries so that they could repay their older loans. This had the unintended effect of increasing developing countries’ dependence on aid and foreign loans. Moyo explains that this brought countries farther away from foreign independence.
8. The end of the cold war made African aid a moral issue instead of a political one. Shifting the purpose of the aid and therefor the groups that received it. The shift happened fairly rapidly however, and “aid” was cutoff to many groups who had been receiving it for a number or years. The aid was repurposed for a “better cause” .
1.Emergency aid is distributed to places that had just had a traumatic events or countries that are known to need it. Moyo thinks it is unfair because everyone is not getting equal help.
ReplyDelete2. Moyo breaks down aid into seven categories of post war as: its birth at Bretton woods in the 1940’s; the era of the Marshall Plan in the 1950’s; the decade of industrialization of the 1960’s; the shift towards aid as an answer to poverty in the 1970’s; aid as the tool for stabilization and structural adjustment in the 1980’s; aid as a buttress of democracy and governance in the 1990’s; culminating in the present-day obsession with aid as the only solution to Africa’s myriad of problems”. she thinks its working because of the plan they have.
3. Africa was "ripe for aid" because they were living and even less than they are now. they needed the aid just to barely survive.
4. The US and USSR competed for control Africa economically. Aid was used to bribe the continent to one side or the other.
5. Britain and France's aid help to Africa made them gain some of their pre-independence influence.
6. The 1973 oil embargo raised prices all over the world, harming the poorest countries a lot.
7. The IMF formed the Structural Adjustment Facility in an attempt to help developing countries repay their loans. The IMF lent money to these countries so that they could repay their older loans. Moyo explains that this brought countries farther away from foreign independence.
8.The end of the cold war made African aid a moral issue instead of a political one. Shifting the purpose of the aid and therefor the groups that received it. The shift happened fairly rapidly however, and “aid” was cutoff to many groups who had been receiving it for a number or years. The aid was repurposed for a “better cause” .
1. Describe “emergency aid” mentioned by Moyo and if she think that this is effective?
ReplyDeleteEmergency aid according to Moyo is “aid “mobilized and dispensed in response to catastrophes and calamities”. Simply, as she puts it, “aid is defined as the sum total of both concessional loans and grants” and it is that aid that has “hampered, stifled, and retarded Africa’s development”. She thinks there are some merits, but overall it’s detrimental to the people in Africa and creates a dependence while not solving anything.
2. Explain how Moyo breaks down post-war aid into her “seven broad categories” Why does she think aid granted to Europe after WWII worked better there than it would in Africa today?
The seven categories are: birth at Bretton Woods in 1940s, the 1950s Marshall Plan era, 1960s decade of industrialization, the shift toward aid as an answer to poverty in the 1970s, aid as a tool for stabilization/structural adjustment in the 80s, and the present day obsession of aid as Africa’s only option. The post WW2 era aid was more successful because it was going into projects and infrastructure that was already there & just needed to be repaired.
3. Why does Moyo think Africa was “ripe for aid” by the end of the 1950’s?
The large population was mostly uneducated, and low- salaried, with no tax base, access to global markets, or infrastructure, so foreign aid seemed the only way to trigger higher economic growth.
4. How did the US and USSR compete in Africa during the Cold War? Explain your answer.
During the Cold War, the USA & USSR competed to turn the continent capitalist or communist by offering aid to whoever would support them. Any and all support became essential during the Cold War, and the powers didn’t care who it was coming from or where the aid was going as long as they had more supporters.
5. According to “Dead Aid”, why did Britain and France start aiding African countries after the flood of independence on the continent in the 1950’s and 1960’s?
After their independence, Britain and France continued to aid Africa out of their “newfound altruism with a hefty dollop of self interest”. As the Cold War as becoming an issue, they were able to maintain strategic geographical holds by aiding specific countries.
6. How did the 1973 oil embargo cause a deterioration of poor African economies?
As the oil embargo took place and oil prices rose, countries deposited additional money into international banks, who took the extra and loaned it to the developing world. As there weren’t many restrictions or financial policies, much of the money went to poor, bad-credit countries that couldn’t repay them, leading to even more borrowing. The embargo also lead to rocketing food prices and recessions, making it easy to shift aid to being poverty-based.
7. What did the IMF do in the developing world in the 1980’s to stave off an economic meltdown brought on by the 1979 oil crisis? Do you think Moyo is suggesting that this helped the situation in Africa? Why or why not?
As many countries defaulted on their loans after the oil crisis, the IMF decided to restructure the debt by creating the Structural Adjustment Facility to lend money to those nations needed to repay loans. Although necessary, as Moyo says, “the end result only served to increase poor countries aid-dependence and put them deeper in debt”, and because of this quote, I do not think Moyo thinks this helped the situation.
8. How did the end of the Cold War in the 1990’s affect the “aid agenda for the continent?”
with the end of the Cold War came an end to the political imperative of aiding corrupt countries for support. After this was gone, countries were able to add qualifications and be more selective with their aid, but still the aid came in billions to corrupt dictators.
1. Dambisa Moyo describes emergency aid as aid that is “moblilized and dispensed in response to catastrophes and calamities.” She mentions examples such as the 2004 tsunami in Asia and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Foundation. She states that although there are “obvious and fundamental merits” to emergency aid, there is also much criticism. Often, foundations and charity groups try to raise money for disaster relief or disease related tragedies, but are unaware of the exact things that the people facing these hardships need. Therefore, when the money is raised, the organizations have “poor implementation and high administrative cost” preventing them from helping those affected by disasters efficiently. Due to the lack of knowledge and communication while implementing these disaster relief projects, Moyo does not think that emergency aid is very effective.
ReplyDelete2. Moyo broke down the post-war aid into “seven broad categories”, the “Bretton Woods in 1940s, the era of the Marshall Plan in the 1950s, the decade of industrialization of the 1960s, the shift towards aid as an answer to poverty in the 1970s, aid as the tool for stabilization and structural adjustment in the 1980s, aid as a buttress of democracy and governance in the 1990s, culminating in the present-day obsession with aid as the only solution to Africa’s myriad of problems.” She states that the aid granted to Europe post-Second world war worked better than in Africa because there was already adequate “physical, legal, and social infrastructures” in place in Europe that just needed a jump-start post-war. In Africa at the time, the stability of the economy, infrastructure, and government were not existent in certain countries so the aid that they received was not able to jump-start their countries and reduce poverty.
3.Moyo describes Africa as “ripe for aid” by the end of the 1950’s because many of the countries had uneducated populations, high unemployment rates, “a virtually non-existent tax base”, and insufficient infrastructure. With all of these problems, Africa needed a lot of money to get itself going. Unfortunately, with this money came even more hardships.
4. During the Cold War, both the US and the USSR gave aid to countries in Africa in which they believed would ally with them if a physical war were to occur. As Moyo states, “aid became a tool for a political contest! Aid became the key tool in the contest to turn the world capitalist or communist.” Not only did aid become a tool for the US and the USSR in the Cold War, but it also gave the impoverished countries in Africa a motive for allying with one of the countries regardless of the nature of its leadership. Moyo says, “the willingness of a desperately impoverished country to ally itself with one camp or another” increased dramatically during the cold war, no matter the political stance of the developed country. By allying with certain countries in Africa, the US and the USSR were able to have dominance on the continent and provide weapons to their allies in order to compete for political power.
5. Britain and France started aiding African countries after the flood of independence on the continent in the 1950’s and 60’s because they still wanted to be world powers and control over Africa as much as they could. Moyo states that Britain and France wanted to “maintain strategic geopolitical hold” on the countries that had won independence from them. This then meant that although the African countries had independence, Britain and France had economical control over the countries by granting them aid.
ReplyDelete6. In 1973, the Arab states placed an embargo on oil for “retaliation for US support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War.” This was extremely impactful on the world economy because the oil embargo caused the price of oil to quadruple. Countries who exported oil were depositing mass amounts of money into the world bank which would be sent to the developing world. This meant that enormous amounts of money, aid, would be sent to some of the poorest countries around the world. Although this sounds like a nice fix for the developing world, the amount of debt that these countries suffered from trying to pay back international banks was devastating. In many African countries it caused inflation, recession, and increased poverty.
7. During the 1980’s, the IMF created the Structural Adjustment Facility to help relieve the economics affects caused by the 1979 oil crisis. This facility was created to restructure the debt created by the oil crisis by lending money to nations in order to help them repay what they owe. Although this was a good attempt to try and help the developing world, “the end result only served to increase poor countries’ aid-dependence and put them deeper into debt… In reality it was merely a reincarnation of the aid model.” Moyo does not believe that this helped the situation in Africa because it only increased the amount of aid that was being sent to the country. African countries became more and more dependent on this aid and gained more and more debt. This caused increased poverty, famine, inflation and much more, having an opposite effect on the countries than as planned.
8. In the 1990’s, the end of the cold war affected the “aid agenda” for Africa in that the US and the USSR were no longer giving aid to countries in order to sway them of a certain political power. Moyo suggests that the aid given to certain countries in Africa by the west during the cold war was given to dictators who were “matched only by the willingness of international donors to give them money to realize their dreams” when being brutal to their people or neglecting their countries needs. By giving aid to these rulers during the cold war, being a dictator and harming your people became rewarded. After the cold war, aid changed from a tool for gaining political power to a moral contribution. People from developed countries like the United States felt that it was their duty and moral right to help those suffering in Africa by providing aid. Along with that was the problem that aid no longer came as often as it did during the cold war. People from developed countries could pick when, where, and to whom they sent their money. Countries were suddenly cut off from a constant flow of aid causing major problems once again.
1. Emergency aid is given to places that have undergone significant traumatic events, whether that is natural or a human made disaster. She thinks this is not fair because Africans become too reliant on foreign aid. Not only this, but foreign aid is mismanaged and if not taken by government officials, the money given is not sent to where it is really needed.
ReplyDelete2. Moyo separates aid into several categories. She believes that aid given to Europe post WWII was most effective, and truly needed, because it was used to rebuild destroyed infrastructure. Europe’s situation is different because Europe had specific goals that needed to be met. Africa on the other hand, has become a charity case with an unfocused lens.
3. Africa seems to be the perfect place to send aid. What Moyo means is that Africa was uneducated, poor, and countries lacked sustenance in the modern world. It seemed like aid to Africa would be the perfect answer to Africa’s many problems.
4. As the cold war continued to become more heated, Africa seemed to be the most strategically place to station armaments, and have political meetings in case war actually did break out. The best way to access other countries land was to make financial alliances as to sweeten the deal if war did go to that particular African country.
5. France and Britain continued to fund African countries because they still wanted power over their former colonies. Positive interactions with their former colonizers seemed to be a “win, win.”
6. The oil embargo was a major catalyst in the collapse of Africa’s economy. The embargo forced Africa to borrow money, which placed these relatively newly free countries under immediate debt. Food prices also began to rise and inflation was overwhelming to most countries. The oil embargo sent Africa into an intense downward spiral.
7. Because of the disastrous ramifications of the oil embargo, the IMF (international monetary fund) restructured the debt of the floundering countries. The IMF made it so that the countries would not have to make expensive loans to repay their debt. Rather, countries could work their way out of debt at a faster rate. Moyo does agree that this was the best thing to do for Africa at the time. However, it created a psychological dependency on foreign aid that said, ‘if we are in trouble someone is bound to help us.’
8. The cold war created a very confusing and turbulent atmosphere in Africa. Aid was sent in for political reasons, and when the cold war stopped, so did the aid. The lack of cash moving through these upcoming African nations was stopped as quickly as it started. Once the global community realized that Africa was suffering because of this, they decided to set up NGOs and other organizations to direct money into Africa, and most importantly where it was really needed.
1.Emergency aid is primarily used when a catastrophic event occurs, which are usually natural disasters like hurricanes, tsunamis, drought, and etc. Moyo believes that this type of aid is ineffective as the distribution of money and assistance is inadequate. Also, she says that emergency aid is a detriment to African nations as they have become dependent on aid from the International Monetary Fund and other nations. This type of aid needs to be more focused on the direct affects of the disaster rather than giving the money to the government and letting them implement it.
ReplyDelete2. Moyo describes aid in seven different fashions:
1. The Bretton Wood program in the 1940’s (beginning of aid)
2. The Marshall Plan to rebuild Germany after WWII in the 1950’s.
3. Industrialization and building economies in the 1960’s
4. Foreign aid agenda in the 1970’s: aid is the answer to everything
5. Foreign aid agenda in the 1980’s: aid for stability and adjustment
6. Foreign aid agenda in the 1990’s: aid to fix governments
7. Glamour aid: to throw money at the issue
Moyo believes that the most successful type of aid is the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Germany and its allies after WWII. This provided limited aid as a jumpstart for economic growth in the country, where Germany had to follow a strict plan to rebuild its self. If one looks at Germany today, they are an economic powerhouse and one of the driving forces in the European Union. African nations need this type of aid in order to develop politically and economically.
3. Africa was ripe for aid after the 1950’s as the average citizen was uneducated, the countries were poor, and the infrastructure was nonexistent. If aid like the Marshall Plan was correctly implemented, then Africa could have brought about change to remake itself and it would not be in the position it is today.
4. The USSR and US competed in Africa for who could give more aid. The aid was given in the form of direct cash as to persuade the government to either become communist or capitalist. The aid, however, was in the form of quantity not quality, so it led to no real developments in Africa besides making some corrupt governments even richer.
5. Britain and France began to aid many African countries after the flood of independence to still have economic control over the countries. Even if they were not technically colonies, many African nations became dependent of Britain and France for economic stimulus and growth.
6. The 1973 oil embargo caused aid in Africa to become very limited. This led to ridiculously high food prices and the loss of economic growth, as many countries in Africa could no longer pay off their debts. This caused them to take out more loans to pay for their already previous debts.
7. The IMF created the Structural Adjustment Facility, which gave African nations loans at a very low interest rate to help them repay what they previously owed. This did not help the Africans as they became trapped in an escalating cycle of debt.
8. After the end of the Cold War, donations were no longer given out to help secure allies in Africa. Aid was no longer focused on supporting the corrupt governments, but rather on the common man and an active human rights agenda in those nations.
1) “Emergency aid” is aid given in response to some disaster—humanitarian, natural, or otherwise. Moyo believes that aid is often inadequate and that much of international aid money is lost in the bureaucracies of aid organizations.
ReplyDelete2) Ms Moyo organizes post-war aid roughly into ten-year increments, beginning in the 1940’s and continuing into the modern “obsession” with African aid post-1980. Each of these ten-year increments has, according to Ms Moyo, contributed to the development of modern post-war aid as a ubiquitous practice of modern (primarily western) governments and NGOs in Africa. Ms Moyo’s historical organization of post-war aid begins with Bretton Woods in the 1940’s and includes the Marshall Plan of the 1950’s, industrialization in the 1960s, aid as a cure for poverty in the 1970s, aid as a tool for stabilization in the 1980s, and finally aid as an important humanitarian tool in modern Africa. Ms Moyo also makes a significant effort to differentiate between aid given to post-war Europe in the 1950s and aid given to various post-war countries in Africa in the years after the 1980s. She argues the primary distinction between these two post-war aid campaigns is that aid in Europe was used to restore the continent to its former glory—not, as in Africa today, to create new governmental and economic advances that the continent had never seen before.
3) The 1950s in Africa represented a time in which governments across the continent did little to address rampant problems of poverty, which left millions of poor, uneducated Africans in need of extragovernmental assistance that came in the form of international aid. This ostensibly marked the beginning of an aid trend that would last for yeas to come.
4) We don’t necessarily hear much about the Cold War proxy wars that were fought between the US and the USSR in Africa, but these proxy wars were nonetheless extremely important. Indeed, even when the two countries were not directly engaged in proxy wars on the continent, they were vying for influence and respect, which sometimes meant distributing aid “key locations.”
5) Ms Moyo’s argument about the motivations of the United States and Great Britain to provide aid to several parts of the African continent after the 50s and 60s seems to be that the two countries sought to restore control and influence that they once had on the continent. While this argument does bear some merit, its premises are dubious at best.
6) During the Arab oil crisis circa 1973, the price of oil rose precipitously due to decreased supply of oil to much of the world from nearly all Arab OPEC member countries. Many of Africa’s poorest countries took advantage of the confusion of the Arab oil crisis to take too large loans from international banks and found themselves in serious debt after the crisis ended.
7) The IMF quite simply restructured the debt of many poor Africans countries and, according to Ms Moyo, only solidified the paradigm of “helpless” African countries relying on international organization for economic assistance in doing so.
8) The priorities of many counties regarding aid in Africa changed noticeably with the end of the Cold War in 1991—most saliently, perhaps, for the United States, who no longer saw aid in Africa as a way to gain influence necessary to beat back Soviet political and military offenses. Instead, aid, which after the Cold War was primarily administered through international organizations and NGOs, became about helping bring about the “best” for the African continent (though the success and motivations thereof is highly debatable).
1. Describe “emergency aid” mentioned by Moyo and if she thinks that this is effective?
ReplyDeleteEmergency aid is relief aid in response to “catastrophes and calamities.” This aid is administrated either by governments or charities. Moyo does not think that emergency aid is effective as the allotted money is often drastically diluted. If the money itself is not diluted, the actual implementation of the money goes awry. Charities tend to not know the specific needs of the communities they are trying to help; this uncertainty of purpose mixed with monetary waste combines for an ineffective form of aid.
2. Explain how Moyo breaks down post-war aid into her “seven broad categories” Why does she think aid granted to Europe after WWII worked better there than it would in Africa today?
Moyo breaks down post-war aid into broad categories beginning in the 1940s and continuing with one category per decade and per each corresponding era. The final category brings us to what Moyo calls “the present-day obsession with aid as the only solution to Africa’s […] problems.” Moyo explains that the aid given post-WWII Europe was simply fixing infrastructure that had been broken. The systems were already in place, they just needed a monetary leg up to repair themselves. The situation in Africa is different in that those key points of infrastructure are, largely, nonexistent. Moyo asserts that Americans, smitten with the success of the Marshall Plan, tried in vain to apply the same tactics to a suffering Africa with dismal results.
3. Why does Moyo think Africa was “ripe for aid” by the end of the 1950’s?
Moyo explains that Africa was “ripe for aid” because the U.S, along with the rest of world, was thrilled over the success of their previous aid projects in Western Europe. In addition, Africa was filled with seemingly insurmountable problems: lack of education, unemployment, “a virtually non-existant tax base, poor access to global markets, and derelict infrastructure.”
4. How did the US and USSR compete in Africa during the Cold War? Explain your answer.
The US and the USSR fought their battle of capitalism versus communism by throwing aid into African countries’ governments. Both countries used aid as a means of manipulating governments into following their political agenda. Ironically, by giving aid to Africa, both the US and the USSR added an unprecedented new problem to Africa’s burden. This financial war between the US and the USSR left countless African countries with a shoddy leader and a newfound dependence on foreign aid.
5. According to “Dead Aid”, why did Britain and France start aiding African countries after the flood of independence on the continent in the 1950’s and 1960’s?
Britain and France started aiding African countries as they declared independence, and in doing so, they began the fatal neo-colonialism that has rendered aid to Africa so ineffective. As Moyo sarcastically puts it, Britain and France “combined their new-found altruism with a hefty dollop of self-interest.”
6. How did the 1973 oil embargo cause a deterioration of poor African economies?
The 1973 oil embargo led to a sharp increase in oil prices world-wide. This upset the economic balance in many countries, and in particular, African ones. Some of the poorer governments fell into the loan-traps set by newly full banks and were thrust quickly are irrevocably into deep debt. Inflation and food shortages were rampant, and poverty became an even more daunting obstacle.
7. What did the IMF do in the developing world in the 1980’s to stave off an economic meltdown brought on by the 1979 oil crisis? Do you think Moyo is suggesting that this helped the situation in Africa? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteThe debt crisis ensued after dozens of countries in the developing world were forced into “defaulting on their obligations” due to increased interest rates on loans they had taken out. The IMF’s solution was to “restructure the debt.” This restructuring involved lending money to the struggling nations in order to help pay their way out of their debt. Moyo argues that this “solution” was just a repackaged version of the pre-existing aid model. The IMF’s efforts set the African nations back even more in terms of dependency on foreign aid.
8. How did the end of the Cold War in the 1990’s affect the “aid agenda for the continent?”
Because richer countries were desperate to win the Cold War, they were willing to give huge sums of money (primarily in the form of grants) to poorer and economically desperate countries in return for those countries subscribing to their benefactor’s politics. The richer countries were so blinded in their attempts at political supremacy that many African nations ended up with now well-funded tyrants.
ReplyDelete1. Emergency aid in its simplest form is aid given during a time of emergency. Some recent examples are things such as the earthquake in Haiti or the tsunami in Japan. These countries were in a state of emergency and the people were in need of food, water, shelter, etc. While Dambisa Moyo doesn’t condemn emergency aid, I do not think she believes it is effective. It definitely is useful after natural disasters and the like but the money and the distribution tends to get complicated and resources aren’t allocated effective thus make emergency aid a less viable and effective form of aid.
2. Ms. Moyo breaks down the 7 different types of aid into 7 different decades/generations. She starts with Bretton Woods in the 40’s and ends with the current model of today: the solution for Africa is to throw millions of dollars at them. Aid granted to European countries post-WWII was much more successful because its purpose was much different than the aid being to Africa today. For European counties, it was rebuilding nations that were prosperous in the past and for African countries today, it is trying to build countries that can be prosperous in the future.
3. High percentage of unemployment, lack of education, infrastructure, government programs, and leadership led to Africa being ripe for aid.
4. The fight between the USSR and the USA was a monetary battle. The competition was who could give the most money to African countries to swing their support for democracy (USA) or communism (USSR).
5. Britain and France aided African countries in order to establish a positive reputation in these countries that just recently liberated itself from colonial rule. They were supposed to look like the good guy coming in to the fight after the battle was already over.
6. The oil embargo of 1973 dramatically increased the price of oil. Not only were oil prices skyrocketing but so was the price of food, which crippled African countries.
7. What the IMF did to stave off an economic meltdown brought on by the 1979 oil crisis was a policy change in the way developed nations gave aid to developing nations. Instead of throwing cash at these countries, the developing nations started to receive the money as loans in the hope that they would repay their debt. This led to little to no progress and higher debt.
8. The Cold War in the 1990’s affected the “aid agenda for the continent” by both counties withdrawing significant amount of funds and resources to these African countries. Since petty politics in Africa took a backseat, the UNDP and the World Bank stepped up as the main providers of aid for African countries.