You are going to continue your analysis of articles written on aid to Africa during this period. You are urged to further study in-depth perspectives on foreign aid to Africa by reading the following articles: New York Times Review “Aid Can it Work” http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2006/oct/05/aid-can-it-work/?page=1 , the Wall Street Journal article “Why Foreign Aid is hurting Africa” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123758895999200083.html and the Newsweek review “Helping Africa Save itself" http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/06/26/helping-africa-save-itself.html
Once you have read the articles you are going to write your own news article on foreign aid that is basically a reaction paper that identifies the pundits (someone who offers to mass media his or her opinion or commentary on a particular subject area) with whom you agree most closely and why. This is now your time to show that you have an opinion on how aid to Africa should be approached and that you have understand the complexities of the practice for both those lending and those receiving the aid.
The news article should also focus on your readings in “Dead Aid” and must be posted below before class on Wednesday.
Friday, April 19, 2013
In class assignment for Monday.
You are going to continue your analysis of articles written on aid to Africa during this period. You are urged to further study in-depth perspectives on foreign aid to Africa by reading the following articles: New York Times Review “Aid Can it Work” http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2006/oct/05/aid-can-it-work/?page=1 , the Wall Street Journal article “Why Foreign Aid is hurting Africa” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123758895999200083.html and the Newsweek review “Helping Africa Save itself" http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/06/26/helping-africa-save-itself.html
Once you have read the articles you are going to write your own news article on foreign aid that is basically a reaction paper that identifies the pundits (someone who offers to mass media his or her opinion or commentary on a particular subject area) with whom you agree most closely and why. This is now your time to show that you have an opinion on how aid to Africa should be approached and that you have understand the complexities of the practice for both those lending and those receiving the aid.
The news article should also focus on your readings in “Dead Aid” and must be posted below before class on Wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAid in Africa: The Starving Child
ReplyDeleteKim Foss
As a citizen in a country where it is imperative to give to others, I sometimes find it is hard to feel like a moral human being since I do not donate to charities in Africa. When the face of an African child pops up on the screen during a commercial or when emails are sent regarding the increasing death toll due to famine, it is hard to resist the urge to donate a few dollars here and there. What is not seen in these ads are the sheer statistics of the amount of donations per year given to the ailing countries within Africa and the growth rate of the country. Nine times out of ten would show that the amount of aid given to an African country has lead to more economic turmoil, rather than growth.
Foreign aid should be nothing more than a “quick pick-me-up” sent to those countries that are in dire need of governmental restructuring, not a long term flow of money. Africa has willingly accepted the money that wealthy countries have given them with open arms. Those who donate and send money in return feel good about themselves and what they have done for the poor people of Africa. However, the good that has been done by foreign aid is nothing compared to the staggeringly horrific effects it has had on the countries within Africa.
Desmond Moyo, a distinguished African economist, states that in order for the financial situation within Africa as a whole to increase the governments within Africa must strive to “attract more foreign investment” and “focus on increasing trade.” In order to attract foreign investment, there must be some sort of appeal. For example, South Africa hosted the World Soccer Cup. Millions flocked to Johannesburg to watch the game, and in turn were able to experience the culture and beauty of Africa. In terms of economic growth and stability, South Africa and Botswana are the most well off because they have catered to international appeal, thus increasing their international trade.
The west needs to do for Africa what Africa cannot do for itself. As Moyo puts it, the best way for donors to help is to not donate at all, but rather “phone officials [in African countries] and tell them all aid will be cut off within five years.” That would be nice. However, due to the moral ideaology that lives within the west many find this impossible to do. The west has a sense of responsibility, to take care of the failing nations, even though the economic situation is not looking to bright within their own country.
Even better yet, as Schneidman states, would be for an “African leader [to] make the call, with a simple message: ‘Thanks, but no thanks; we’ve learned to finance development on our own.” Until the countries within Africa can come to this conclusion themselves, they will continue to drown economically. The aid given has only served to fuel corruption, increase famine, raise inflation rates, lower education rates, and lower the life expectancy. It’s time to do something about this. It’s time to let the countries within Africa pick themselves up.
Give Africa a Chance: How Aid will help them survive
ReplyDeleteThey need the aid. They will die without it. So why do they keep denying it? These are the challenges that we face. We offer all we can and they don’t use it because they don’t want to be categorized as the poor person who needs aid. Trying to understand what these Africans go through everyday we looked closer and tried to find more discrete ways to get these people aid.
Africans will be given sorghum, a hardy and nutritious food, so they do not die from hunger; but they would not eat they food because it is associated with being a poor man’s food, therefore; they don’t want anything to do with it.
It’s not just food that Africans will refuse. Mothers who are AIDS/HIV positive and are pregnant will be given medicine during the pregnancy to make sure the bay doesn’t get the disease. And after the baby is born the mothers will be given formula, therefore; the baby doesn’t get infected from the breast milk. But because feeding your baby formula is huge sign saying, “I HAVE AIDS!” mothers won’t use the formula.
To put in perspective of what many aid agencies have tried to do already here’s a look of some failure, you can say, a few year ago. The World Bank tried to increase agricultural production, 75% of their projects were failures. Operation Mils Mopti in Mali was supposed to increase grain productions but the government forced “official” prices on the grain that was just too low for the farmers to live; they had to sell their farms for very cheap resulting in a productions fall of grain by 80%. In Senegal $4 million was spent to increase cattle production but in the end only 882 additional cattle were brought to the land.
Those are just a few examples of how aid agencies have tried and failed to help Africa. To find away where we can help the continent successfully and with out undermining them will be a challenge. It will cost more money towards the other continents willing to help; but once Africa is back on their feet the continent will strive and won’t need as much money in following years. And in order to make sure they aren’t just living off the generous aid, the people will be educated and learn how to survive on their own once the majority of the aid leaves.
To educate the people would take the longest. Educated them on diseases like HIV/AIDS; hopefully women won’t feel so embarrassed to feed their child formula. Educated on nutrients in food and what will be better for them in the long run.
It is a long shot to reach these goals for Africa but it’s a shot that aid agencies and other continents are willing to help with. Lets give Africa a chance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Beast writer Witney W. Schneidman states it best – “There is no question that outsiders have been complicit, wittingly and otherwise, in compounding Africa's problems over the years, especially during the Cold War. But aid is not always as harmful as Moyo claims.” In her article, Schneidman presents an objective look at aid to Africa, rather than jumping instantly to conclusions like Moyo. Rather than hold foreign powers solely responsible for Africa’s depressed economic state today, Schneidman looks at the actions of the recipients of the aid – and examines why aid isn’t helping.
ReplyDeleteThe primary reason foreign financial aid to Africa has had so little effect is because it doesn’t get there. Although the sum of money given to Africa has exceeded US$ 1 Trillion, a large amount of that is never makes it there, both intentionally and not. In some cases, malicious government officials simply pocket the money, to spend on exotic cars and multi-million dollar houses. In other cases, the government bureaucracy on the receiving end is so inefficient, and in such disarray, that the money simply never makes it to the African people. Therein lies the problem with aid for Africa – the money can’t help because the money doesn’t exist.
As Schneidman states, and Moyo refutes, the primary problem with African aid is due to Africans themselves (specifically their governments), not the beneficent foreign powers donating the money. Of course, the countries donating the money could have been stricter with the stipulations regarding the spending of African aid, but they shouldn’t need to – elected government officials should have the best interest of their country, constituents, and Africa as a whole at heart. Unfortunately, the lack of regulation regarding financial aid to Africa has led to financial contributions large in number, but small in effect.
To truly effect change to Africa, there needs to be comprehensive reform to both foreign aid policy and the governments who receive the aid. While money alone cannot solve all of Africa’s problems, it can allow for the creation of an independent, functional, efficient economy, which in turn can lead to positive social change. Simply bombarding Africa with billions of dollars a year without making sure that money is actually doing anything is a waste – both of our money and of Africa’s time. Prolonging the massive amount of financial aid is bringing no real benefit to Africa. We need to begin significantly reducing our aid to Africa, while simultaneously ordering stricter handling of the money we do send. Hopefully, over several years, the damage done to Africa as a result of reliance on foreign aid can be reversed, and Africa can began its rise out of poverty.
Breaking the Cycle of Detrimental Aid: African Independence at Last?
ReplyDeleteby: Katie Nardo
Foreign aid can often be a controversial topic, particularly in relation to the aid given to Africa, amongst economists, human rights activists, politicians, and so on. Many have researched the positive and negative effects that aid can bring the African people, and the continent as a whole. Some argue that aid can be beneficial to the individuals, but may lack the ability to improve an entire economy. Some have found that it can even worsen all aspects of a nation’s well-being. However, despite the opinions, I do not think one can understand why we have this modern perception of aid until they know the history of aid in Africa.
After WWII, Europe rebuilt itself at a surprisingly quick pace, largely due to the aid it received from the United States. Ever since then, the United States has had the notion that aid can turn a failing society into a successful world power. However, since then, a majority of the aid given around the world has been either given for the wrong reasons or distributed inefficiently. For example, in the late 1950’s, the United States used Africa as a tool to gain support for capitalism in the Cold War. The term, “bribery” may be better than “aid” to describe the money given to the governments supporting the United States. At this time in Africa, many colonies were beginning to break away from their colonizers, and become independent nations. As a result, the economies were weak, political structures were new and unestablished, and there was a large population of impoverished citizens left over from the colonial era. The previously colonizing countries in Europe and the United States saw this as a perfect time to bring aid. The western world viewed it as a symbiotic relationship where they could still have a somewhat dominant connection to the resource-rich continent, while Africa would benefit from the monetary donations.
Today, people in the United States view Africa as a continent filled with corrupt governments who cannot rule their countries and people who are uneducated and starving who could both certainly be helped the United States. There are a few problems with this logic. First, this degrading, patronizing view of Africa is not completely accurate and it alters the way U.S. citizens choose to help. For example, most people feel that donating to a charity or organization that provides emergency aid to a particular place that experiences a genocide, natural disaster, etc, is the most beneficial. Though this is true, this type of aid is only beneficial during the immediate crisis, and provides little to no long term benefits.
Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian economist, believes that foreign aid is essentially the cause for continuing Africa’s struggles, and ensuring it’s failures to occur. Simply the concept of pouring aid into seemingly helpless countries is patronizing and gives the same feeling that was present during imperialism. Moyo claims that as long as aid flows into Africa, corrupt governments will continue to be funded. However, the most harmful aspect that she believes aid brings to Africa, is the extremely detrimental effect on the countries’ economies. She states, “...evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that aid to Africa has made the poor poorer, and the growth slower...” “...Aid is an unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster.”
Yet despite the failures to improve the economies, aid has definitely made a positive impact on the lives of many individuals in Africa. Nicolas Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times, says, “...foreign aid just doesn’t work; and that would be deeply incorrect. The fact is that many of the people you meet in any African village are alive because of foreign aid.” He gives an example of beneficial aid, “by raising money to provide drinkable water, distribute mosquito nets to protect against malaria, improve methods of raising crops, and much else,” which I believe to be very important to remember. He goes on to describe watching a woman having pregnancy complications receive an operation in a clinic funded by foreign aid. The woman birthed a healthy baby, and eventually, she made a full recovery. Though this may not bring an entire country in Africa to becoming a stronger nation amongst world powers, it’s a step. Before Africa can move forward, it needs to take baby steps and make decisions to enhance the potential opportunities for the future. If people are busy worrying about basic necessities such as food, water, shelter, health, and security, then they cannot move on to tackling large political and economic problems.
ReplyDeleteAid in Africa for the past few decades has been mainly detrimental to the continent in various ways, causing many problems to arise, including civil wars between different ethnic tribes, lack of basic necessities, dependence on foreign nations, and many more. There needs to be a different outlook toward aid given to Africa. Clearly, it is important to continue supplying aid to Africa, for the sole reason of helping the individuals who actually need it. The short term goals should be to ensure that people live healthier and longer lives in order to give them the opportunity to help themselves. Thus, the focus for aid should be put into health and security so that prevalence of diseases, malnutrition, crime, and war decrease. Once the majority of the African population can move forward, so can the nations in Africa. Weaning Africa off of their dependence on foreign aid would push it into being able to self-govern and regulate. Because African nations have been incredibly dependent on the stronger western nations since the beginning of their “independence,” this would be a significantly different idea of a self-sufficient Africa. By helping better the lives of the individuals in Africa with aid, the African nations will be able to better themselves, as, finally, independent countries.
African Aid: The Developed World Makes Bad “Parents.”
ReplyDeleteThe problem with aid is that it deals with people. Aid isn’t as black and white as it is perceived. The whole continent of Africa is treated like a spoiled child. Affluent countries give aid, it gets misused, implemented incorrectly or lost in corruption but we continue to give.
Nichols D. Kristof states that “sympathizing with Africa has become cool.” Aid has turned into a marketing ploy, not a bad one either. Phrases like “One for One” made popular by the shoe company known as Toms have become popular. Social entrepreneurship has become increasingly common. It’s a genius marketing campaign, make cheap shoes, sell some, donate some to starving children, and escape some taxes. But, there’s a fundamental chasm in this model. The starving children need food not shoes. And when they grow out of their shoes and lack the calluses needed to prevent disease, they may acquire some nasty virus, who knows. I am not trying to shine a bad light on Toms, rather using the company as an example of how aid may not work. I actually commend Blake Mycoskie for his intentions and possible successes. The truth is, though, I don’t know, but there seems to be a missing link in the aid agenda.
We aren’t seeing results either. Paul Kagame, the current president of Rwanda and former leader of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), remarks that, “While more than US$300 billion in aid has apparently been disbursed to our continent since 1970, there is little to show for it in terms of economic growth and human development.” Over US$2 trillion of foreign aid have been transferred from foreign countries to Africa in the last 50 years, yet the country is still not progressing with the rest of us. Recently, there has been a surge in the economies of developing countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China. Their GDP’s per year have been growing by near ten percent. Meanwhile over thirty poverty stricken countries, mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa continue to have sporadic economies and even downward trends.
Granted, it is unfair to judge the whole continents aid-receiving ability on the failures of the majority, some aid projects have actually done quite well. Millions of dollars in aid have combated the spread of HIV/AIDS in botswana strengthening it’s health sector. South Africa is also a success story for aid. The country has received over US$2 billion dollars in aid for housing and healthcare since the end of apartheid in 1994, and it has worked out relatively well. Although these instances seem promising they are small-scale in comparison to the whole continent. If Africa has any potential to rise in the future, aid needs to taper off.
In Dambisa Moyo’s Book Dead Aid she explains that Max Weber, German political economist and sociologist, says that there are two ways to treat Africans, as children or adults. treating Africans as children contributes to the assumption that they need their hand held, because they are unable to develop on their own. On the other hand, viewing Africans as adults allows them to learn through trial and error, and most importantly on their own. Treating the continent like adults could potentially lead to steady economic development. Providing Africa with constant aid since 1940 is like holding the hand of a 60 year old. The problem, though, with the 60 year old still living in his 90 plus year old parents house is not the fault of the child rather, the parent.
Sources:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2006/oct/05/aid-can-it-work/?page=1
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/06/26/helping-africa-save-itself.htm
Dead Aid - Dambisa Moyo
Could Aid, Aid Africa’s Downfall?
ReplyDeleteSince the independence of Africa’s countries from their European colonizers in the 20th century, Africa has still largely been dominated by foreign powers in a new form: aid. According to Dambisa Moyo, the author of Dead Aid, approximately US $1 trillion has been thrown at Africa in aid since the 1940’s. This has created an Africa that is overly dependent on aid from foreign countries, which in many people’s opinion is a problem.
Africa is a many times referred to as a child who has not been given the chance to grow up yet, and make its own way in the world. Despite the humanitarian efforts of aid, it has actually stunted the growth of many countries, and has caused them to fall back.
It may seem like a bit of a brash statement to say that aid is the cause of all of Africa’s problems, however, it has been a major contributor. In many cases, monetary aid has kept bad or corrupt government officials in power for longer than they should have been, and the people are essentially left to starve. Despite aid’s appearance on the surface of being the “great savior” of the economy, aid is a major cause of economic inflation. It only takes so long before the “free money” starts to put the economy in a weak spot, which puts everyone in a bad place. Also, shipping in cheap commodities (such as food) from foreign countries, local businesses and farms are put out of business. This further increases Africa’s dependence on foreign countries for aid. Aid has stripped Africa of its independence. It has not given Africa a chance to build economies, businesses, and infrastructure for itself.
Dambisa Moyo maintains that the only way to create a stable, and self-sustaining Africa is through cutting off aid entirely. Although the efforts of foreign countries give monetary and humanitarian aid are meant well, by the time it actually reaches Africa, there is almost nothing there at all. As Moyo titles a section of her book, “We meant well.” People want to “do their bit,” and there is nothing wrong with that. However, they do not realize that they are doing more harm than help.
Killer Aid
ReplyDeleteMitchell Kneeshaw
The development in Africa is of prime interest today due to the potential strong investment returns that may come in the future, but also for the humanitarian concerns. Seemingly, Africa is stuck in a cycle of never ending poverty where Africans have little opportunities to improve their future. This fact has not gone unnoticed on the global stage. Governments, Ngo’s, Global banks, as well as individuals have been throwing money at Africa for years now. In fact, over the past 60 years it is estimated that there has been 1 trillion in development related aid given to Africa. Sadly, there has been little measurable improvement due to this foreign aid, and I argue that aid given to Africa has even stifled growth and spun Africa into an even bigger cycle of poverty and other humanitarian concerns.
Two of the most concrete negative effects of aid manifest themselves in the form of enabling corrupt governments. Most directly, the aid given to African nations help prop-up bad governments. That is, governments that would normally be bankrupted or overthrown by their citizens are empowered by the large amount of aid. Sadly this aid doesn’t often trickle down to the citizens and mainly ends up benefiting corrupt governments. This brings up my next point about government corruption. The large aid streams that come into Africa are very tempting for greedy governments to dip into. This fosters a culture of corruption among all governments. When donors, NGO’s, and governments alike are intending for their contributions to reach impoverished people there is no way to say if this was a success or if their generous contributions just lined the pockets of self-serving government officials.
Instead of donating large amounts of money directly to governments or local organizations for distribution, I would recommend that donors work on a smaller and more direct scale. That is, donors go directly into a community in need, avoiding government officials, and supply aid in the form of know-how or non-inflation causing means. This way, donors are sure that their contributions reach those in need and economic impacts can be minimized.
One piece of aid that is often overlooked, which I have mentioned above, is aid in the form of “know-how”. This type of aid is composed of teaching local communities certain practices. For example, donors could teach rural communities more sustainable farming techniques or people living in urban townships could be taught certain trade-school like techniques. This form of aid is sustainable and empowering for people with the added benefit that local culture is not altered and economic impacts remain at a minimum.
The other economic impacts of aid are far more complex and require more explanation. These impacts come in the form of: inhibiting countries from accessing capital markets, inflation, ruining global export opportunities, and plain old debt. The first notable economic implication of aid is the amount of debt that is accumulated by aid-receiving countries. Essentially, some of the “aid” is in the form of low-interest loans. Though theses loans may be low-interest they quickly add up and can be debilitating for nations. Nations are forced to take more loans to try and pay back their pre-existing loans; which locks government up into a permanent cycle of re-financing impossible loans. The next issue I will be covering shares some similarities to debt in that it has to due with credit. Since African nations constantly cannot pay back their loans their line of credit is non-existent. This then results in African countries being inaccessible to capital markets where foreign investors could potentially invigorate the market. Moreover, the constant giving of aid results in a lack of motivation to even attempt to access these capital markets because this money is just given to them in an unsustainable way.
One of the more complex repercussions of aid is the flood of inflation and the inhibition of nations and business to access global markets. When monetary aid is given to countries there obviously is a sudden influx of cash. This has obvious inflationary implications because everyone suddenly has more money (the true value of everything becomes diluted (currency products etc.)). This can put small business out of business very fast and has devastating impacts for the less fortunate. More complexly this inflation can get in the way of business’s ability to access foreign markets because their devalued products and currency cannot be competitive on the global stage. This obviously results in a limited amount of opportunities for businesses.
ReplyDeleteIn all, the negative effects that come from aid have stunted the growth of Africa and will continue to stunt growth if something isn’t changed. Africa is loaded with potential and promising attributes. Although this is yet to be harnessed, when it is, Africa will rise to be one of the most favorable growth markets. The first step to development on this scale would be to refocus and even remove some of the aid given to Africa.
African Aid: Will the Vicious Cycle Ever End?
ReplyDeleteFamines, inflation, poverty, lack of education, and corruption plague many African countries. For what reason? Why has Africa never become the developed nation that many hoped it would be? This is because of foreign aid.
The amount of foreign aid sent to Africa is astonishing. Dambisa Moyo, author of “Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way For Africa”, states that, “Since the 1940’s, approximately US$1 trillion of aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. This is nearly US$1,000 for every man, woman, and child on the planet today.” (Moyo 35) With so much money being sent to Africa, many would think that it would be well on its way to growth and prosperity. Unfortunately, all of this aid sent to developing countries in Africa has only caused further problems.
There are multiple reasons why foreign aid has failed to make Africa a developed nation. A few of these reasons are debt, high administrative cost and bad implementation, and corruption. When Africa was first given foreign aid, it was a way for developed countries to have economic power over African countries. Many developed countries did not want to give up possession of these countries once they won independence. Developed nations like these decided to have economic power over African countries by giving them aid. African countries soon became buried in debt. This lead to needing more aid and turned into a vicious cycle from then on.
Not only is debt a major cause of the failure of aid in developing countries, but “high administrative costs and poor implementation” (Moyo) from humanitarian and emergency aid can be extremely ineffective. In the article, Aid: Can it Work? by Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times online newspaper, he gives an example of how humanitarian aid is not helping those in need. He states that, “You see the very sensible efforts of aid groups to get people to grow sorghum rather than corn, because it is hardier and more nutritious. But local people aren’t used to eating sorghum. So aid workers introduce sorghum by giving it out as a relief food to the poor—and then sorghum becomes stigmatized as the poor man’s food, and no one wants to have anything to do with it.” The aid workers do not know much about the place they are working in or who they are working with. They are unknowledgeable about how best to implement their relief project without creating stigmas. Their project then becomes unsuccessful and aid, once again, fails to help the impoverished people in Africa.
Although many feel a moral obligation to give what they can to help those who are suffering in impoverished countries, most do not know that their contribution is in fact causing more problems for these developing countries and not helping those in need. The only way Africa will be able to over come the struggle with foreign aid is by having developed countries stop giving aid or to have better implementation strategies and keep a watchful eye on where the money is going within developing countries. As Dambisa Moyo said in her article from the Wall Street Journal, “Western countries can help by cutting off the cycle of giving something for nothing. It's time for a change.” It is indeed time for a change in Africa. Controlling foreign aid is where it beings.
Africa is Not the Worlds Child
ReplyDeleteAid in Africa is a topic with a very controversial issue; some believe it is good for the countries while others don’t believe it has done anything to help. “It’s easy to build a clinic, but harder to ensure that doctors and nurses actually report for work in the days that follow.” Nicholas D. Kristof makes an important point in his article that it is easy to throw money into a country, but harder to ensure benefits from the money. One of Africa’s many problems is aid being supplied to them by countries.
In America if you are associated with Africa in any shape or form you are seen as a good individual, earning bonus points with your social status. For example, Toms shoes is an organization that gives a pair of shoes to a child in Africa with every Toms shoe purchased, “One to One” is there moto. When a person buys the over priced shoe they feel good because they know they have helped out a child in Africa, and anytime they wear those shoes they feel like a better person because it “helped African children”. Little do they know the harm it has actually causes the countries which receive the shoes; destroying the local economies with the children barely benefiting. But this article isn’t about Toms shoes, it is to notice the fact that people around the world are not educated enough to see that aid is not helping Africa. “There is, of course, the largely unspoken and insidious view that the problem with Africa is Africans - that culturally, mentally, and physically Africans are innately different.” Dambisa Moyo expresses in her book, Dead Aid, most of the worlds view on Africa. This idea that Africans are poorer and different than the rest of the world is wrong. It is isolating a group of people and saying they are not as good as the rest of us and can’t survive without our help. The world treats Africa like a child and spoon feeds it what they think it needs. Africa is a complex continent with 54 countries striving to meet the expectations of the world. They each have different strengths and weaknesses but won’t be able to work through them if every time they take a step they have a hand ready to catch them.
Africa is just like any other continent in the world, with a population and a desire to live. The difference is the lack of education and poorer living conditions that Africans deal with on a daily basis. Individuals around the world try to become better citizens by throwing money at Africans thinking that they are doing good. Nicholas D. Kristof also states, “sympathizing with Africa has become cool.” People think dwelling in Africa’s problems and saying they are helping is cool, but it is not actually solving the problem. These individuals just give away money as aid and feel satisfied because they helped out Africa. People abuse Africa for personal needs. When someone helps out with Africa they are automatically classified as a globally, respected figure who helps the world fix their problems. Just like Toms everyone feels good for buying the shoes because they helped out Africa and want to be seen as a person who cares. Africa is in danger of aid because individuals abuse the upper hand they are given when providing the aid.
Around the world, Africa is seen as the child that needs help growing up. All countries have there own idea on how to raise this child which creates the competition for aid. Everyone wants to donate or help more so they can have a piece of Africa. It is just like colonialism in the 1900s except that countries are just using Africa as a tool to better their own lives. Africa is not a child anymore and has learned many lessons Africa now needs to learn how to live on its own without support from other countries.
Worst Aid: The Declining Aid Situation in Africa
ReplyDeleteIs aid in Africa truly effective, or is it destroying the continent’s economy?
Imagine you’ve fallen upon hard times. Not just “I’ve lost my job” hard times, but “I won’t be able to feed my family tonight” hard times.
Now, imagine a wealthy-looking man comes up to your household and sees it’s in shambles. He says to you, “I’m going to give you a substantial sum of money to better your household. You don’t have to pay it back anytime soon, as we can work to absolve your debt later. I’d suggest you’d use it to buy some food and medicine for your family, but I won’t stop lending to you if you spend it on drugs, alcohol, and prostitutes. However, if your situation hasn’t changed in a couple of months, I’m going to get some of my friends to help me give you more money to change. Deal?”
This scenario seems a bit beyond bizarre, does it not? Surely, no one sane economist, or anyone with a grain of fiscal responsibility, for that matter, would think this deal to be a reasonable offer. And yet, this deal is being made continually, and not just in this small household setting. This offer has been made to a vast majority of the African continent, and has harmed the continent’s chances of recovery. Foreign aid funds, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, have been making this deal with many African countries to no avail. This is due to a multitude of reasons.
Firstly, there is no perceived impetus for paying back the debts accrued from these aid funds. Even if one fund decides to stop supporting a country, there are three more lined up, ready to give anything and everything to this country in need. These African nations see no direct penalties for their failure to treat the loan as such: a temporary influx of monies for the purpose of stimulating the economy.
Another drawback to such a high investment in foreign aid is what’s known as the micro-macro paradox. As Dambisa Moyo would explain, let’s assume there is a small group of mosquito-net makers in Africa, scraping by a meager living selling a few every day. A foreign aid program decides to tackle the malarial issue by manufacturing and shipping thousands of nets to African villages, one of which happens to house the net makers. They’ve been outperformed, so they reluctantly take up another trade.
Five years later, when all the nets have been irreparably damaged, there are no more local net makers to replenish the damaged nets, and malaria goes back on the rise. The village is now worse off than when it started. According to Moyo, a better economic model would be to have purchased the nets from these net makers, giving them a stimulated income and simultaneously providing protection from disease for the village.
One of the largest problems with aid, however, is how easy it is for the direct recipients of aid to become corrupted. Many of the monies given directly to government officials never reach the national treasury; instead, they go directly into the pockets of corrupt heads of state. The African Union, in a 2002 estimate, states that the continent loses $150 billion a year. This money does not come only from aid; many oil-rich countries receive bribes from “legitimate” oil companies in exchange for prime oil fields.
What Africa needs is not further aid. Rather, there needs to be a real framework set for Africa which allows for productive growth. While foreign aid does have some benefits, it would be best not to squander the gifts from that nice, wealthy stranger. Sooner or later, he’ll be tired of throwing money at you, and you’ll sit once again, beside a few empty bottles, having made little progress from where you started.
The Heart of the Problem
ReplyDeleteAid to African countries has been a topic of great confusion for quite some time. Many believe it is essential to the sustainability of foreign economies, but it can be argued that it in fact does just the opposite. With over $50 billion of aid being flooded into the continent of Africa per year, we have not seen the progress that has been paid for thus far. This is due to many key issues, from corruption in governments to historical, and geographical plagues.
According to Dambisa Moyo, “The insidious aid culture has left African countries more debt-laden, more inflation-prone, more vulnerable to the vagaries of the currency markets and more unattractive to higher-quality investment.” On top of this, she mentions that it has “increased the risk of civil conflict and unrest (the fact that over 60% of sub-Saharan Africa's population is under the age of 24 with few economic prospects is a cause for worry). Aid is an unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster.”
Aid to African countries, with the intention of building a community in need of support, is “destined to help the average African support bloated bureaucracies in the form of the poor-country governments and donor-funded non-governmental organizations”. Moyo also mentions that the “World Bank had participated in the corruption of roughly $100 billion of its loan funds intended for development.”
Aid is crippling African governments. With a constant influx of "free" money, governments do not have to work on repairing the country. This, in a sense, de-motivates governments, reducing the need to raise taxes to increase local economies. The countries generally need to make sure the foreign donors remain in power, and constantly stream in funds. If instead, according to The Daily Beast-World News on behalf of Moyo, “donors could help Africa by phoning officials in African governments and telling them all aid will be cut off within five years,” then perhaps corruption issues would be much less prevalent, and governments would be motivated.
It has been estimated that across Africa, 70% of the “public purse” comes from foreign aid. In Ethiopia, 90% of the government budget is due to aid, resulting in only 2% of the country with access to mobile phones. Instead of aid simply sitting in the pockets of the government, it would be much more beneficial according to Moyo, if the government began selling its mobile phone license. That could generate government income; provide its citizens with phone service, and kick off much needed development.
South Africa, Botswana, and many others have interestingly benefitted from Aid to their countries. With strong governance, and concrete donations to specific issues, the donations made out to these countries have been used to enhance resident life through the South African housing issues, and the Botswana HIV/AIDS health sectors. We have seen improvements, but more must be seen in order for the continent to fully develop.
With Africa remaining as the most unstable and diverse continent in the world, it is difficult to predict all of the reasons why aid has failed for the most part. Countries differ from government to geography to race, but long-term aid has not been the answer to widespread poverty and corruption. Many theories such as governmental corruption with incoming cash flow, the history of colonialism, (resulting in a widespread lack of control for local governments) and abundance or plague of natural resources, have painted a basic picture at just why Africa has not yet risen to its true potential. If instead, smaller, finite loans were implemented for specific issues (seen in South Africa and Botswana), then we would see a much greater decrease in corruption and hopefully an increase in stability.
Stop the madness: Africa ascends above the horizon?
ReplyDeleteAid in Africa has both positives and negatives that affect the country as a whole. Although aid has been suggested to help humanitarian and emergency causes, non-profits, and government loans and grants, in reality the money is not being supervised and has continued to be used for causes unknown. This will continue to happen until someone puts a stop to this vicious cycle. Once money is transferred from either the donors or a given country the tendency is that the money has incorrectly been used or has not been used at all. Kristof sums it up by saying, “The aid industry is deeply flawed” and this is sadly true.
Unfortunately it seems that the plans that have been executed in the past have failed. To enhance the regulation of foreign aid it would seem best to institute an objective outside authority. This regulatory body will devise action plans on exactly how every penny of the money will be spent. With this new regulatory system it will prevent inflation by both the government and independent businesses.
Kristof argues that currently some areas of aid, especially “healthcare is most effective but it is not always guaranteed” but with a new regulatory system of foreign aid it will be effective and assured to be applied to the proper need. In Kristof’s later studies you recognize that the death rate has decreased because of these new efforts.
This regulatory system will not be like the Marshall Plan and will need to be flexible to adopt to what is currently happening in the given country within Africa at the time aid is distributed. It is clear by what we have learned, that not all parts of Africa are the same and this new regulatory system would need to be able to accommodate the differences.
Aid In Africa: the role of woman
ReplyDeleteBy Hope Schulman
If you visit any rural village in Africa, you will most likely see the village woman trekking to and from the river with buckets of water on their heads. It is the quintessential African women that foreign countries and African men picture in their minds.
But is this the way these women should be viewed in modern society? We are in a modern world where women are starting to gain equal rights. Just two years ago women were guaranteed equal pay i the United States.
What good is it going to do to come into a country and build a clinic specially designed for women, who don’t have the time or ability to use it. Its simply a waste of money. Money that could be spent elsewhere. But both private and public aid organizations don’t know this. They send their money to african countries, feeling good about themselves even though there is a high probability that their projects have failed. That takes on the issue of tackling what even defines failed. Does a project fail when teachers and doctors don’t show up to newly built hospitals and schools, or does a project fail when the “money” for these schools and hospitals runs out. It is hard to tell.
What I can tell and others can as well, is that the current method of aid in Africa needs to change, if not be abolished altogether.
One commonality one will come across after having read articles about aid and its effect on African development is that the long-held tradition of developed countries absent-mindedly donating money to African nations in hopes of initiating development has failed. From analysts such as Dambisa Moyo who strongly and openly denounce aid packages and others like Nicholas Kristof, an NY Times analyst and first hand observer and supporter of aid organizations such as Plan USA, a unified voice emerges stating that foreign aid in Africa has often caused much more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteHowever, these different analysts all begin to have different viewpoints and opinions when it comes to the actual matter of changing the nature of foreign aid in Africa. Moyo for instance, takes a very strong stance against aid meant to encourage economic growth, against the type of aid provided from donor governments. She makes a convincing case that the very nature of the long term aid created and nurtured by developed nations was destructive to the continent on a whole, and that aid encouraged corruption, inaction, and overall set African countries back. She cites statistics of Africa leaders across the continent embezzling approximated sums of up to “$150 billion a year” and states how she believes a “pro-market government” weaned off aid would promote internal, self-sustaining development. Overall, while Moyo focuses on covering aid transactions between donor governments and international monetary organizations and African nations, she provides a convincing argument as to why the very nature of African aid is broken and needs to be fixed. The solutions she provides all revolve around achieving African self-sufficiency, in the creation of an independent continent with countries capable of producing the business and goods to support themselves. Because of these beliefs, Moyo holds strong views against foreign aid for Africans in general. Moyo’s piece provides a detailed and comprehensive look at the many detrimental effects foreign aid has had in Africa, and the potential solutions she provides paints the picture of an ideal Africa that would be completely free from western influence and capable of developing in the same manner as other developing countries in Asia and South America. However, aid does have its uses, and perhaps instead of looking at all the negatives of African aid, she could have incorporated a responsible plan for implementation of aid that would allow for steady assisted development while discouraging corruption, instead of writing off all assistance as something to be avoided.
Nicholas Kristof, in his piece about aid in Africa, provides a similar opinion in regards to large scale foreign economic aid as Moyo. In analyzing foreign aid, he comes to mostly the same conclusions, stating that the method of aid donated by developed nations does not do anything to measurably foster growth and eventually begins to “limit competitiveness” and increase corruption. However, Kristof takes a very positive view toward aid especially as a result of personal experiences he had with charity organizations in Africa. The good he saw aid clinics accomplish throughout Africa justified in his eyes the presence of charitable aid in Africa. In doing this, he indirectly makes a distinction between charity aid and other types of aid. I believe that this is an important point, as while Moyo takes a very aggressive stance against aid and looks for larger issues associated with the aid process, Kristof looks at many of the smaller, more personal benefits aid can have on lives throughout the continent. In conclusion, I agree with both Moyo and Kristof’s points, and believe that a good aid package for Africa will incorporate a more careful consideration on the part of donor nations in regards to maintaining a nation’s competiveness while decreasing corruption, and will ensure that local needs are addressed to ensure better effectiveness.
Aid in Africa: A Paradox
ReplyDeleteBy Victoria Reynolds
In the first year of the Global Journal Projects partnership with the Kibera Girls SOccer Academy in Kenya, I learned something surprising- the girls didn't want to be referred to as "underprivileged" because in their eyes, they weren't. They were some of the few who were actually able to attend school.
In realizing this, we restructured our partnership in a few ways I find applicable to Africa as a whole- rather than us simply raising money for them, both groups were responsible for the profits, and projects were created at Pacific Ridge and Kibera. Our "aid" became a two way street, a partnership that held both of us accountable if we didn't meet quota- we had accountability on both ends.
Aid in Africa is facing a similar problem- millions of dollars are being sent it's way with flimsy to no strings attached, and its being received by governments who use it corruptively, ineffectively, and wastefully. Foreign aid in Africa is currently at that first ignorant stage of the Global Journal Project- foreign governments are the givers, and African countries can do nothing but sit there and receive the billions- then go use it however they see fit.
The concept, and stigma of aid both in 1st and 3rd world countries as it currently stands, is doing Africa no favors.
Billions in aid to countless countries has left Africa laden with debt they can’t pay, an incredibly weak and inflation prone economy, and made the continent “unattractive to high-quality investment” that may have helped them rebuild.
It’s become a paradoxical structure of the “helping hand” doing anything but.
As Damisa Moyo puts it in her article Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa, “Giving alms to Africa remains one of the biggest ideas of our time -- millions march for it, governments are judged by it, celebrities proselytize the need for it". Africa has become one of the great charity cases of the 1st world, whether it be for governments, celebrities, or the countless humanitarian organizations promising- usually- a temporary fix to long-running problems. This constant influx of money with no conditions or time frame attached allow the recipients to do with it as they please, generally not benefiting their country.
Thats not to say that organizations that have sent girls to school is a bad thing. However, it doesn’t help much when they won’t be able to find employment in their own countries after they graduate because of lack of positions in a stagnant economy.
With a large percentage of the government aid, the main problem stems from the issue of accountability and conditionality. As aid currently stands, often a large check is sent to the government of a struggling country, possibly with some recommendations on how it should be used. However, this is where the oversight ends. Even if the government hears that the money is spent in a wasteful or corrupt manner, they generally don’t do anything about it. The receiving government is free to use it as they please, whether it be for the healthcare or education system, or to build themselves and their supporters new houses. As William Easternly says in his book, The White Man’s Burden, “Feedback without accountability is like the bumper sticker i once saw on an eighteen-wheeler: "Don’t like my driving? call 1-800-screw-you".
If donor governments were to tighten up their conditions, holding officials accountable for the use of the money, aid could take a turn for the better. A possible solution is presented by Easternly in his book, The White Mans Burden, where he suggests that "a political reformer takes responsibility for the results of a reform. If something goes wrong, he pays politically, perhaps by losing office. If the reform succeeds, he gets the political rewards.”
Aid in Africa: A Paradox (cont.)
ReplyDeleteThe original purpose of foreign aid in Africa was to help the country rebuild, but many nations are simply continuing to build anew, without repairing weak infrastructure and economic sectors that need attention. The people in these countries- like Zimbabwe- are not incentivized or encouraged to work or create jobs, and the new and unemployed young generations sink right along with the economy.
Nicholas Kristof examines the economic case against aid- presented by WIlliam Easternly in his newest book- in his critical book review entitled Aid: Can it Work?, saying “The median ratio of aid to GDP of the ten countries with the highest per capita growth rates between 1980 and 2002 was just 0.23 percent. In contrast, as Easterly shows, the ten countries with the lowest per capita growth rates in that period, all negative rates, had a median aid-to-GDP ratio of 10.98 percent.”
Just because aid is largely ineffective now by no means indicates this could not change. Aid has been successful in Africa at various points- maybe just not in the form of unbridled dollars. Most recently, France provided military support to the Malians fighting an attempted takeover. By providing aid in the form of security and troops, France allowed Mali to pay attention to fixing problems both involving the conflict and in their country as a whole. Without this, the Malian government would have had to employ much more time and money into the conflict, taking away from essential issues they needed to solve. Military aid could, in some countries, be the answer to the conundrum of aid in Africa.
In his book, The Trouble with Africa: Why Foreign Aid isn’t Working, Robert Calderisi emphasizes the need for aid reform:
“Africans need breathing space much more than they need money. Not a Marshall Plan, but real backing for the few governments that are fighting poverty, plus political support for the millions of Africans who are resisting oppression and violence in the rest of the continent.”
In it’s current state, aid in Africa is largely doing nothing but harm, but that by no means indicates a hopeless situation. While it would take reform on all ends- foreign governments, foreign humanitarian groups, African officials, African people- Africa could recover from it’s aid dependence, given time and incredible commitment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfrican Aid: A harmful crutch
ReplyDeletewritten by: Keith Burris
Africa has been struggling throughout the last few decades, but with them finally threatening to break through the ceiling of development that the west had previously thought possible it is important to look at the aid being constantly given
Aid, in many cases, can be seen the same as a set of crutches. Although crutches can be helpful to those who have suffered an injury it is important not to give an infant crutches simply because it cannot yet walk. What happens in this scenario is that even if the infant speedily becomes mobile, it never can actually walk until the crutches are taken away and it has a need to. The same can be said about aid to foreign nations. If a country goes through a temporary economic depression or natural catastrophe (comparable to an injury) the aid given by other nations can be a useful tool to recovery, however when a nation or group of nations is in its stages of infancy, it is important not to let aid be too prevalent. Even more importantly, it is important to wean the country off of aid quickly so they can become self-sufficient.
It is important to note that aid can be successful when it is focused and given “proper oversight and good governance” according to Witney Schneidman. Schneidman raises the issue of weaning countries off aid, but keeping some programs intact. This idea is a good balance in contrast to the ideas proposed by those who either want to ramp up the philanthropy or shut it down completely. Her focus is not on pumping the countries with aid, but constructively creating, and maintaining, programs which will genuinely help the country.
Schneidman seems to be the most level head in the sea of opinions offered. The extreme scenarios by Moyo are ideal on paper, however in some countries her plans simply are not possible. Furthermore I believe that Aid should not be completely shut down. It is important that aid creates change, not dependence. Moyo loses sight of the fact that when aid is used right it is not a crutch, but a focused program which fosters a better life in the country affected.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo Give or Not to Give, That is the Question
ReplyDeleteIn the western world money brings prosperity, money brings happiness, money brings growth. When people in western nations see the plight of Africans on Save The Children commercials and other advertisements they immediately believe that if only those counties were infused with money, which “obviously” brings prosperity for all, Africa’s problems would simply disappear. The sad fact is that the wealth of African nations does not correspond to the well being of its people; in fact it can even make their situation worse.
To truly understand why money in the form of humanitarian and government aid can be detrimental rather than constructive, you need to first understand the concept Dutch Disease. Dutch Disease is not cause by a virus or parasite like HIV or malaria, but is nonetheless a plague across the continent. Dutch Disease is when a country’s resource wealth is responsible for the decline of the standard of living for the nations people. No other country is a more perfect example of Dutch Disease than Nigeria. Nigeria is floating on a sea of oil, which for all intensive purposes creates an endless stream of wealth for the country. However, it is this endless wealth that is the primary reason behind the social issues within Nigeria. Most of the wealth created by Nigerian oil simply falls into the pockets of a few politicians and members of the small wealthy elite, meaning none of the oil wealth benefits the nation’s impoverished majority. Control for the lifeblood of the Nigerian economy causes frequent conflicts between the numerous ethnic groups in the country, turning Nigeria into a nation that even other Sub-Saharan nations look down upon.
Aid relates the story of Nigerian oil because just like oil, international aid simply acts an endless stream of capital, which results in economic disaster similar to that of Nigeria. In fact, Dutch disease caused by aid can be, in many cases, worse than oil. According to Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times, “ several studies have found that high levels of aid can lead to more corruption and worse government and one study found that between 1960 to 1999, aid appeared to have a more corrosive effect on democracy than oil.” International aid, much like oil, would be considered an economic miracle in the rest of the world. The problem is that many Sub-Saharan nations are incredibly fractured along ethnic lines and rampant with corruption, causing usually positive factors to become negative.
The real question is then; if it is so obvious that international aid does not help the African continent, then why is the international community so adamant about aid in the region? The fact is, while aid has not increased economic prosperity in the region or been successful at lifting the masses from poverty, it has undoubtedly saved the lives of countless Africans. Take the experience of New York Times author Nicholas D. Kristof for example, “Cockroaches skittered on the floor underneath Ramatou, as the doctors wheeled her into the small operating theater. The surgery was primitive but could not have been more effective: thirty minutes later, the doctor delivered a baby boy, and an hour later the mother was conscious and recovering. That clinic, financed by the UN Population Fund (whose funding the Bush administration has cut because of its support for China’s family planning program) and by Nigeria’s aid program (poor countries are donors, too), had just saved two lives before my eyes.”
While similar aid has undoubtedly fueled economic stagnation and corruption across the continent, international aid had just save two lives, two lives that would have otherwise been extinguished. This is a conundrum facing policy makers regarding African aid, because if the plug is pulled on aid, many people will die, but many future generations could be saved. It is a calculated risk, as economic salvation for the forgotten continent many never be achieved. If ending international aid is the key to Africa’s future, the journey to that future may bring suffering sooner than it brings salvation.
ReplyDeleteThe Problem with Aid
ReplyDeleteAid can be effective. The Marshall Plan, created after the end of World War II, distributed today’s equivalent of $100 billion (US) and, as Dambisa Moyo, author of Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa, put it, rescued Europe “from the brink of an economic abyss.” Nicholas Kristof, author of the article “Aid: Can It Work?,” argues that military aid provided to Taiwan in 1950 by the United States in the form of naval protection saved hundreds of thousands of lives and the Taiwanese economy, and proved to benefit the entire global economy.
Unfortunately, the developed world’s attempts to lift Africa out of poverty have been unproductive and even detrimental to the continent’s progress. Moyo writes, “the insidious aid culture has left African countries more debt-laden, more inflation-prone, more vulnerable to the vagaries of the currency markets and more unattractive to higher-quality investment,” but why is that?
One of the main issues with aid in Africa, Moyo argues, is that it is a “band-aid solution:” while aid seems to help initially, it eventually leaves the country in a worse state than before. If the money given to a country is a loan, nearly all benefits of the aid are lost to the devastating debt the country is left in (which often is only worsened by inflation rates).
Kristof argues that another reason that aid has failed in Africa is that “people don’t assign value to what they get for nothing;” that is, because the aid is often given with few caveats, it is not treated the way other money is treated. This phenomenon explains why governments receiving aid are prone to rely on it as permanent income instead of building a tax base for government funding (countries also consider aid permanent income because most aid given today has no predefined limits, such as the 5-year time limit of the Marshall Plan). This also explains so much foreign aid given to governments is lost to corrupt officials and never reaches its target recipient.
The problems with aid can be most easily understood through an example, such as the distribution of mosquito nets to protect against malaria. Kristof mentions that the distribution of malaria nets does not necessarily directly correspond to decreased malaria infection rates, for he found that recipients of the nets would set them aside and not use them because they were given to them for free, and therefore the nets can’t have had much value. Moyo discusses how a mosquito-net maker in the area with some 10 employees would be put out of business, because the people receive the mosquito nets for free. All the dependents of those 10 employees and the mosquito-net maker would lose the financial support the business provided. And, in a few short years, when all of the donated mosquito nets would torn and therefore useless, the mosquito-net maker’s business would no longer exist, and the people would be worse off than they were before the aid was given in the first place.
Aid is not the solution to Africa's problems, and yet the developed world continues to shower the continent with it. Kristof writes that “aid groups, both public and private, have every incentive to boast about their achievements but to ignore (or whitewash) their failures; so we don’t learn as much from our mistakes as we should.” We must learn from our mistakes, and we must change how we view aid. If Africa is to succeed, foreign aid to Africa must be significantly reduced, if not eliminated altogether.
The Third World Kid: Africa
ReplyDeleteAfrica---a continent packed with sympathy, attentions from other countries come with flowing aids. I want to express my opinion of this continent, this kid of every other continent.
Either west or east, money seems like the only way to express their sympathy, their attention, just like raising their unfortunate kid. However, no kid will ever grow up under the attentions and nonstop help from the parents. In another world, nonstop aids are useless.
Aids have been coming into Africa since 1896, but most of people seems like they got no benefit from those aids. Just like the article “Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa”, the corruption is Africa involved several presidents and even the World Bank, but the aids are still coming, unstoppable. Where did those money go? Clearly, into some people’s personal pocket. It’s like grandparents want give their grandchildren some money so that they are able buy some food to feed themselves but the parents take the money away, and hunger the kids, but the grandparents keep giving money. Yes, a country’s rising must have money, but receiving money is not the ultimate way to develop itself and bring up the citizens’ life condition. A nation’s rising have to depend on themselves, more and more they got from others, the less and less they want to work for themselves.
But, should we stop every aid? The answer is no. Both authors of “Aids: Can it work?” and “Helping Africa Save Itself” points out that the aids for health care is the most effective form of aid. Schneidman, who is the author of “Helping Africa Save Itself”, says that South Africa’s housing and health care and Botswana’s combat of spreading HIV/AIDS had significant success, and those two examples show that foreign aids with proper plan can be used in a good way. On the other side, some countries use aids program to output their goods in their country, and help its own economy, which destroys African’s local business, I think this kind of aids programs must be shut down immediately, this continent is not a place to transfer crisis.
In the end, I think the aids should not be stopped, but the aids have to put to help the locals, instead of doing business, sponsoring those local businesses which have potentials, and retrain those skillful worker advance technology, bringing modern technology into this continent and let locals find out the best way to develop their own countries. There is still a question left, are those developed countries willing to give in their advanced technology?
The Dark Continent in the Modern Era
ReplyDeleteAfrica, the cradle of civilization, has become synonymous with corruption, poverty, war, and, genocide. How has the birthplace of the human race become so victimized? Viewed by most as an enigma and others as a needy child, Africa has become the primary target of western philanthropy over recent years. In an attempt to life Africa up out of the ashes and into the light, foreign aid has become an unexpected and destructive saboteur within the continent. The true goal of foreign aid has been lost in all of the pity and patronization that is directed towards Africa. NGOs and western governments have developed a disillusioned view of how progress can be achieved in the African continent, as it continues to rain dollar bills over the mansions of Africa’s “elected officials”.
Do charities and non-profits believe that the deep-seated problems of corruption and poverty in Africa can be solved externally through an infusion of cash? All “emergency aid” has achieved over the recent years has been to create an ever increasing dependence on western altruism. Even when millions of dollars for reconstruction or development are very clearly siphoned off by those in power the cash continues to flow. When companies investing in Africa detect embezzlement, relations are strained and very frequently the company will look to invest elsewhere. Why do NGOs and government-sponsored charities not operate in the same manner?
The roots of Africa’s problems lie within the continent. Until the nations of Africa can achieve some forms of transparency in their governments, aid will have little to no long term effect on the continent. How this is achieved is the difficult part. Western countries must take a harsher stance against those in Africa who seek to prolong their peoples’ suffering. Embargos frequently only hurt the people of a nation, not their intended targets: the leaders. Therefore an effective alternative is to convince the people of these nations that the people they trusted to run their countries have put them in this position. Intrinsically motivated change is the only form of change that will last.
How are your dollars hurting Africa?
ReplyDeleteBy Jake Smith
Do you ever wonder what happens to the money you donate? Do you stop to think, “Is my money going where it is supposed too?” These are valid concerns and ones that should be prompted with some level of research as to summarize where your money has gone. Because often the money you donate is not displayed in its full value, but more importantly, your dollar is not always of positive aid to the cause.
Africa is a fluctuating continent of economies, social boundaries, post-wars, and present wars and Africa is of great interest to the rest of the world. Africa is a money pit, money is thrown in as a form of “Aid” in an attempt to get money out, through domestic products, such as oil, after the countries have been “able” to fix themselves. The problem, however, lies within in this so-called “aid” to the countries.
You can give a man a fish, and feed him for a day. Or you could teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. This old proverb seems outdated and foolish but this is precisely the problem in Africa. Aid in the form of money and resources is being thrust into the grips of needy Africans, however, in no way is there an attempt to get these Africans self-sufficient. The problems still remain, even when shrouded by the money and supplies, in fact this can often amplify the problems. Corruption is easy to come by when money is in high frequency, furthering groups that strive to manipulate countries through corruption to gain control of money and resources. And then more problems arise from this.
Another dilemma is the reason as to why money is being sent in maximum to these countries. Ideologies and social ideas often take control in causing people to donate and supply countries with the means to survive to join in on the bandwagon, for instance, the attempt to spread democracy. History, however, shows us that a stimulation of an impoverished countries economy often leads to a fiscally comfortable state, which often leads to less corruption, and more often than not a democratic state.
Do you ever wonder what happens to the money you donate? If so good, because the world needs aid not loose change.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs aid Africa’s downfall?
ReplyDeleteBobby Wright
Over the past few decades the African continent has received hundreds of billions of dollars in aid from wealthy nations the world over. Yet in the same time period, Africa economy has stagnated, literacy rates have fallen and health care across the continent has suffered immensely. These facts have led many to ask the quest of Why. Why isn’t aid working?
One school of thought, led by Zambian born and Oxford educated economist Dambisa Moyo, posits that aid is not only ineffective at combating the woes of many African nations, but also cause new problems to arise. Moyo asserts that aid is locking developing countries into a system of dependence, fueling widespread corruption, and making it harder for nations make the change necessary to grow their economies. Moyo believes that the only way to jumpstart Africa’s economic growth is for developed nations to create a plan that will end almost all aid to Africa within five years.
The main opposition to Moyo firmly believes that the main problem with aid in Africa lies in its distribution. They blame widespread spread embezzlement of funds by African governments, ineffectual reform programs, and poorly implemented aid plans as the main reason that African economies have been left floundering in recent years. They believe that more aid and increased transparency is the only way to get Africa’s economy back on track.
Unfortunately for Africa, Both groups are only partially correct. While Moyo makes a compelling case for her theory that aid is the root of Africa’s ills, her belief that removing all aid is essential is flawed at best. Her two main examples of nations that have prospered after cutting aid, Botswana and south Africa, not only still receive hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to combat HIV/AIDs every year, but only started to end their dependence after their economies had improved. Her idea that cutting all aid also has a critical flaw, in that many of Africa’s most corrupt and poorly implemented governments would have to massively increase taxes on their poorest citizens to compensate for the complete cutting of foreign aid. This would only shift the burden of corruption from the wealthy western nations to some of the most underserved individuals on the planet. Those who oppose Moyo are equally incorrect in their assumption that increased aid would help to alleviate Africans ills. It would only further line the pockets of corrupt officials and most likely would not benefit the common man.
This being said both sides do have legitimate points. Moyo’s belief that aid has caused problems for Africa is entirely legitimate. It has created a system of dependence in many governments and has resulted in the disenfranchisement of many Africans citizens. The belief of those who oppose her that aid can be beneficial is also true. Food aid and medical aid in particular have been exceptionally effective in combating hunger and AIDs in some (not all) African nations.
In the end there is no clear cut way to bring Africa out of its economic slump. It will take a well thought out, concerted effort by all parties to bring about any kind of meaningful change in Africa.
“The insidious aid culture has left African countries more debt-laden, more inflation-prone, more vulnerable to the vagaries of the currency markets and more unattractive to higher-quality investment.” So writes Dambisa Moyo, author of Dead Aid, writing for The Wall Street Journal about how “foreign aid is hurting Africa.”
ReplyDeleteMs Moyo’s book, Dead Aid, reads as a serious condemnation of international aid to Africa, and the above quotation could serve as the thesis of her argument. Despite the controversy of Ms Moyo’s assessment, she is absolutely correct. In fact, not only has foreign aid given to African countries disincentivized these countries from seeking economic and political solutions to their own problems, but it has disincentivized serious capital investors from putting money into the economy.
More importantly, what Ms Moyo seems to neglect is that the particularly Western desire give international aid to Africa stems from the notion of “white guilt.” European and western countries that may or may not have colonized parts of Africa feel that they owe it to countries in the continent to pay “reparations.” This desire is misplaced, for, as Ms Moyo points out, these western countries do nothing but hurt the countries they are trying to help.
Does it count as "aid" if it only hurts?
ReplyDeleteForeign aid is an incredibly complex and deep-seeded issue. On the surface, the idea of aid, those with more helping those without is a seemingly positive and beneficial activity. However, once you crack the surface, you realize that aid to Africa frequently does more damage than help. And not only that, but it promotes corruption in a way that only money can.
Dambisa Moyo, in her book, entitled "Dead Aid" claims that the "Free money" given to these African nations only serve to aid the "white guilt" and lead to nothing more than mass amounts of corruption. The dollars go to pockets of power and money hungry leaders whose last priority is their citizens. And not only that, but by the influx of money, citizens struggling with poverty do not learn new skills or abilities to manage money- they simply are given a hand out for a brief period of time, and once that hand out is spent the communities often dip to a point even lower then the aid began.
There are ethical obligations from the parties of both the donors and the governments to use the aid responsibly. To provide a hand up, not a hand out- and benefit the community on the whole. Aid is defined as something beneficial to someone else and as according to Moyo, and frankly based on fact that is not what is happening.