This blog will used for Post-Colonial Africa students to post their responses to assignments and also to communicate upcoming assignments.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
QQC for pages 29-47 of "Dead Aid"
After reading pages 29-47 of the book, post a detailed QQC (Quote, Question, Comment)on this material. This needs to be posted below by 8:00am Monday 4/22.
1. “A country’s wealth and success depend on its geographical environment and topography.” (Page 29)
I found this comment to be particularly interesting because the stance a country’s wealth and success depend on its geographical environment and topography is not normally taken when it comes to the economic status of a country. Typically when analyzing the economic status of a country, economists consider the government stance, net income and outcome, GDP, social issues, development, etc. When Moyo cited Jared Diamond stating that he believes firmly that the well being of a country has a lot to do with the geography I was shocked at first but then I started to understand where he was coming from. The geographic location of a continent is very important. The two biggest geographical situations within Africa are whether the country is land locked or has a shoreline and the amount of natural resources within the country. Paul Collier divided the countries in Africa into three groupings: countries which are resource poor but have a coastline, countries that are resource poor and landlocked, and countries that are resource rich (where it doesn’t quite matter whether or not the country is land locked or not). The countries that have a shoreline are able to create ports for trade, which has the potential to boost international influence within the country. Those countries that are both resource poor and do not have access to a shoreline are faced with terrible economic conditions. The economic dependence is based upon the companies within the country and international investment, which is likely to be rare due to the lack of resources. The countries that are resource rich have the economies that are the best off. However, with the money flow that comes to these countries is easily susceptible to corruption.
2. “Historical factors, such as colonialism, have also often been put forward as explanations for Africa’s underachievement; the idea being that colonial powers delineated nations, established political structures and fashioned bureaucracies that were fundamentally incompatible with the way of life of indigenous populations.” (Page 31)
This quote did not come as that much as a shock to me because of what Moyo stated earlier about the fact that even though the countries in Africa were declared to be independent, they were still very much dependent on the foreign countries aid in order to support their weak and unstable economies. However, I do not agree with this statement. I think that Moyo’s idea that the failure of economic wellbeing in present day Africa is due to the colonialism in the past. I think that this is a part of the failure but I don’t agree with the mindset that the entire economic downturn was due to the withdrawal of the power countries. The African countries and people within these countries demanded independence and they got it. However, they were not aware of the time and effort it takes to build up an entire country to the point of stability. For example, it took centuries to build America up to be what it is today, and as a country we still have a long way to go in order to grow into the concept of “good governance.” I think that country’s who were oppressed under colonial rule had a right to be angry and demand independence; however, I don’t think that they thought through the after independence structure (i.e. what would life be like without a structure imposed upon us). While the sudden department of the powerhouse nations in Africa was to be celebrated in the short term, the long-term implications were not thought out. I am not saying that colonialism was a good thing; I am simply saying that there was not much planning given by either side about the future of the nation.
3. “Another argument posited for Africa’s economic failures is the continent’s disparate tribal groupings and ethno-linguistic make-up.” (Page 32)
Out of the three quotes I chose, this quote made the most sense to me, in fact I am a firm believer that this plays a large part in the economic descent of Africa. In general, Africa is a continent where there are thousands upon thousands of different ethnic tribes, as well as different beliefs and religions. By creating countries, you are creating borders and essentially forcing these tribes to choose where their residence will be, rather than the traditional locations. By forcing people of different ethnic groups and cultures together, you are also forcing these people who hail from different beliefs entirely to sit together and make decisions regarding life in the specific country. Obviously, when there are different beliefs there are going to be conflicts. These ethnic divisions are also a main cause of civil war within Africa. Practically all of the nations within Africa have had to endure long-lasting and violent civil wars that have only served to decrease the country’s presence in the international economy.
Questions
1. Everything that Moyo is writing she explains very clearly. However, I am interested in the other side of her arguments about the causes of economic downfall as well. What are the pros and cons of countries within Africa 1) branching away from colonialism, 2) being a land-locked country, and 3) having so many different ethnicities within the continent? 2. Is there a viable solution to combat the conflicts that surround different ethnicities considering that these different groups, when brought together, have the capacity to further decimate the economy?
"No one can deny that Africa has had its fair share of trial fracas. But y the same token it is also true that there are a number of african countries where disparate groups have managed to coexist perfectly peacefully." (Page 33)
Everything that Moyo talks about with Aid and the economy is very well said and it explains what is happening very well but this quote and the following lines after was a little different from the rest of the paper and it really stood out to me. Moyo is saying that even though we are all from different places even the people inside africa and we do tend to fight sometimes in the end everyone mainly gets along. Moyo compares this to America and Europe and says "there are no ethnics zones such as exist in elfast, London, or New York." This shows that africa has a lot of struggles in most places but others are starting to realize that if they live peacefully with each other it will be better for all.
Why have only a few countries in africa started to coexist with each other?
Quote: “Many reasons have been offered to account for African countries are not working in particular, geographical, historical, cultural, tribal, and institutional. While each of them is convincing in explaining Africa’s poor showing, they do not explain the whole story.”
Comment: This quote provided a basic guideline for this reading. Of course these are the issues that are clearly visible on the surface, but as the author mentions-there are deeper-rooted issues. This immediately made me picture an iceberg, with layers of stress submerged under the water. Jared Diamond mentioned in his novel, “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” that a country’s wealth and success depends on its geographical environment and topography. While this is true in many cases, and especially when nations first began (America), Moyo immediately disproved this point by mentioning Africa. She describes it as the world’s most diverse continent, suffering from their plentiful resources rather than benefitting from them. I believe that a piece of this iceberg, which added to the incapability of resource control, is colonialism. Moyo mentions it as a large explanation for “Africa’s underachievement.” And goes on to say, “these colonial powers delineated nations, established political structures and fashioned bureaucracies that were fundamentally incompatible with the way of life of indigenous populations.” She also perfectly put, “Forcing traditionally rival and warring ethnic groups to live together under the same flag would never make nation-building easy.” This line made the reading much clearer, and much of the PCA class come together for me. I had been aware of the debilitating nature of colonialism, but it really accounts for the lack of success in Africa, and it is inconceivable how a piece of history completely ruined a continent, and re-wrote the path of the world.
Question: Without the history of colonialism, would Africa be superior, or would a different issue be just as harmful? Also, how would racism be today without colonialism?
Quote: “ 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.” –pg. 35 Comment: I found this statistic to be quite interesting, because it would lead you to believe that because of all of this aid, Africa is in a better place. One trillion US dollars put into Africa is pretty incredible. It would seem that there has been more than enough funding to go around in Africa. However, this raises two concerns; Africa never got the chance to stand on its own two feet economically, and much of this aid may have been misappropriated so that it never trickled down to the people who actually need it most. The problem with NGO’s and government-appropriated aid is: how much of it actually reaches the people who need the aid? There are so many steps and loopholes that somewhere along the way funds can get lost or misappropriated. Also, is it the aid that reaches Africa actually helping people? As Moyo has said, or hinted at previously in Dead Aid, Africa has been severely crippled by all of this aid. All of this money that has been thrown at many African countries since their independence in the 1950s -1970’s has really put them in a bad spot. Instead of letting many countries pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, many rich countries threw money at them to fix an array of problems. By doing this, many African countries became more and more dependent on aid to the point where it was the only thing keeping them standing. However, I think what Moyo is really getting at in this book is that it is time to take the crutch (aid) away. In the long run, aid has proved to be more harmful than helpful. Even though taking this crutch of aid away may cause several countries to fall down temporarily, it is necessary countries to use their own ingenuities and genius to get back up again, and create a self-sustaining country. Questions: How much of the 1 trillion dollars that has been transferred to various African countries has actually done what it was supposed to do. How much of it never even reached Africa? Also, I would love to hear Moyo’s opinion on this question: If the best solution to Africa’s problems at this moment is to stop their dependence on aid, what is the best way to go about doing that?
Quote: “While each of these factors may be part of the explanation in differing degrees, in different countries, for the most part African countries have one thing in common – they all depend on aid.” (35)
Comment: Before Moyo states this claim about aid, she explains, in detail, the collection of reasons that many African countries’ economies typically suffer. In the beginning of this chapter, she informs, “Many reasons have been offered to account for why African countries are not working: in particular, geographical, historical, cultural, tribal and institutional. While each of them is convincing in explaining Africa’s poor showing, they do not tell the whole story.” Though the thorough research proves all of these to be both heavy and light contributors to Africa’s so-called economic failures, she believes they are the foundation to the everlasting issue. Basically, Moyo acknowledges that these various reasons have ensured that Africa’s success has been stunted, but the real reason it has continued to not grow is due to aid. Major moments in Africa’s history, especially colonialism, have given the continent a disadvantage. Colonialism escalated the already tense conficts between tribal groups by taking two tribes, with different cultures and languages, and sandwiching them into one colony. After independence in the majority of African countries, leftover deep-rooted issues were still present but had the potential to be solved. Moyo believes that the reason that the issues were never solved and the economies never became very strong is because of the aid. Throughout history we have seen evidence that aid can be very beneficial for both the giving and receiving end of the relationship, but looking at the end result in Africa proves that it has little to no help for the African people. This is because sometimes “aid” can be incredibly detrimental to a community even if the provider thinks they are making a difference. The agriculture company that destroyed the Kenyan community to build a dam for the rice plantations, so that they could earn money ended up doing more damage than help. Moyo says that even the IMF has felt that aid is not a long-term solution, rather a “band-aid” for a big problem. What I found to be most interesting is the fact that aid has turned out to not only not helping solve the problem, it is actually continuing and even worsening the problem.
Questions: If it is so clear that aid does not work (even the IMF, top provider of aid, realizes this) why do countries and organizations continue to dump money over others’ problems? Ulterior motives?
Quote: “ Since the 1940’s approximately US $1 trillion of aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. This is nearly US $1000 for every man, woman and child on the planet today.”
Comment: I think this shows how out of hand aid to africa has gotten. I have to agree with Dambisa Moyo in saying that it is time to slowly stop giving aid to Africa. $1trillion dollars is money that could have been spent elsewhere in European countries. I see it as the US has around a 7% unemployment rate, and a huge budget deficit; instead of cutting the budget deficit or creating more welfare / social security for Americans, we waste our money in Africa where most of the time we see little returns on our “AID”. If the reason the US is still giving aid to Africa is because of oil, it makes more economical sense to spend that money investing in the untapped oil we have here in America, keeping all of this money circulating in local economy’s providing economic growth.
Question: What has this trillion dollars really done for africa.
Quote: “The trouble with the aid–dependency model is, of course, that Africa is fundamentally kept in its perpetual childlike state” (Moyo 32).
Comment: To put this quote in context, prior to writing this Moyo 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, potentially leading to steady economic development. I couldn’t agree more with Moyo’s statement. 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, who didn’t go to college is not the fault of the child, rather the parent. Aid needs to be a kickstarter, not a habitual action. Immediate aid should have been given to Africa post-colonialism but should have slowly tapered off, eventually allowing Africa to leave the shelter of it’s “parents.”
Question: Is eventually stopping aid necessarily the best solution considering Africa’s massive and growing dependency towards aid? It could potentially lead to immediate disastrous results.
Quote: “Saharan Africa has failed to generate consistent economic growth, and have even regressed.”
Comment: Although, Moyo has claimed that aid is not working she is examining the wrong kinds of benefits it provides. It is true that the aid has “failed to generate consistent economic growth” but is that the most important problem that the aid should be trying to solve? Moyo argues that, “In strong and stable economic environments political institutions are the backbone of the nation’s development…” and despite this fact, Africa is still in the process of building their backbone. A country cannot simply jump from crawling to running without first walking. This is so the case when a country has millions of people who are surviving on less than a dollar a day. Once we are able to feed the hungry and bring the poor out of poverty then the country can focus on the economic growth. Now you might be questioning how these people are going to be able to better their lives without the skills and jobs made by the economic growth, but Moyo claims that, “conditionalities were blatantly ignored yet the aid continued to flow.” So why can’t this aid flow until the country has built their backbone?
Quote: 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.
I think Moyo bring up an extremely important point here. This is not the first thing that comes to my mind when I think about Africa at all, but in hindsight after watching and reading many things on Africa it seems that people may hold this sentiment. It is a shame because this illogical fallacy may prevent investors from investing or, as Moyo sees it, people may blame Africans for poor reaction to aid rather than poor aid packages. If one looks at the successful development stories like South Africa it is clear that Africans being Africa have nothing to do with a lack of development in places. It is very important that this stereotype or sentiment is broken so people can see past this and actually focus on the real issues. I am not a native African, but when I see videos of people talking about Africa it is not unusual for these people to patronize or have a superiority complex over Africans and that is very frustrating. The real question is: how do we break this sentiment in the world? Obviously the answer is to bring positive publicity to Africa, but again this is difficult. One step in the right direction was hosting the WorldCup in South Africa. This event showed the world the development as well as unique culture in Africa. Moving into the future, Africa needs to thrust itself through events like the WorldCup to show the world the promise and uniqueness in Africa.
How do we break the sentiment held by some ignorant people that somehow Africans are inferior?
Quote: “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)
Comment: Many people believe that sending aid to Africa can help solve many of the continents problems. However, aid has failed to do so. When “rich countries” send aid to Africa through a humanitarian pathway, it often has “poor implementation and high administrative costs”. This is part of the reason why $1 trillion dollars has been sent to Africa in the form of aid and why countries in Africa remain some of the most impoverished in the world. Not only do humanitarian and emergency aid play a role in how aid has been unsuccessful in solving all of the problems in Africa, but corruption has also had a colossal impact on aid in Africa. When aid is given to countries through government-to-government transfers, there is a significant chance that a leader in an African country will not use this money to help their people. This is because there is not always some one monitoring what the money from aid is being used for or how it is being used. Also, as Moyo has mentioned multiple times, debt plays one of the biggest roles in why aid has been unsuccessful in African countries. African countries are given aid that they need to pay back. When this aid does not give them any revenue, they cannot pay back the debt, and therefore become more and more impoverished. This then leads to problems such as inflation, lack of education, famine, and much more. In this quote, I found it interesting that all of the aid that has been given to Africa could amount to that much money per person in the entire world. Reading this quote, it is unfortunate that even with all of that aid, Africa still is not as developed as many have hoped it would be.
Question: Why do people still give so much aid to Africa when it continues to be unsuccessful?
Quote: “Forcing traditionally rival and warring ethnic groups to live together under the same flag would never make nation-building easy” (Moyo).
Question: What would be the ramifications of these ethnic groups reforming the geopolitical boundaries for the purpose of separating the rival groups? Would these newly-formed microstates fare any better chance at economic recovery than the current, socially-unstable nations?
Comment: I find it interesting that coastal resource-scarce countries would have a higher economic growth rate than resource-rich countries. It may be because the resource-poor coastal countries are along the fastest means of travel to and from the resource-rich countries, thus becoming a nexus of transportation of goods. It may also be that they simply have more room to grow than the already-profiting resource rich nations. Of the points Moyo made in this section, I most thoroughly agree with her statements on the micro-macro paradox. There are many instances in which the micro-macro paradox have been prominent throughout Africa. In Nigeria, the discovery of oil put the country on the map, making it a center for international oil production. However, the oil industry soon became Nigeria’s downfall. So many Nigerians went (in vain) after well-paying jobs on the oil pipelines, leaving few doctors, teachers, and other infrastructural career staples. The oil companies began to bribe government officials in order to underhandedly acquire prime oil fields. One of the worst effects of the oil trade in Nigeria was the Nigerian-Biafran War: an entire civil war, with (amongst other things) claims over oil fields being a driving force behind it. I also agree with her position on democracy, in that economic stability is certainly a prerequisite for democracy. Without a stable economy, people’s decisions in electing officials and making laws will be less concerned with the political effects of their decisions, but rather who can “promise” food in their stomachs, a roof over their head, and enough money to support their families. If they don’t think about the long term effects of their choices, they may end up with even larger holes in their pockets before.
“Over the past thirty years, the most aid-dependent countries have exhibited growth rates averaging minus 0.2 per cent per annum” (46).
Comment:
This sentence expresses how useless the aids are, which is the main idea of this book. Moyo talks about the situation in Africa first, and she compares the aid program in Africa with other countries, like Europe after World War II and China. She also explained how complicated the situations in Africa now, and how much differences between Europe after World War II and Africa right now are. However, Moyo mentions about that democracy can help the distribution of the money and “erasing corruption, economic cronyism, and anticompetitive and inefficient practices, and removing once and for all the ability for a sitting incumbent to capriciously seize wealth” (41). It seems like democracy is the only way to solve the problems in Africa, but she says “In a perfect world, what poor countries at the lowest rungs of economic development need is not a multi-party democracy, but in fact a decisive benevolent dictator to push through the reforms required to get the economy moving” (42). I feel very confused after I see this two totally opposite opinion in her text, what is the best way for Africa to get moving? Like China, without democracy, by the magical “decisive benevolent dictator”? Or building democracy system first, and then start rising? However, Moyo says “In the early stages of development it matters little to a starving African family whether they can vote or not. Later they may care, but first of all they need food for today, and the tomorrows to come, and that requires an economy that is growing” (44). Clearly, right now Africa needs several “decisive benevolent dictators” to help it rise.
On the other side, other countries need to stop bring in unlimited aids program, especially the ones who want to sell and bring their goods into this continent. Just like the chief Economist at the British Department of Trade and Industry remarked that ‘they know its crap, but it sells the T-shirts’” (46). Those countries not only bring in aids program that cause deeper corruption, but also destroy the local business, these countries have to stop this harmful action and stop using western ways to predict what is good for Africans.
Question:
How to ensure that dictators can be benevolent to their countries rather than make them more corrupt?
“Another argument posited for Africa’s economic failures is the continent’s disparate tribal groupings and ethno-linguistic make-up.” (Moyo 32)
When examining the most powerful and economically successful countries today, one does not find that these countries are unified ethnically and linguistically. The United States is perhaps the most successful nation today, and yet we have citizens from a variety of different cultures. The difference is that nearly all of our population came from somewhere else; we are a country of immigrants. Save for the Native Americans, none of us are living on our ancestral ‘home turf,’ which means that cooperation is easier for us, even though we are culturally diverse. In Sub-Saharan Africa, however, tribal conflicts take place on tribal lands, which I believe renders cooperation much more difficult because tribal opinions are much more engrained in the people. I don’t think that the diversity itself is the issue, I think that the lack of neutral territory (which promotes cooperation) is the problem.
How can tribal opinions change on a large scale? Can such diverse people unify on a large scale?
Africa's failure to generate and meaningful or sustainable long-run growth must, ostensibly, be a confluence of factors: geographical, historical, cultural, tribal, and institutional..... it is fair to say that no factor should condemn Africa to a permanent failure to grow."
Moyo's statement encompasses her argument well- failure is not dependent on a single factor. However, Africa's issue is that many of these factors seem to be failing at the same time, making it hard for any growth to be seen. Among the issues aid in Africa has is the lack of time limit, countries not being held accountable to conditions, and, of course, corruption. Moyo's example of the Marshall plan sheds light on the problems many of aid problems have in Africa. The Marshall Plan had a strict, 5 year time limit that didn't allow countries to become accustomed to the support like modern programs.Another issue has been donors and programs not holding countries accountable to conditions set. This allows often corrupt governments to feel free to do whatever they want with the millions given to them. Modern Africa has fallen into a state of dependence on aid that is going to be incredibly difficult to get out of, and would take investment and rebuilding all around.
At this point, is it possible to restructure the aid in Africa to be constructive, or is the dependence too deep?
Quote: “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.” (35)
Comment: It’s very disheartening to read these statistics. Although at first it might seem like the United States has sincere interest in the betterment of Africa, a quick glance at nearly any country on the continent makes it seem otherwise. Most of Africa is not in any better condition than it was when we began our funding spree – and conditions in some countries have arguably worsened. Although this lack of change is largely due to the weak, corruption-riddled governments we send these funds to, it is also our own fault for continuing to give money even in the face of a blatant lack of any positive change. Because we have been so heavily funding African countries since their independence from colonial rule, we never gave them a chance to stand on their own two feet and build an economy the old fashioned way – we tried to rush the process, and coddle them. Believing we could simply implement a more extreme version of the Marshall Plan, aid began rolling into Africa around 1950, and has continued ever since. Though America probably should have discontinued/diminished our aid since that starting point to allow Africa to grow on its own, more of the problem lies with the African governments. America flooded Africa with money in the hopes that the leaders would use it for the betterment of their country. This money, sent with no strings attached, was instead used to fund the construction of private villas & purchase expensive foreign cars. The lack of stipulations regarding African aid spending, combined with the sheer amount of cash thrown at Africa, has resulted today in an Africa largely dependent on continued foreign aid to prevent total destabilization. If the United States (and other foreign powers) began diminishing their financial contributions to Africa, (hopefully) it will lead to a more successful, peaceful, and well-off Africa.
Questions: Does Moyo blame African governments or foreign governments more for Africa’s position today? Which countries receive the most? Is it even, or do some draw in much more than others?
Quote: “The difficulty of reform in technically diverse small countries may account for why Africa persisted with poor policies for longer than other regions.”
Comment: The root of all of Africa’s problems is the Berlin Conference. The way the European powers carved up the continent was destined for disaster because the nations that were created at the Berlin Conference did not reflect the actual sense of nationalism of the people within those “nations”. Nobody thought of themselves as being Nigerian or South African in 1885; they thought of themselves as being Zulu, or Ogoni, or Xhosa, etc. The fact that the people in most African counties do not feel a sense of nationalism towards their counties and do not view their fellow citizens as fellow “country men” results in unrest and corruption. This is because politicians in most African nations will only try to serve their own tribe or ethnic group, resulting in rival ethnic groups feeling underrepresented and in many cases trying to get power for themselves, fueling the cycle all over again. It is only once Africans can look past the ethnic differences of the people within their countries that real progress can be made.
Question: Is there a way that western nations can help solve the problem of ethnic strife in Africa, or is this an issue that can only be solved with time?
Quote: “Once locked into the ethnic argument there is no obvious policy prescription: it’s a dead end.”
Comment: It seems as though Moyo believes that tribalism is the root cause of Africa’s problems, but at the same time she does not want to believe this because it means that Africa’s problems cannot be fixed. While nationalism cannot be created overnight, the situation is not hopeless but is simply going to require time. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Western Europe was composed of small Germanic tribes and feudal fiefdoms that were constantly at war with each other and left the entire region fractured. Western Europe continued to exist in this state for hundreds of years until major cultural events, such as the Renaissance, created the foundation for modern European nationalism. Essentially what Africa needs is its own Renaissance and Africans must create this themselves.
Question: It does not seem as though Africa has the time to wait for a major cultural change, it seems as though there will be any more generations of suffering before the region can see prosperity. Can Africa afford this?
Quote: 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.
Comment: It is interesting to consider the total amount of aid transferred only for the fact that you can easily see it is a meaningless statistic. We naturally like to examine the things that are easily quantifiable, which tend to draw us away from the truth of the matter. One can safely say that $1 trillion dollars of aid has not been implemented in Africa. Most people accept the fact that when transferring such large amounts of money it is possible for “negligible” amounts to be lost in translation. However, of the billions of dollars that are promised in emergency aid, we have seen from the recent disaster in Haiti that the majority of these figures are inflated or outright fictitious. In Haiti, 93% of the money that was “actually donated” went to UN agencies, international NGO’s or never left the donor government. The 7% that remains serves only to treat some of the symptoms of the issues in Africa or Haiti. None of the aid ever reaches the roots of the problems, as it acts merely as a temporary Band-Aid (one which will have to be perpetually reapplied). One must also note that in many African nations corruption runs rampant. Governments cannot be counted on to manage or distribute any form of aid, whether it be monetary or otherwise.
Question: How much of the $1 trillion in aid actually was spent in Africa? How much of this aid went to programs that focused on long-term resolutions?
QQC Quote: since the 1940’s approximately $1 trillion of aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. This is nearly $1000 for every man woman and child on the planet today. Comment : While $1 trillion is a staggeringly large sum of money it is not $1000 dollars for every many woman and child on the planet today. It is closer to $150 dollars, or 1/7 of the stated value. Also, much of the “aid” that has been sent to Africa in these past two centuries was not sent with humanitarian intentions. From 1960-1982, the duration of the cold war, the vast majority of aid that was given to Africa was only aid in name. It was in fact, sent to Africa for the purpose of propping up puppet regimes, buying politicians and securing dominance in the region. It was not meant to help the individuals who are suffering in Africa. After the cold war ended and international tensions died down, much of the aid sent to Africa is still not sent with a humanitarian intent. It is sent to bribe officials, pay off police, and keep potentially confrontational nations in favorable positions. This essentially means that actual amount of aid that has been given to Africa is much less than what she claims, and her proposed slashing of aid to Africa is much more problematic than she leads the reader to believe. While it may help Africa become truly independent in the future a slashing of aid to Africa would leave many African nations disgruntled and may lead to some political destabilization in the area.
Question: If Rich nations of the world were to do as Moyo proposes, wind down aid to African nations, how would Africa, as a whole, look five years down the road?
Quote: "There is, of course, the largely unspoken and insidious view that the problem with Africa is Africans - that culturally, mentally, and physically African are innately different."
Comment: This quote really got me thinking. This is a major part that plays into why Africa has so many problems today. All other countries believe that Africa needs help but they have never had the chance to try and survive on their own. As soon as one of the countries takes a wrong turn, the world jumps to the rescue and tries to recreate the whole country. All it has caused is corruption and poverty. Countries try to improve African's countries by implementing their way of leading, but it does no good because the countries have a different way of living and cant be under the same rule as another country. African's countries need to stop relying on Aid and push away the surrounding countries when they try to step in. This is the only way Africa will be able to survive on their own and not have the perception in the quote above.
Question: Why did Africa become the Continent penalized? Is it because they were the last to colonize?
Previous to this quotation, Moyo mentioned how successful democracies work in Africa. The only way that democracies can work in countries working through turmoil is per capita income. For example, a country that has an average per capita income of $1,000 US dollars will only last a total of 16 years. Above US$6,000 will last forever. Of course, this sounds too good to be true; and that is because it is. The average income through out all of Africa is roughly US$3,500. What this really means is that democracy might not have a lasting role in Africa. As sad as this may seem to us, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Africa might need strong dictators to raise them from the bottom (lets just hope they aren’t corrupt).
Does democracy have any hope in Africa? Is democracy right for Africa? How does a country raise the average income per capita?
Quote: “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. That, somehow, deeply embedded in their psyche is an inability to embrace development and improve their own lot in life without foreign guidance and help.”
Comment: I completely agree with Moyo in this regard. In my opinion, part of the reason that Africa has not pulled its way fully out of the depths yet is because we treat Africa as a country that cannot fend for itself. Africa gained independence and was poor, as to be expected, right from the get go. Instead of letting Africa grow and find its own way to shape its newly independent continent, we immediately felt that they couldn’t handle the responsibility and started assaulting them with aid. Africa was treated as a nation of childish ignorance before they even had a lengthy chance to show that they could progress. Nations experience times of poverty and destitution but these times will eventually subside as long as they do not devolve into a state of dependence. Africa, because of how immediate our humanitarian response was, has grown accustomed to aid, and does not know anything outside of life with aid. It will be a challenge for Africa to function now without our help, because they never had to do so before. When an independent nation falls on hard times, aid helps them bounce back to where they were before. Africa, however, has no before, they have no goal of prosperity in mind simply because they’ve never been there on their own.
Question: Will stopping aid to Africa help the continent in the long run, or will the increase in poverty be impossible for Africa to bounce back from?
While each of these factors may be part of the explanation in differing degrees, in different countries, for the most part African countries have one thing in common- they all depend on aid.
This quotes demonstrates that African dependency on aid has left the country in a state of ruin. Countries no longer developing at a steady rate as they depend on aid to grow and prosper, so they cannot stand on their own two feet. The 1 trillion US dollars that has been provided as aid toward Africa has mostly become a waster. The money has been usurped by the government and is put into the pockets of corrupt officials, or has been wasted on failed development projects. In order for aid to work, it has to be implemented like the Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Germany after World War II. The idea of guaranteed economic success and the establishment of stable political and social institutions by giving aid for a limited amount of time and forcing the countries to follow a strict guideline to implement the money. This would allow Africa to develop and prosper as a country.
How would Africa of developed differently with little to no aid? What types of guidelines should be in place for aid like the Marshall Plan?
“The obvious question to ask is, has foreign aid improved democracy in Africa? The answer to this is yes – certainly in terms of the number of African countries that hold elections…”
This is a very important statement; as Moyo goes on to say how the “insertion of democracy via foreign aid” has not clearly economically benefited Africa. Now this is important from an outsider’s standpoint, especially Americans. It is seen in America that the spread of Democracy is the greatest single thing to ever happen in the history of mankind, which does indeed generally make countries better places; however, it does not always fully benefit the country economically. Which could indeed lead to more trouble for the country, therefore, the spread of Democracy should not be the main and only concern of aiding countries. “What is clear is that democracy is not the prerequisite for economic growth,” Moyo goes onto say how an economic growth is the prerequisite for democracy, so where should countries go from there? Stimulating the economies of these impoverished African countries will almost always lead to a democratic state, if the time and responsibility is properly accounted for. So aiding countries should focus less on the spread of social and societal boundaries and focus more on creating and economically stable country and the spread and growth of democracy will happen on its own.
Can countries, such as America, slow down and allow economic stimulation without trying to spread idealistic beliefs?
Quote: "Above US $ 6,000, democracies are impregnable . . . [they are] certain to survive, come hell or high water.’ It is the economy, stupid." (Dead Aid, 43)
Question: why is democracy impregnable above $6000USD?
Comment: The definition of impregnable is impenetrable and unable to be captured or taken over. I think that while many of her points are very accurate, this one is not. Proof of that is a country like Egypt which has a government in control of far in excess of $6000USD, and they had a coup recently. therefore Moyo's point is inaccurate. On another point, the total aid going into Africa is a very significant number, yet so much of it is lining the pockets of politicians, that it isn't helping the economies. Also, if a country just continues to get the "free money" or aid money, they have absolutely zero incentive to implement policies to aid economic growth and make them self sufficient.
“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.”
“Africa’s development quandary offers two routes: one in which Africans are viewed as children, unable to develop on their own or grow without being shown how or made to; and another which offers a shot at sustainable economic development—but which requires Africans be treated as adults.”
“The trouble with the aid-dependency model is, of course, that Africa is fundamentally kept in its perpetual childlike state.” (32)
In troubleshooting Africa’s problem of aid dependency, Moyo explains the issue of the view of Africa as an infantile country. She argues that a main problem, more than just the actual economic strife (“questionable investments,” etc), is the public view and treatment of Africa and Africans. Foreign governments and charity organizations must stop upholding the status quo and treating Africans like children whose hands must be held all the way to economic recovery. While there are real solutions to the problem aid has created in Africa, with the continued view of Africa as stuck in a developmental stage, those solutions are unreachable. Aid-providing parties have somehow decided, seemingly permanently, that Africans either cannot or will not be productive unless coaxed, educated, or forced to. We must bear in mind that Africans are incredibly resourceful and innovative, but if we grant them misleading aid, we are doing much more harm than good. We should be focusing on micro-lending programs, rather than handing out grants to African governments that have all but given up, or not even initiated, their fight to be dependent from foreign aid.
If it takes not only one party to initiate the change, but also the subscription of others to that change, how can we, if ever, change this status quo?
Quote: “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.”
Comment: I know this quote has been used over and over but it just goes to show how “dead” the “aid” has really been in Africa. Sure there have been successful housing redevelopment programs and environmental conservation projects, but just thinking that all this aid could have amounted to nearly US$ 1,000 for every man, woman, and child on the planet makes me sick. If there is ever such an invention like the time machine, I would put Dambisa Moyo on it, send her back a couple hundred years, and have her be the one investing every dollar into Africa. I can only imagine what Africa would be like if the right form of aid was given to them and used ethically and effectively.
Question: How much longer until we will start learning about how effectively African countries are using aid from developed nations?
And will African countries ever catch up to developed nations such as England or France?
After reading pages 29-47 of the book, post a detailed QQC (Quote, Question, Comment)on this material. This needs to be posted below by 8:00am Monday 4/22.
1. “A country’s wealth and success depend on its geographical environment and topography.” (Page 29)
ReplyDeleteI found this comment to be particularly interesting because the stance a country’s wealth and success depend on its geographical environment and topography is not normally taken when it comes to the economic status of a country. Typically when analyzing the economic status of a country, economists consider the government stance, net income and outcome, GDP, social issues, development, etc. When Moyo cited Jared Diamond stating that he believes firmly that the well being of a country has a lot to do with the geography I was shocked at first but then I started to understand where he was coming from. The geographic location of a continent is very important. The two biggest geographical situations within Africa are whether the country is land locked or has a shoreline and the amount of natural resources within the country. Paul Collier divided the countries in Africa into three groupings: countries which are resource poor but have a coastline, countries that are resource poor and landlocked, and countries that are resource rich (where it doesn’t quite matter whether or not the country is land locked or not). The countries that have a shoreline are able to create ports for trade, which has the potential to boost international influence within the country. Those countries that are both resource poor and do not have access to a shoreline are faced with terrible economic conditions. The economic dependence is based upon the companies within the country and international investment, which is likely to be rare due to the lack of resources. The countries that are resource rich have the economies that are the best off. However, with the money flow that comes to these countries is easily susceptible to corruption.
2. “Historical factors, such as colonialism, have also often been put forward as explanations for Africa’s underachievement; the idea being that colonial powers delineated nations, established political structures and fashioned bureaucracies that were fundamentally incompatible with the way of life of indigenous populations.” (Page 31)
This quote did not come as that much as a shock to me because of what Moyo stated earlier about the fact that even though the countries in Africa were declared to be independent, they were still very much dependent on the foreign countries aid in order to support their weak and unstable economies. However, I do not agree with this statement. I think that Moyo’s idea that the failure of economic wellbeing in present day Africa is due to the colonialism in the past. I think that this is a part of the failure but I don’t agree with the mindset that the entire economic downturn was due to the withdrawal of the power countries. The African countries and people within these countries demanded independence and they got it. However, they were not aware of the time and effort it takes to build up an entire country to the point of stability. For example, it took centuries to build America up to be what it is today, and as a country we still have a long way to go in order to grow into the concept of “good governance.” I think that country’s who were oppressed under colonial rule had a right to be angry and demand independence; however, I don’t think that they thought through the after independence structure (i.e. what would life be like without a structure imposed upon us). While the sudden department of the powerhouse nations in Africa was to be celebrated in the short term, the long-term implications were not thought out. I am not saying that colonialism was a good thing; I am simply saying that there was not much planning given by either side about the future of the nation.
A great post! Keep it up!!
Delete3. “Another argument posited for Africa’s economic failures is the continent’s disparate tribal groupings and ethno-linguistic make-up.” (Page 32)
ReplyDeleteOut of the three quotes I chose, this quote made the most sense to me, in fact I am a firm believer that this plays a large part in the economic descent of Africa. In general, Africa is a continent where there are thousands upon thousands of different ethnic tribes, as well as different beliefs and religions. By creating countries, you are creating borders and essentially forcing these tribes to choose where their residence will be, rather than the traditional locations. By forcing people of different ethnic groups and cultures together, you are also forcing these people who hail from different beliefs entirely to sit together and make decisions regarding life in the specific country. Obviously, when there are different beliefs there are going to be conflicts. These ethnic divisions are also a main cause of civil war within Africa. Practically all of the nations within Africa have had to endure long-lasting and violent civil wars that have only served to decrease the country’s presence in the international economy.
Questions
1. Everything that Moyo is writing she explains very clearly. However, I am interested in the other side of her arguments about the causes of economic downfall as well. What are the pros and cons of countries within Africa 1) branching away from colonialism, 2) being a land-locked country, and 3) having so many different ethnicities within the continent?
2. Is there a viable solution to combat the conflicts that surround different ethnicities considering that these different groups, when brought together, have the capacity to further decimate the economy?
"No one can deny that Africa has had its fair share of trial fracas. But y the same token it is also true that there are a number of african countries where disparate groups have managed to coexist perfectly peacefully." (Page 33)
ReplyDeleteEverything that Moyo talks about with Aid and the economy is very well said and it explains what is happening very well but this quote and the following lines after was a little different from the rest of the paper and it really stood out to me. Moyo is saying that even though we are all from different places even the people inside africa and we do tend to fight sometimes in the end everyone mainly gets along. Moyo compares this to America and Europe and says "there are no ethnics zones such as exist in elfast, London, or New York." This shows that africa has a lot of struggles in most places but others are starting to realize that if they live peacefully with each other it will be better for all.
Why have only a few countries in africa started to coexist with each other?
PCA QQC 29-47
ReplyDeleteQuote: “Many reasons have been offered to account for African countries are not working in particular, geographical, historical, cultural, tribal, and institutional. While each of them is convincing in explaining Africa’s poor showing, they do not explain the whole story.”
Comment: This quote provided a basic guideline for this reading. Of course these are the issues that are clearly visible on the surface, but as the author mentions-there are deeper-rooted issues. This immediately made me picture an iceberg, with layers of stress submerged under the water. Jared Diamond mentioned in his novel, “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” that a country’s wealth and success depends on its geographical environment and topography. While this is true in many cases, and especially when nations first began (America), Moyo immediately disproved this point by mentioning Africa. She describes it as the world’s most diverse continent, suffering from their plentiful resources rather than benefitting from them. I believe that a piece of this iceberg, which added to the incapability of resource control, is colonialism. Moyo mentions it as a large explanation for “Africa’s underachievement.” And goes on to say, “these colonial powers delineated nations, established political structures and fashioned bureaucracies that were fundamentally incompatible with the way of life of indigenous populations.” She also perfectly put, “Forcing traditionally rival and warring ethnic groups to live together under the same flag would never make nation-building easy.” This line made the reading much clearer, and much of the PCA class come together for me. I had been aware of the debilitating nature of colonialism, but it really accounts for the lack of success in Africa, and it is inconceivable how a piece of history completely ruined a continent, and re-wrote the path of the world.
Question: Without the history of colonialism, would Africa be superior, or would a different issue be just as harmful? Also, how would racism be today without colonialism?
Quote: “ 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.” –pg. 35
ReplyDeleteComment: I found this statistic to be quite interesting, because it would lead you to believe that because of all of this aid, Africa is in a better place. One trillion US dollars put into Africa is pretty incredible. It would seem that there has been more than enough funding to go around in Africa. However, this raises two concerns; Africa never got the chance to stand on its own two feet economically, and much of this aid may have been misappropriated so that it never trickled down to the people who actually need it most. The problem with NGO’s and government-appropriated aid is: how much of it actually reaches the people who need the aid? There are so many steps and loopholes that somewhere along the way funds can get lost or misappropriated. Also, is it the aid that reaches Africa actually helping people? As Moyo has said, or hinted at previously in Dead Aid, Africa has been severely crippled by all of this aid. All of this money that has been thrown at many African countries since their independence in the 1950s -1970’s has really put them in a bad spot. Instead of letting many countries pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, many rich countries threw money at them to fix an array of problems. By doing this, many African countries became more and more dependent on aid to the point where it was the only thing keeping them standing. However, I think what Moyo is really getting at in this book is that it is time to take the crutch (aid) away. In the long run, aid has proved to be more harmful than helpful. Even though taking this crutch of aid away may cause several countries to fall down temporarily, it is necessary countries to use their own ingenuities and genius to get back up again, and create a self-sustaining country.
Questions:
How much of the 1 trillion dollars that has been transferred to various African countries has actually done what it was supposed to do.
How much of it never even reached Africa?
Also, I would love to hear Moyo’s opinion on this question: If the best solution to Africa’s problems at this moment is to stop their dependence on aid, what is the best way to go about doing that?
Moyo Reading: Pgs. 29-47 QQC
ReplyDeleteQuote:
“While each of these factors may be part of the explanation in differing degrees, in different countries, for the most part African countries have one thing in common – they all depend on aid.” (35)
Comment:
Before Moyo states this claim about aid, she explains, in detail, the collection of reasons that many African countries’ economies typically suffer. In the beginning of this chapter, she informs, “Many reasons have been offered to account for why African countries are not working: in particular, geographical, historical, cultural, tribal and institutional. While each of them is convincing in explaining Africa’s poor showing, they do not tell the whole story.” Though the thorough research proves all of these to be both heavy and light contributors to Africa’s so-called economic failures, she believes they are the foundation to the everlasting issue. Basically, Moyo acknowledges that these various reasons have ensured that Africa’s success has been stunted, but the real reason it has continued to not grow is due to aid. Major moments in Africa’s history, especially colonialism, have given the continent a disadvantage. Colonialism escalated the already tense conficts between tribal groups by taking two tribes, with different cultures and languages, and sandwiching them into one colony. After independence in the majority of African countries, leftover deep-rooted issues were still present but had the potential to be solved. Moyo believes that the reason that the issues were never solved and the economies never became very strong is because of the aid. Throughout history we have seen evidence that aid can be very beneficial for both the giving and receiving end of the relationship, but looking at the end result in Africa proves that it has little to no help for the African people. This is because sometimes “aid” can be incredibly detrimental to a community even if the provider thinks they are making a difference. The agriculture company that destroyed the Kenyan community to build a dam for the rice plantations, so that they could earn money ended up doing more damage than help. Moyo says that even the IMF has felt that aid is not a long-term solution, rather a “band-aid” for a big problem. What I found to be most interesting is the fact that aid has turned out to not only not helping solve the problem, it is actually continuing and even worsening the problem.
Questions:
If it is so clear that aid does not work (even the IMF, top provider of aid, realizes this) why do countries and organizations continue to dump money over others’ problems? Ulterior motives?
Quote: “ Since the 1940’s approximately US $1 trillion of aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. This is nearly US $1000 for every man, woman and child on the planet today.”
ReplyDeleteComment:
I think this shows how out of hand aid to africa has gotten. I have to agree with Dambisa Moyo in saying that it is time to slowly stop giving aid to Africa. $1trillion dollars is money that could have been spent elsewhere in European countries. I see it as the US has around a 7% unemployment rate, and a huge budget deficit; instead of cutting the budget deficit or creating more welfare / social security for Americans, we waste our money in Africa where most of the time we see little returns on our “AID”. If the reason the US is still giving aid to Africa is because of oil, it makes more economical sense to spend that money investing in the untapped oil we have here in America, keeping all of this money circulating in local economy’s providing economic growth.
Question:
What has this trillion dollars really done for africa.
Quote: “The trouble with the aid–dependency model is, of course, that Africa is fundamentally kept in its perpetual childlike state” (Moyo 32).
ReplyDeleteComment: To put this quote in context, prior to writing this Moyo 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, potentially leading to steady economic development. I couldn’t agree more with Moyo’s statement. 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, who didn’t go to college is not the fault of the child, rather the parent. Aid needs to be a kickstarter, not a habitual action. Immediate aid should have been given to Africa post-colonialism but should have slowly tapered off, eventually allowing Africa to leave the shelter of it’s “parents.”
Question: Is eventually stopping aid necessarily the best solution considering Africa’s massive and growing dependency towards aid? It could potentially lead to immediate disastrous results.
Quote: “Saharan Africa has failed to generate consistent economic growth, and have even regressed.”
ReplyDeleteComment: Although, Moyo has claimed that aid is not working she is examining the wrong kinds of benefits it provides. It is true that the aid has “failed to generate consistent economic growth” but is that the most important problem that the aid should be trying to solve? Moyo argues that, “In strong and stable economic environments political institutions are the backbone of the nation’s development…” and despite this fact, Africa is still in the process of building their backbone. A country cannot simply jump from crawling to running without first walking. This is so the case when a country has millions of people who are surviving on less than a dollar a day. Once we are able to feed the hungry and bring the poor out of poverty then the country can focus on the economic growth. Now you might be questioning how these people are going to be able to better their lives without the skills and jobs made by the economic growth, but Moyo claims that, “conditionalities were blatantly ignored yet the aid continued to flow.” So why can’t this aid flow until the country has built their backbone?
Question: How can one change a countries goal?
Quote: 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.
ReplyDeleteI think Moyo bring up an extremely important point here. This is not the first thing that comes to my mind when I think about Africa at all, but in hindsight after watching and reading many things on Africa it seems that people may hold this sentiment. It is a shame because this illogical fallacy may prevent investors from investing or, as Moyo sees it, people may blame Africans for poor reaction to aid rather than poor aid packages. If one looks at the successful development stories like South Africa it is clear that Africans being Africa have nothing to do with a lack of development in places. It is very important that this stereotype or sentiment is broken so people can see past this and actually focus on the real issues. I am not a native African, but when I see videos of people talking about Africa it is not unusual for these people to patronize or have a superiority complex over Africans and that is very frustrating. The real question is: how do we break this sentiment in the world? Obviously the answer is to bring positive publicity to Africa, but again this is difficult. One step in the right direction was hosting the WorldCup in South Africa. This event showed the world the development as well as unique culture in Africa. Moving into the future, Africa needs to thrust itself through events like the WorldCup to show the world the promise and uniqueness in Africa.
How do we break the sentiment held by some ignorant people that somehow Africans are inferior?
Quote: “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)
ReplyDeleteComment:
Many people believe that sending aid to Africa can help solve many of the continents problems. However, aid has failed to do so. When “rich countries” send aid to Africa through a humanitarian pathway, it often has “poor implementation and high administrative costs”. This is part of the reason why $1 trillion dollars has been sent to Africa in the form of aid and why countries in Africa remain some of the most impoverished in the world. Not only do humanitarian and emergency aid play a role in how aid has been unsuccessful in solving all of the problems in Africa, but corruption has also had a colossal impact on aid in Africa. When aid is given to countries through government-to-government transfers, there is a significant chance that a leader in an African country will not use this money to help their people. This is because there is not always some one monitoring what the money from aid is being used for or how it is being used. Also, as Moyo has mentioned multiple times, debt plays one of the biggest roles in why aid has been unsuccessful in African countries. African countries are given aid that they need to pay back. When this aid does not give them any revenue, they cannot pay back the debt, and therefore become more and more impoverished. This then leads to problems such as inflation, lack of education, famine, and much more. In this quote, I found it interesting that all of the aid that has been given to Africa could amount to that much money per person in the entire world. Reading this quote, it is unfortunate that even with all of that aid, Africa still is not as developed as many have hoped it would be.
Question: Why do people still give so much aid to Africa when it continues to be unsuccessful?
Quote: “Forcing traditionally rival and warring ethnic groups to live together under the same flag would never make nation-building easy” (Moyo).
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What would be the ramifications of these ethnic groups reforming the geopolitical boundaries for the purpose of separating the rival groups? Would these newly-formed microstates fare any better chance at economic recovery than the current, socially-unstable nations?
Comment: I find it interesting that coastal resource-scarce countries would have a higher economic growth rate than resource-rich countries. It may be because the resource-poor coastal countries are along the fastest means of travel to and from the resource-rich countries, thus becoming a nexus of transportation of goods. It may also be that they simply have more room to grow than the already-profiting resource rich nations.
Of the points Moyo made in this section, I most thoroughly agree with her statements on the micro-macro paradox. There are many instances in which the micro-macro paradox have been prominent throughout Africa. In Nigeria, the discovery of oil put the country on the map, making it a center for international oil production. However, the oil industry soon became Nigeria’s downfall. So many Nigerians went (in vain) after well-paying jobs on the oil pipelines, leaving few doctors, teachers, and other infrastructural career staples. The oil companies began to bribe government officials in order to underhandedly acquire prime oil fields. One of the worst effects of the oil trade in Nigeria was the Nigerian-Biafran War: an entire civil war, with (amongst other things) claims over oil fields being a driving force behind it.
I also agree with her position on democracy, in that economic stability is certainly a prerequisite for democracy. Without a stable economy, people’s decisions in electing officials and making laws will be less concerned with the political effects of their decisions, but rather who can “promise” food in their stomachs, a roof over their head, and enough money to support their families. If they don’t think about the long term effects of their choices, they may end up with even larger holes in their pockets before.
Quote:
ReplyDelete“Over the past thirty years, the most aid-dependent countries have exhibited growth rates averaging minus 0.2 per cent per annum” (46).
Comment:
This sentence expresses how useless the aids are, which is the main idea of this book. Moyo talks about the situation in Africa first, and she compares the aid program in Africa with other countries, like Europe after World War II and China. She also explained how complicated the situations in Africa now, and how much differences between Europe after World War II and Africa right now are. However, Moyo mentions about that democracy can help the distribution of the money and “erasing corruption, economic cronyism, and anticompetitive and inefficient practices, and removing once and for all the ability for a sitting incumbent to capriciously seize wealth” (41). It seems like democracy is the only way to solve the problems in Africa, but she says “In a perfect world, what poor countries at the lowest rungs of economic development need is not a multi-party democracy, but in fact a decisive benevolent dictator to push through the reforms required to get the economy moving” (42). I feel very confused after I see this two totally opposite opinion in her text, what is the best way for Africa to get moving? Like China, without democracy, by the magical “decisive benevolent dictator”? Or building democracy system first, and then start rising? However, Moyo says “In the early stages of development it matters little to a starving African family whether they can vote or not. Later they may care, but first of all they need food for today, and the tomorrows to come, and that requires an economy that is growing” (44). Clearly, right now Africa needs several “decisive benevolent dictators” to help it rise.
On the other side, other countries need to stop bring in unlimited aids program, especially the ones who want to sell and bring their goods into this continent. Just like the chief Economist at the British Department of Trade and Industry remarked that ‘they know its crap, but it sells the T-shirts’” (46). Those countries not only bring in aids program that cause deeper corruption, but also destroy the local business, these countries have to stop this harmful action and stop using western ways to predict what is good for Africans.
Question:
How to ensure that dictators can be benevolent to their countries rather than make them more corrupt?
“Another argument posited for Africa’s economic failures is the continent’s disparate tribal groupings and ethno-linguistic make-up.” (Moyo 32)
ReplyDeleteWhen examining the most powerful and economically successful countries today, one does not find that these countries are unified ethnically and linguistically. The United States is perhaps the most successful nation today, and yet we have citizens from a variety of different cultures. The difference is that nearly all of our population came from somewhere else; we are a country of immigrants. Save for the Native Americans, none of us are living on our ancestral ‘home turf,’ which means that cooperation is easier for us, even though we are culturally diverse. In Sub-Saharan Africa, however, tribal conflicts take place on tribal lands, which I believe renders cooperation much more difficult because tribal opinions are much more engrained in the people. I don’t think that the diversity itself is the issue, I think that the lack of neutral territory (which promotes cooperation) is the problem.
How can tribal opinions change on a large scale? Can such diverse people unify on a large scale?
Africa's failure to generate and meaningful or sustainable long-run growth must, ostensibly, be a confluence of factors: geographical, historical, cultural, tribal, and institutional..... it is fair to say that no factor should condemn Africa to a permanent failure to grow."
ReplyDeleteMoyo's statement encompasses her argument well- failure is not dependent on a single factor. However, Africa's issue is that many of these factors seem to be failing at the same time, making it hard for any growth to be seen. Among the issues aid in Africa has is the lack of time limit, countries not being held accountable to conditions, and, of course, corruption. Moyo's example of the Marshall plan sheds light on the problems many of aid problems have in Africa. The Marshall Plan had a strict, 5 year time limit that didn't allow countries to become accustomed to the support like modern programs.Another issue has been donors and programs not holding countries accountable to conditions set. This allows often corrupt governments to feel free to do whatever they want with the millions given to them. Modern Africa has fallen into a state of dependence on aid that is going to be incredibly difficult to get out of, and would take investment and rebuilding all around.
At this point, is it possible to restructure the aid in Africa to be constructive, or is the dependence too deep?
Quote: “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.” (35)
ReplyDeleteComment:
It’s very disheartening to read these statistics. Although at first it might seem like the United States has sincere interest in the betterment of Africa, a quick glance at nearly any country on the continent makes it seem otherwise. Most of Africa is not in any better condition than it was when we began our funding spree – and conditions in some countries have arguably worsened. Although this lack of change is largely due to the weak, corruption-riddled governments we send these funds to, it is also our own fault for continuing to give money even in the face of a blatant lack of any positive change. Because we have been so heavily funding African countries since their independence from colonial rule, we never gave them a chance to stand on their own two feet and build an economy the old fashioned way – we tried to rush the process, and coddle them. Believing we could simply implement a more extreme version of the Marshall Plan, aid began rolling into Africa around 1950, and has continued ever since. Though America probably should have discontinued/diminished our aid since that starting point to allow Africa to grow on its own, more of the problem lies with the African governments. America flooded Africa with money in the hopes that the leaders would use it for the betterment of their country. This money, sent with no strings attached, was instead used to fund the construction of private villas & purchase expensive foreign cars. The lack of stipulations regarding African aid spending, combined with the sheer amount of cash thrown at Africa, has resulted today in an Africa largely dependent on continued foreign aid to prevent total destabilization. If the United States (and other foreign powers) began diminishing their financial contributions to Africa, (hopefully) it will lead to a more successful, peaceful, and well-off Africa.
Questions:
Does Moyo blame African governments or foreign governments more for Africa’s position today?
Which countries receive the most? Is it even, or do some draw in much more than others?
Quote: “The difficulty of reform in technically diverse small countries may account for why Africa persisted with poor policies for longer than other regions.”
ReplyDeleteComment: The root of all of Africa’s problems is the Berlin Conference. The way the European powers carved up the continent was destined for disaster because the nations that were created at the Berlin Conference did not reflect the actual sense of nationalism of the people within those “nations”. Nobody thought of themselves as being Nigerian or South African in 1885; they thought of themselves as being Zulu, or Ogoni, or Xhosa, etc. The fact that the people in most African counties do not feel a sense of nationalism towards their counties and do not view their fellow citizens as fellow “country men” results in unrest and corruption. This is because politicians in most African nations will only try to serve their own tribe or ethnic group, resulting in rival ethnic groups feeling underrepresented and in many cases trying to get power for themselves, fueling the cycle all over again. It is only once Africans can look past the ethnic differences of the people within their countries that real progress can be made.
Question: Is there a way that western nations can help solve the problem of ethnic strife in Africa, or is this an issue that can only be solved with time?
Quote: “Once locked into the ethnic argument there is no obvious policy prescription: it’s a dead end.”
Comment: It seems as though Moyo believes that tribalism is the root cause of Africa’s problems, but at the same time she does not want to believe this because it means that Africa’s problems cannot be fixed. While nationalism cannot be created overnight, the situation is not hopeless but is simply going to require time. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Western Europe was composed of small Germanic tribes and feudal fiefdoms that were constantly at war with each other and left the entire region fractured. Western Europe continued to exist in this state for hundreds of years until major cultural events, such as the Renaissance, created the foundation for modern European nationalism. Essentially what Africa needs is its own Renaissance and Africans must create this themselves.
Question: It does not seem as though Africa has the time to wait for a major cultural change, it seems as though there will be any more generations of suffering before the region can see prosperity. Can Africa afford this?
Quote: 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.
ReplyDeleteComment: It is interesting to consider the total amount of aid transferred only for the fact that you can easily see it is a meaningless statistic. We naturally like to examine the things that are easily quantifiable, which tend to draw us away from the truth of the matter. One can safely say that $1 trillion dollars of aid has not been implemented in Africa. Most people accept the fact that when transferring such large amounts of money it is possible for “negligible” amounts to be lost in translation. However, of the billions of dollars that are promised in emergency aid, we have seen from the recent disaster in Haiti that the majority of these figures are inflated or outright fictitious. In Haiti, 93% of the money that was “actually donated” went to UN agencies, international NGO’s or never left the donor government. The 7% that remains serves only to treat some of the symptoms of the issues in Africa or Haiti. None of the aid ever reaches the roots of the problems, as it acts merely as a temporary Band-Aid (one which will have to be perpetually reapplied). One must also note that in many African nations corruption runs rampant. Governments cannot be counted on to manage or distribute any form of aid, whether it be monetary or otherwise.
Question: How much of the $1 trillion in aid actually was spent in Africa? How much of this aid went to programs that focused on long-term resolutions?
QQC
ReplyDeleteQuote: since the 1940’s approximately $1 trillion of aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. This is nearly $1000 for every man woman and child on the planet today.
Comment : While $1 trillion is a staggeringly large sum of money it is not $1000 dollars for every many woman and child on the planet today. It is closer to $150 dollars, or 1/7 of the stated value. Also, much of the “aid” that has been sent to Africa in these past two centuries was not sent with humanitarian intentions. From 1960-1982, the duration of the cold war, the vast majority of aid that was given to Africa was only aid in name. It was in fact, sent to Africa for the purpose of propping up puppet regimes, buying politicians and securing dominance in the region. It was not meant to help the individuals who are suffering in Africa.
After the cold war ended and international tensions died down, much of the aid sent to Africa is still not sent with a humanitarian intent. It is sent to bribe officials, pay off police, and keep potentially confrontational nations in favorable positions.
This essentially means that actual amount of aid that has been given to Africa is much less than what she claims, and her proposed slashing of aid to Africa is much more problematic than she leads the reader to believe. While it may help Africa become truly independent in the future a slashing of aid to Africa would leave many African nations disgruntled and may lead to some political destabilization in the area.
Question: If Rich nations of the world were to do as Moyo proposes, wind down aid to African nations, how would Africa, as a whole, look five years down the road?
Quote: "There is, of course, the largely unspoken and insidious view that the problem with Africa is Africans - that culturally, mentally, and physically African are innately different."
ReplyDeleteComment: This quote really got me thinking. This is a major part that plays into why Africa has so many problems today. All other countries believe that Africa needs help but they have never had the chance to try and survive on their own. As soon as one of the countries takes a wrong turn, the world jumps to the rescue and tries to recreate the whole country. All it has caused is corruption and poverty. Countries try to improve African's countries by implementing their way of leading, but it does no good because the countries have a different way of living and cant be under the same rule as another country. African's countries need to stop relying on Aid and push away the surrounding countries when they try to step in. This is the only way Africa will be able to survive on their own and not have the perception in the quote above.
Question: Why did Africa become the Continent penalized? Is it because they were the last to colonize?
“It is the economy, stupid.” (43)
ReplyDeletePrevious to this quotation, Moyo mentioned how successful democracies work in Africa. The only way that democracies can work in countries working through turmoil is per capita income. For example, a country that has an average per capita income of $1,000 US dollars will only last a total of 16 years. Above US$6,000 will last forever. Of course, this sounds too good to be true; and that is because it is. The average income through out all of Africa is roughly US$3,500. What this really means is that democracy might not have a lasting role in Africa. As sad as this may seem to us, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Africa might need strong dictators to raise them from the bottom (lets just hope they aren’t corrupt).
Does democracy have any hope in Africa?
Is democracy right for Africa?
How does a country raise the average income per capita?
Quote: “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. That, somehow, deeply embedded in their psyche is an inability to embrace development and improve their own lot in life without foreign guidance and help.”
ReplyDeleteComment: I completely agree with Moyo in this regard. In my opinion, part of the reason that Africa has not pulled its way fully out of the depths yet is because we treat Africa as a country that cannot fend for itself. Africa gained independence and was poor, as to be expected, right from the get go. Instead of letting Africa grow and find its own way to shape its newly independent continent, we immediately felt that they couldn’t handle the responsibility and started assaulting them with aid. Africa was treated as a nation of childish ignorance before they even had a lengthy chance to show that they could progress. Nations experience times of poverty and destitution but these times will eventually subside as long as they do not devolve into a state of dependence. Africa, because of how immediate our humanitarian response was, has grown accustomed to aid, and does not know anything outside of life with aid. It will be a challenge for Africa to function now without our help, because they never had to do so before. When an independent nation falls on hard times, aid helps them bounce back to where they were before. Africa, however, has no before, they have no goal of prosperity in mind simply because they’ve never been there on their own.
Question: Will stopping aid to Africa help the continent in the long run, or will the increase in poverty be impossible for Africa to bounce back from?
While each of these factors may be part of the explanation in differing degrees, in different countries, for the most part African countries have one thing in common- they all depend on aid.
ReplyDeleteThis quotes demonstrates that African dependency on aid has left the country in a state of ruin. Countries no longer developing at a steady rate as they depend on aid to grow and prosper, so they cannot stand on their own two feet. The 1 trillion US dollars that has been provided as aid toward Africa has mostly become a waster. The money has been usurped by the government and is put into the pockets of corrupt officials, or has been wasted on failed development projects. In order for aid to work, it has to be implemented like the Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Germany after World War II. The idea of guaranteed economic success and the establishment of stable political and social institutions by giving aid for a limited amount of time and forcing the countries to follow a strict guideline to implement the money. This would allow Africa to develop and prosper as a country.
How would Africa of developed differently with little to no aid? What types of guidelines should be in place for aid like the Marshall Plan?
“The obvious question to ask is, has foreign aid improved democracy in Africa? The answer to this is yes – certainly in terms of the number of African countries that hold elections…”
ReplyDeleteThis is a very important statement; as Moyo goes on to say how the “insertion of democracy via foreign aid” has not clearly economically benefited Africa. Now this is important from an outsider’s standpoint, especially Americans. It is seen in America that the spread of Democracy is the greatest single thing to ever happen in the history of mankind, which does indeed generally make countries better places; however, it does not always fully benefit the country economically. Which could indeed lead to more trouble for the country, therefore, the spread of Democracy should not be the main and only concern of aiding countries. “What is clear is that democracy is not the prerequisite for economic growth,” Moyo goes onto say how an economic growth is the prerequisite for democracy, so where should countries go from there? Stimulating the economies of these impoverished African countries will almost always lead to a democratic state, if the time and responsibility is properly accounted for. So aiding countries should focus less on the spread of social and societal boundaries and focus more on creating and economically stable country and the spread and growth of democracy will happen on its own.
Can countries, such as America, slow down and allow economic stimulation without trying to spread idealistic beliefs?
Quote: "Above US $ 6,000, democracies are impregnable . . . [they are] certain to survive, come hell or high water.’ It is the economy, stupid." (Dead Aid, 43)
ReplyDeleteQuestion: why is democracy impregnable above $6000USD?
Comment: The definition of impregnable is impenetrable and unable to be captured or taken over. I think that while many of her points are very accurate, this one is not. Proof of that is a country like Egypt which has a government in control of far in excess of $6000USD, and they had a coup recently. therefore Moyo's point is inaccurate. On another point, the total aid going into Africa is a very significant number, yet so much of it is lining the pockets of politicians, that it isn't helping the economies. Also, if a country just continues to get the "free money" or aid money, they have absolutely zero incentive to implement policies to aid economic growth and make them self sufficient.
“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.”
ReplyDelete“Africa’s development quandary offers two routes: one in which Africans are viewed as children, unable to develop on their own or grow without being shown how or made to; and another which offers a shot at sustainable economic development—but which requires Africans be treated as adults.”
“The trouble with the aid-dependency model is, of course, that Africa is fundamentally kept in its perpetual childlike state.” (32)
In troubleshooting Africa’s problem of aid dependency, Moyo explains the issue of the view of Africa as an infantile country. She argues that a main problem, more than just the actual economic strife (“questionable investments,” etc), is the public view and treatment of Africa and Africans. Foreign governments and charity organizations must stop upholding the status quo and treating Africans like children whose hands must be held all the way to economic recovery. While there are real solutions to the problem aid has created in Africa, with the continued view of Africa as stuck in a developmental stage, those solutions are unreachable. Aid-providing parties have somehow decided, seemingly permanently, that Africans either cannot or will not be productive unless coaxed, educated, or forced to. We must bear in mind that Africans are incredibly resourceful and innovative, but if we grant them misleading aid, we are doing much more harm than good. We should be focusing on micro-lending programs, rather than handing out grants to African governments that have all but given up, or not even initiated, their fight to be dependent from foreign aid.
If it takes not only one party to initiate the change, but also the subscription of others to that change, how can we, if ever, change this status quo?
Quote: “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.”
ReplyDeleteComment: I know this quote has been used over and over but it just goes to show how “dead” the “aid” has really been in Africa. Sure there have been successful housing redevelopment programs and environmental conservation projects, but just thinking that all this aid could have amounted to nearly US$ 1,000 for every man, woman, and child on the planet makes me sick. If there is ever such an invention like the time machine, I would put Dambisa Moyo on it, send her back a couple hundred years, and have her be the one investing every dollar into Africa. I can only imagine what Africa would be like if the right form of aid was given to them and used ethically and effectively.
Question: How much longer until we will start learning about how effectively African countries are using aid from developed nations?
And will African countries ever catch up to developed nations such as England or France?