Aid is Cancer to Africa - Political Forum

Dragon Horse · 09-18-2007, 06:49 AM

I believe this guy is dead on and I will comment more in a couple of hours.

Asserts Asaph Ntanda, the head of the Forum for Democratic Change Youth League in Uganda: "In spite of Africa being the richest continent in the world, it is still considered poor, needing salvation from foreign handouts. Aid to Africa has only served to further donor countries’ policies and influence. Foreign aid was supposed to be a temporary measure to help countries become self sustainable economically but to date, in spite of over four decades of aid to Africa, the continent has nothing to show of it. The strategy of export-oriented, self sustaining growth which has been advocated for since 1940’s did not actually benefit the common person. Beneficiaries of aid are most often African leaders who abuse the Aid."

The commentary against foreign aid continues: "Aid has in many places destroyed the responsibility for self sustained economic growth by killing local initiatives and innovations. Local producers are driven out of business rendering the entire state dependant. The worst example is in Africa where in spite of good climate; the continent cannot feed its growing population but depends on other continents that hardly receive rain. Aid is based on flawed assumptions that undermine economic development. It disables people from thinking for themselves and turns them into diplomatic beggars. It has aggrandized the potential elite and disempowered the common man."

And more from Asaph Ntanda: "Africans believe that someone else must solve their problems. They are not making any deliberate effort to be self sustaining. Africans must liberate themselves. As Africans see poverty in Africa, other continents see wealth and potential. Most of the Aid given to Africa finds its way back to the donor countries in form of machines purchased, consultancy and capacity building. Africans shall never develop as a result of 'foreign Aid' but rather by re-discovering themselves, exploiting their own potential and being partners in development matters. Africa doesn’t need sympathy at all. What the continent needs is equal opportunities in trade."

The African Executive | Foreign Aid: A Cancer to Africa

Brother Oz · 09-18-2007, 10:27 AM

Aid can be good, but most Aid given is given in forms which are not. For example, many developed countries subsidise weapon sales to Africa, and count that as aid. Subsidised food is something America gives a lot, which drives local producers out of business, and the same for clothes.
Aid charities have got wise to this, and are improving, giving aid in the form of capital that can be used to develop, but there are still many problems. I would not say that aid is the primary reason for Africa's poverty. The author of this article points out that many African economies are supposed to be export-driven, and this makes sense as the costs of producing a large number of foodstuffs are cheaper in Africa than in much of the richer countries of the world. However, America, the EU, Japan and China all have extensive subsidies and tariffs designed to reduce their imports, including African exports. This means that African economies designed for Exports can sell at only little profit, if they can sell at all.

lordoftheworld · 09-18-2007, 10:37 AM

WOuld it be better to give them aid in the form of technology, or is that already going on? Then you have problems with finding people to run that technology, but that could easily be fixed.

Brother Oz · 09-18-2007, 10:51 AM

That used to be done, and still is a bit, things like computers which are not too difficult to run. There were problems with some things though, as there was no skill to fix them or maintain them. For example, at one point there was a lot of tractors given as aid, useful of course in farming, but the problem was that people had to be trained to drive them, and they had to be well-maintained and kept running on petrol. It wasn't long before most of them were broken, and the ones that weren't had no fuel.

Dragon Horse · 09-18-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

That used to be done, and still is a bit, things like computers which are not too difficult to run. There were problems with some things though, as there was no skill to fix them or maintain them. For example, at one point there was a lot of tractors given as aid, useful of course in farming, but the problem was that people had to be trained to drive them, and they had to be well-maintained and kept running on petrol. It wasn't long before most of them were broken, and the ones that weren't had no fuel.

This is a problem. William Easterly went over this issue.

His suggestion is aid should be run like any marketing a company would do.

You find the market and create products for people based on what they need.

Often we come up with these "big plans" and then try to make reality fit the plan but the situation on the ground is more complicated.

Do the people really need computers? What do they need? As you mentioned...is it sustainable? Address that, and come up with a plan that has feedback to see if it worked, if it does not work change the plan.

The only problem I think with Easterly's approach is that the "big plan" is sexy...it is like "we are going to change the world with our big plan" and if you don't take that approach it does not get a lot of economic support behind it because donors are not excited.

Brother Oz · 09-19-2007, 09:08 AM

Good point. My preffered charity to donate to is Christian Aid, because they don't do stuff themselves, they are more a money supplier to local projects and charities. The people who actually live in these countries are the ones who know what needs doing, and supplying their own charities with money is better than some westerners having a meeting in their own HQ and deciding what's best.