Dambisa Moyo: Cut Off Aid to Africa

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

While recently reviewing Wired.com, I came across a little section called "12 Shocking Ideas that could change the world". I encourage you all to look at these here

This article in particular struck me, as not only is it so controversial, but also in my opinion, so correct. Have a read and on the other side I'll give you my thoughts.

Last year, Dambisa Moyo was an unknown banker in the London office of Goldman Sachs. Then she wrote a book, Dead Aid, that blames foreign economic assistance for Africa's poverty and corruption (with passing shots at Bono and celebrity activism) and calls for an overhaul. As she began a tour of what seemed like hundreds of talk show appearances, defenders of aid started fighting back. Economist Jeffrey Sachs called her views "cruel" and noted acidly that aid (i.e., scholarships) sent Moyo from Zambia to Harvard. Others, Moyo says, accused her of "killing African babies."

But Moyo's arguments are based on basic, even well-known, facts: Europe and the US have sent billions in aid to horrible regimes. Corrupt leaders have seen way more cash than needy citizens. Endless loans left the continent with crippling debt. And most of Africa is actually poorer today than it was a few decades ago, when aid dollars began to increase.

Furthermore, she doesn't condemn all aid, just that to governments. Nor has she proposed to end aid to Africa in five years, as many critics believe. Rather, Moyo wants the world to taper off financial assistance to African governments, as quickly as possible, and replace it with direct investment. She wants foreigners to see Africa as an opportunity not a basket case. And she points to the fact that a number of African economies have actually grown in the past year, even as the global economy contracted.
Moyo is young, African, great on television, and a natural pundit. This is what makes her so alarming to the development community. To them, she's providing cover for the world to neglect Africa. She sees it another way. "One of my publishers told me that I've given people license to question these issues without being labeled heartless or uncaring."

People wonder why all the money people donate doesn't make a difference. People wonder why big stunts like Live 8 didn't make a damn bit of difference in the world and didn't end poverty. The reason is, you can throw all the money you want, but you may as well be blindfolded and be throwing it down the drain. because we don't live in those conditions. We don't work at Oxfam or Unicef. We don't know where that money goes towards. But the larger issue isn't just the 5 dollars we donate to sponsor a child.

Entire Countries are sponsoring most of Central Africa. Billions of dollars are going into the country, and have been for decades and nothing has come out of it. Because at the end of the day, the government aren't going out there and supervising where this money is going. They aren't seeing what or who this money is put towards. They see that they're giving obscene amounts of money to another government, so it must help. Unfortunately, these governments may not believe in whats best for the people.

So I say, cut the aid. Stop the spending, because at the end of the day, it would have the same effect as if we gave 50 billion dollars. If we are going to truly endeavour to help these countries, we can't keep pouring money into the government coffers, we have to be smart about this. Otherwise, we may as well keep the money and help out our own country.

 

[Барбоса]

Just last night I heard that part of Britain's allocated financial aid to Africa has been diverted away towards those governments who have shown themselves to be competent, in this case Ghana which seems to have made a good job of its aid by setting up a viable education system.

However, such successes are the exceptions rather than the rule. Those people who have pumped billions of dollars, time and effort into Africa have every right to feel aggrieved at the lack of progress in some areas of the continent. From what you hear, corruption is not only endemic it has virtually become accepted.

It may sound controversial or even slightly racist but de-colonisation came too soon for the Sub-Saharan Africa. I would venture to say that the rampant diamond conflict in the west, the genocide of Idi Amin, Apartheid in South Africa would not have happened had the British still been in charge, or at least not to that level.

The continued tribal nature of Africa is one of its biggest problems. In a tribal system, the only way to defeat an opposing tribe was to have greater numbers and that meant having large families. Despite many African countries being prone to drought and famine, this mindset appears to still exist today with the spread of the AIDS virus.

Cutting off aid is not the answer but a definite restructuring of how it gets there is needed. Instead of lining the pockets of corrupt governments officials, a more direct approach may be required. What that is, I have little idea

 

[X]

Yeah, I completely disagree with Moyo. Completely. The argument is that because of corrupt regimes in Africa who misuse the aid they are given, we should cut off all aid to those countries? How exactly is that going to help anyone? Even if the most minor amount of aid that we give to them actually goes to helping their citizens, it's well worth it. What are the alternatives? How else can we help these people? Send forces in and dismantle their corrupt government? Everyone knows that's not going to happen. For now we really don't have any other options.

That, and Moyo seems to be full of shit when it comes to people like Bono and festivals like Live 8. They most certainly do help impoverished families, even if only in a minor way. Any help whatsoever is well worth it though, compared to the alternative of doing nothing and sitting on our hands. We can't cut off aid to these people, and quite frankly I find that idea to not only be ridiculous, but downright cruel.

Human lives are worth more than dollars.

 

[FromTheSouth]

X, she isn't talking about abandoning Africa. I completely agree that we should stop giving money. We should directly invest. We can build factories and employ the people. We would need to hire someone like Blackwater to work security at the factories.

The people can be trained to do anything. They could make shoes, they could make the mosquito nets that protect against malaria. We need to stop giving them fish and teach them catch their own. I love the idea of directly investing and trying to create an economy as opposed to giving them money and hoping for the best.

Instead of giving money to individual families, we should create infrastructure. If we build roads, the medicine can get to the families. If we build irrigation and desalination, the people of Africa could farm for themselves.

Giving money to Africa, for years, has been politically motivated. No one in the US government wants to track that aid, and see what is being done with it. Instead, we send money and medicine, hope it gets to the people, and get back to figuring how much we can send next time. Africa needs a transcontinental highway system. Africa needs irrigation systems. When you build those, you can build an economy. Once the people are financially empowered, they can become politically empowered. At that point, with a little CIA help, the warlords can be overthrown, and the people of Africa can rise up.

 

[X]

X, she isn't talking about abandoning Africa. I completely agree that we should stop giving money.

Oh? Odd, I didn't get that impression from the article, though I did skim the last paragraph.

We would need to hire someone like Blackwater to work security at the factories.

Yeah, because Blackwater has shown themselves to be such a trustworthy organization.

The people can be trained to do anything. They could make shoes, they could make the mosquito nets that protect against malaria. We need to stop giving them fish and teach them catch their own. I love the idea of directly investing and trying to create an economy as opposed to giving them money and hoping for the best.

Don't you think these corrupt leaders being referred to are going to have a bit of a problem with that though? I agree on the theory of trying to cut out the middleman and aid families directly, but I'm pretty sure these corrupt governments in question are going to have a huge problem with that. Before we know it, we'll have guerrillas murdering US government employees for "sticking their nose where it doesn't belong".

 

[FromTheSouth]

Oh? Odd, I didn't get that impression from the article, though I did skim the last paragraph.

Yeah, she says we should replace aid with direct investment. I am curious about what you think about tapering off aid as it is now and building infrastructure, like highways, irrigation, and desalination plants. From what I've read, that seems to be what is needed to make sure that the food and medicine actually gets to the villages.

Yeah, because Blackwater has shown themselves to be such a trustworthy organization.

Yeah, there have been a couple of problems, but all in all, I think the good they've done, protecting schools and hospitals, outweighs the bad. Plus, not that the rogue elements have been exposed, I would think that the tightened leash would make them play nice.

Don't you think these corrupt leaders being referred to are going to have a bit of a problem with that though? I agree on the theory of trying to cut out the middleman and aid families directly, but I'm pretty sure these corrupt governments in question are going to have a huge problem with that. Before we know it, we'll have guerrillas murdering US government employees for "sticking their nose where it doesn't belong".

Yeah, that is the sticking point. But I think that it is immoral to let that oppression continue. We are funding those corrupt governments through our aid for the people. I would think that cutting aid would undercut the government, and weaken it enough to let us get in there and build an economy.

 

[Барбоса]

I think in large sections of Africa things will have to get a lot worse before they get better. As already said, these warlords and "elected" leaders aren't just going to allow the UN or western/far east countries to invest in their countries without extorting some personal benefits.

When even the "best" former colonies such as Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and South Africa are having trouble, it does not bode well for the future. I have a friend who is from Zimbabwe and she says that South Africa will be as bad as Zimbabwe within the next decade if something isn't done about it.