Monday was Africa Day. It’s a bit like Mother’s Day — once a year we remember somebody or something that is always part of our life, but far too often neglected.
Kaya FM played more African music than usual (apart from what Nicky Blumenfeld plays over the weekend) and a number of newspapers ran leaders on the subject.
One of the most interesting Africa stories I noticed was on the front cover of the weekend Financial Times — Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo is getting a lot of flack for her book Dead Aid. The executive summary of the book is this: development assistance is killing Africa; aid is stifling economic growth and making the corrupt even more so.
I read Dead Aid and found it inspirational, sort of in the way reading Denis Beckett’s latest book Magenta convinced me that the form of democracy we have in South Africa, as in many other parts of the world, can be improved dramatically.
Both authors are being called crazy and simple-minded by their opponents, who find their ideas too far away from mainstream thinking. I’ll stick with Moyo for the time being. American academic and avid supporter of international aid, Jeffrey Sachs calls her ideas “absolutely pernicious, and [which] could lead to the deaths of millions of people”. Bob Geldof’s followers have even organised an e-mail campaign urging African NGOs to stand up to her arguments. According to the FT, the campaign has backfired. I for one am pleased it has.
I’ve come across too many organisations, too many governments and too many heads of state who owe their existence to aid money. I’m not trying to say that all aid is bad, and neither is Moyo. There is a strong case for helping out during times of natural disasters, armed conflict or the rampant spread of disease.
But there is also the head of state that has been in power longer than free and fair elections would normally permit, who doesn’t worry about collecting taxes, because the money he needs to hold on to power and maintain an opulent lifestyle comes from elsewhere. As I write this Thought Leader, Omar Bongo of Gabon (in office since 1972), Denis Sassou-Nguesso of Congo-Brazzaville and Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea are all under investigation for embezzlement. These three and others have not had to concern themselves with building infrastructure for the people they are supposed to represent, simply because they don’t need them — development aid and a hefty windfall from oil production helps this particular trio.
The more battered the economy, the more the money rolls in from the usual suspects — the World Bank, IMF, EU, US, UK and a fairly long list of others. One trillion US dollars in development assistance has been sent to Africa over the last several decades. Moyo argues that not only has it not improved the lives of Africans, but that in many instances the standard of living has actually dropped — except for those few people who get hold of the money that is.
Anybody arguing that the economies of most African countries offer the opportunity for a better life for all thanks to development aid probably hasn’t spent much time exploring the continent. There are success stories, but, not surprising to me in any case, success is not determined by how much money is pledged at donor conferences. Rather, it is investment in the economy and infrastructure by the home government that usually makes the difference.
Moyo goes into great detail about how Botswana has generally managed to get things right. She also commends the Chinese for contributing to infrastructure development rather than sending the cash straight to the presidential palace. South Africa aside, China is probably responsible for more railway and road construction in Africa this decade than any other government.
There are so many directions in which I could take this blog, but I fear that both I and anybody kind enough to read this will get lost in the details. There is a big picture: put in place an economic plan and wean yourself off aid. Moyo challenges the donor community to gradually reduce the amount of aid given to governments over a five-year period, after which the recipients become responsible for running their own affairs at their own cost. I believe this will help persuade government to consider the hopes, needs and aspirations of the electorate which, once it realises accountability is taking over from chaos, will be motivated to invest in its future and its own communities. Once infrastructure is built subsistence farmers can become commercial farmers, small-scale manufacturers can become exporters and foreign currency earners and so on. Moyo frequently uses the example of a local manufacturer of mosquito nets who goes out of business when a foreign donor floods the market with products manufactured elsewhere. The intentions may have been noble, but the approach yielded yet another setback for business in Africa. Had the money for the donated nets been used to strengthen the existing local business, all concerned would have been winners, including the new people hired to handle the increased production.
This blog is simply an attempt to get people thinking about ways forward — ways of getting out of the swamp that has swallowed up so much of our potential. Moyo outlines the way forward far more eloquently than I have, and I strongly recommend reading her book. I don’t agree with everything she says, but I certainly agree when she says that the path to prosperity is already here; unfortunately it occasionally gets blocked by a layer of cash covering the presidential palace.
Africa Day?
About as relevant as “Europe Day” or “Asia Day”.
Why the mere fact that people happen to share the same continental landmass, is anything to be excited or proud about, baffles me.
Not really the point Mr. P.
Should be forced reading for everyone in Africa and then debated openly, honestly and widely without any sensorship. Lets discuss the subject not the character of who is putting the idea forward.
Brent
David, I’m deeply confused. I have a different view of the ebb and flow of aid between nations.
The First World gives Africa little Foreign Aid but those despotic leaders who miss manage their countries and then rely on aid repay the donors vast sums in compensation, I would wager the economic flow of this mismanagement that the West tacitly encourages to be well over 100 to one.
I hear you say “OH damn, another conspiracy theorist” but read on.
Despotic leadership and the rape of government coffers that is typical in sub-Sahara leads to the best and the brightest youth of a country to move on, to emigrate.
A newly qualified Indian doctor for example has costs his family and the state in excess of R 5 million to raise, educate, train and qualify. Research show that 40% of Indian Doctors will leave South Africa within 10 years of qualifying (and who can blame them). That’s hundreds of doctors each year, and each cost us R5 or R10 million. Let’s say R10-Billion, and that’s just for doctors. OUCH
But during this doctor’s career, he will pay his adopted country tens of millions in taxes as well as contributing immeasurably economically and socially. Would it be unreasonable to claim the GDP of one Doctor in the USA to US$25 Million a year
Who receives, who pays…
I would like to get hold of this book. We should not be talking of presidential palaces as if they can operate without colluding with the major aid donors. They are always manipulated to cover up for the misdeeds of the aid givers. This has always been the trend from as far as Mobutu Sese Seko. Bottom line is the real goal of aid is to create employment, increase exports and give political control to those who give it. It has now gone on to provide a front for western corrupt practices. look at who are monopolising positions and opportunities in the aid industry. Is it long time ago when the head of the world Bank had to reward his girl friend through the institution. Aid has become so self serving that in future aid giving nations will be more than willing to wage war (covertly or overtly) on those who will dare to refuse aid.
What, then, David, is the point?
My comment was directed at why there is such a thing as “Africa Day”.
By all means use that as a hook on which to discuss the state of Africa, but I was not seeking to address the substance of your blog.
I was just wondering what purpose an “Africa Day” was meant to serve.
I spent the first three decades of my life in Africa and the last decade of my life in Europe, but I see no need to get wildly excited about either Africa or Europe (in fact, I see no need to get wildly excited about either my SA or UK nationalities).
For what it’s worth, my view is that financial aid is simply something which either lines to pockets of a corrupt elite or gets pissed away. Most African governments have shown themselves incapable of being able to manage wealth generated by their own countries in an accountable and responsible fashion; there is hardly any reason to expect them to treat handouts any better.
Either financial aid should completely bypass the governments in question (which they won’t allow) or it should be denied them unless very very strict conditions have been met.
Four plus decades of aid to Africa have not improved a thing other than to give rise to a culture of corruption and dependency. I think the taps should be turned off. Now.
In Zimbabwe “Africa Day” is now viewed as a Sick Joke.
Since May 25th is when Mugabe ordered “Operation Clean out the Filth” by bulldozing 700,000 (estimated, possibly up to 1.25 MILLION Black Peasants out of their homes and businesses.
Probably for not “voting correctly” (ie for him.):
http://www.sokwanele.com/articles/fourthanniversaryofmurambatsvina_250509.html
I welcomed Dambisa Moyos book to the debate on the Aid Industry. It has always been a source of great frustration to people like myself who have worked in Africa to see how few Africans are given a hearing. The issue of Aid is really central to the continents future. Of course the problem is that Moyo is venturing into a debate that has to date been colonized by white men. Despite the fact that she is a native Zambian woman with a Masters from Harvard and a doctorate from Oxford, she has not exactly been welcomed by the Western bien pensant. Her experience with Goldman Sachs and the World Bank counts for nothing when she is opposed by such luminaries as rock stars such as Bono and Geldof, the massed ranks of the Churches and NGOs, and emoting politicians, such as that toxic duo Brown & Blair. When she warns that such aid compounds poverty by fostering dependency, breeding corruption and stifling enterprise she should not be dismissed out of hand in the West. Clearly, in order to justify the increased spending on aid, Africans have often been portrayed as helpless. This has discouraged the very trade and investment necessary to drive development. As an old Africa hand I agree with Moyo’s assessment that Chinese direct investment and the resultant building of infrastructure such as roads and railways to extract minerals have had a mainly beneficial effect. Western politicians and NGOs are certainly in no position to
David
Read “The Trouble With Africa: Why Foreign Aid is not Working” by Robert Calderisi.
He worked in Africa for 40 years for the World Bank. He does not recommend withdrawing all aid, but controlling it better, and doing away with the presciption of “political interference” rule which hamstrings aid being controlled properly.
He also contrasts how the same aid deals which have not worked in Africa have worked in Asia, and why.
China does not “give aid” but “do business”, and the price is very hign. Infrastructure for minerals and land.
Africa should not be needing food, it has the land to feed itself AND to export, provided it farms commercially and gives up peasant farming.
But 5 countries outside of Africa, one of which is China, have acquired 1 million hectares of land in Africa.
To realise how much this is – South Africa only has 6000 hectares of arable land.
The reason the much maligned colonisers of Africa set tribal areas aside was that the chiefs would sell the land for beads.
Africa’s new chiefs are doing just that.
I stand corrected – I mistakenly robbed Gabon’s president Omar Bongo of 5 years in office. Mr. Bongo became president in 1967, and not 1972 as stated above in the body of my text. Thanks to the eagle of of Nick Kotch, pointing this out from Lusaka.
I read an eye-opener in The Economist a few years back that delivered a swift kick to the way international aid was mishandled following the Indian Ocean tsunami. Instead of listing what was wrong, it also outlined what should be done instead. International aid is often determined by the donor nation’s priorities, goals and expectations instead of those of the nation getting the aid. International aid agencies buy from donor nation industries, not local businesses in the recipient country. The people running and delivering the programs are flown in, not hired from the local population. You get the drift.
I saw similar stupidities, and even benefited from some as a foreign journalism trainer in South Africa before and shortly after the ’94 elections. Aid flowed freely into SA to dismantle the structures of apartheid, begin the transition to civil society. There was almost no prior work by the donor to understand the very different needs and expectations of the company, the managers, the journalists. The assumption, an arrogant one, was that we (the donor) knew best what was good for South Africa. Just as bad, there nothing resembling a decent evaluation afterward.
We did some good. But the real aim, it seems sometimes, was to foster dependency. My company wanted more business next year, and the one after. Instilling dependence and self-sufficiency was not part of the vocabulary at the time. I doubt things have changed much.
My goodness, what drivel! Africa needs AID!The woman who wrote this book, Dead Aid doesn’t know aht she’s talking about. She comes from a privileged background. She doesn’t know how it feels like to be born poor and to starve most of every day. How can we expect people to start businesses when they are hungry, when they have not start-up capital, Below is a comment I made in Alex’s blogs. Hopefully it will put things in perspectie for all of you people:
When colonisers came to Africa, they extracted mineral resources and repatriated them to the West and apart from enslaving Africans, they introduced the modern economic system knowing full well that they had enriched themselves and had an upper hand in the modern era-Africa would depend on them. Africans did not see themselves as being poor when colonialists came but they were/ are proletarianized by the modern economic system and whites (and in particular those in the West) are priviledged because of this. Read Michel de Mintaigne, Rosa Luxembourg and, yes, Marx (but I must admitt the latter is poor on colonialism).
Oh dear, Phillipa must be a link in the aid chain. But I think the harsh reality of the book is right. The way aid is distributed into Africa is most beneficial to the companies doing the distribution, then greedy and corrupt apparatchiks (Phillipa?) in the government system and finally a tiny trickle gets to the needy. When it gets there it often displaces some subsistence trader or is sold. Every traveller into Africa has seen the US Aid grain, marked “Free etc” being sold.
But Africa should not NEED aid. With its bountiful natural resources, soils and climate it should boom. Why doesn’t it?
Rotten politicians who sign up rotten deals with external countries and companies; selling the countries resources for a fraction of their worth then keeping the cash. Not spending effectively on education, infrastructure, health etc etc but stashing it in a Swiss bank. At best they spend on palaces, stadiums, defence etc in deals riddled with corruption and kickbacks and which have little benefit to the country. On being criticised they bring up colonialism, race etc and the Phillipa’s bark to their tune.
Until this stops somehow, the cycle will continue.
Hi David
Interesting that your three examples of the more corrupt African leaders supported by the West are actually all supported almost singlehandedly by France…. I don’t mean too much by this but I find this discussion of a rather complex subject a little simplistic. Of course aid should be debated more – and Moyo is far from the first person to have questioned it, there are many others from all continents (not just white men) who’ve been writing about and debating it ever since aid and development has been around. I even remember a discussion from about thirty years ago which came to the conclusion that distributing development aid by dropping it in one dollar bills from a plane would be a better, more equitable way of doing it.