Aid is worse than a waste of money, it has impoverished Africa, kept corrupt leaders in power, and is causing mass migration to Europe: Thomas Ekvall
This is not the picture we have been presented with over the past 60 years when Sweden gave more aid per person than any other country in the world. We were told that aid was an obligation in solidarity with the poor and less fortunate to lift them out of poverty and help them develop. The opposite seems to have happened.
Most of our aid has gone to Africa and the countries receiving most of it are relatively poorer today than they were 60 years ago when the aid started to flow. In other words, they did not catch up but fell further behind the rest of the world. That is true for both Tanzania and Uganda, two of the biggest recipients of Swedish aid. Extreme poverty, which aid should have addressed as a priority, is on the rise in many countries in Africa.
Studies have shown that aid dependence slows economic growth. Many countries in Africa are aid-dependent. Without economic growth there cannot be any meaningful development. There appears to be an inverse correlation between the amount of aid received and the economic growth rate. The more aid the less economic growth. That may explain why most countries in Africa are falling further behind the rest of the world.
These inconvenient statistics have been played down by the aid industry. Efforts have been made to tweak the aid for better outcomes. These attempts have been unsuccessful. Other causes for Africa’s problems have been played up, such as coming out of colonialism, tribal disputes, armed conflicts, etc. Such issues, of course, play a role, but they do not negate that aid works counter to economic growth and therefore sustainable development.
The aid organizations spend trillions of kronor annually, including 80 billion of our tax money. They may not have much interest in highlighting that their work doesn’t contribute to overall economic progress. They can typically demonstrate some successes, in some areas, even if they will not make any meaningful long-term difference to sustainable development. Many organizations can also flag that economic growth was never an objective and that there are other ways of measuring development. The issues are complex and can be looked at in different ways. Nevertheless, aid has not stopped sub-Saharan African countries from becoming relatively poorer in comparison to the rest of the world. That was not the plan and SIDA has not been transparent about it.
African intellectuals, political scientists, and economists have for years pointed out these problems, but SIDA and the other aid outfits never took their advice. On the contrary, they are sharply criticized by both aid workers and officials of the governments in the countries that receive large amounts of aid - two groups that have done very well from aid.
The overall impact of the aid industry’s work, over the past 60 years, has never been evaluated as a whole. Nor, it seems, has anyone demanded it. That is irresponsible considering the money spent and how poor the results appear to be.
There is a correlation between aid and corruption. If Transparency International’s corruption index is compared with the countries that receive most aid the correlation is close. There is also corruption directly linked to aid, SIDA’s reports point that out. These reports are available to the public.
There is also waste and corruption within aid agencies, ever so often scandals come to light, but most corruption likely goes undetected. It happens in faraway countries and there is little transparency and accountability.
Quality of governance is of overriding importance for economic growth and development, but aid has failed to improve governance. Aid seems to have had the opposite effect. It appears to have helped inept and corrupt governments stay in power. Aid has helped them avoid taking full responsibility for the welfare of the people they govern. Aid may also have made it easier to divert the governments’ own money from say social programs to the armed forces or directly into the pockets of government officials.
Uganda is a case in point. Sweden has been a major donor to Uganda for the 37 years Museveni has been in power. Swedish aid together with aid from other sources has, almost certainly, helped him and his corrupt and inept government stay in power. This has been good for Museveni, his family, and cronies, but not for the common man in Uganda who is falling relatively further behind, economically and in other areas. There have also been scandals with Swedish aid money being stolen by officials in the government of Uganda. Human rights abuses are on the rise and Museveni recently signed the death penalty for homosexuality into law. That Swedish aid money may have contributed to this development is depressing.
Some aid interventions have been successful at lowering the number of children dying early, a laudable achievement, that also increased the population growth. Africa is the only continent where that is happening. But as aid, on the other hand, slows economic growth there are few opportunities for these children, when they grow up, to make a decent living. It is not farfetched to believe that aid has contributed to mass migration from Africa. People are risking their lives trying to get to Europe and Sweden for a better life because they see no future in their own countries.
Data, statistics, evaluations, assessments, analysis, etc. to back up this criticism of aid are readily available and in the public domain. The IMF, the World Bank, national statistical offices, bilateral aid organizations, human rights organizations, and organizations assessing corruption and quality of governance have all the relevant information.
How can so much have gone so wrong for so long? There are many reasons. Swedish politicians have had close ties with African leaders over many years and may be hesitant to criticize them. For example, Sweden gave refugee status to Museveni’s family when he was a rebel fighter busy overthrowing the government and taking power in Uganda. Geopolitics may have played a role, the powers that be may prefer certain leaders and therefore support them through aid. Some aid organizations have had difficulties, or little interest, in seeing the bigger picture. The over-paid staff of the UN agencies, working in these countries, are unlikely whistle-blowers. To a lesser degree, the same can be said about the NGO community. It is after all their lucrative livelihood. Most importantly, the common man in Africa who should have benefitted from the aid, but did not, has never had a voice. Neither have the taxpayers in Sweden and other countries who are paying for it all.
There is no evidence that any country has ever developed because of aid. The myth that aid can make wonders seems to stem from the perceived impact of the Marshall Plan - the aid the US government gave to Europe after WWII. That claim doesn’t hold up to scrutiny – the Marshall Plan had little impact. Nonetheless, the myth has stayed alive.
To continue, business as usual, in the face of all the evidence that aid does not work would be irresponsible. An evaluation is called for. Sweden, as a big aid provider, should take the initiative and address this together with as many partners as it can muster. Transparency and accountability have always been lacking in the aid business. A comprehensive evaluation of the impact of aid, over the past 60 years, is long overdue. The taxpayers who have paid for it and the people in Africa who should have benefitted from it deserve this.
The evaluators should listen carefully to the African intellectuals, economists, and political scientists, critical of aid, who know their countries, and have the expertise and the continent's best interest at heart. They are not likely to have vested interests in keeping potentially harmful aid going. The aid agencies and the government officials in Africa, with strong vested interests and a poor record, have for far too long domineered the discussion. They should take a back seat in any consultations. Taxpayers from donor countries and the grassroots in Africa should be involved. That would probably be a first.
The conclusion of such an evaluation may well be: Africa would be better off without aid; governments would be held more accountable to the people they govern; economic growth would improve and corruption would come down; governments would come under pressure to put in place conditions for attracting foreign direct investments.
Thomas raises issues that warrant wider discussion. If the trend to growing global disparities cannot be reversed by aid, then aid is a mere distraction from and impediment to the more fundamental changes that are needed in international relations.
ReplyDelete👍
DeleteThat "IF" apparently needs to be used relating to aid and reduced inequality - we have a long way to go. It is hard to admit that we did not help reduce inequality, I do get that, and it is of course even harder to admit that we may have contributed to increasing inequality. The latter just might be possible. My intention is not to get your Sunday lunch stuck in your craw - just to perhaps give it a thought.
DeleteComment
ReplyDeleteThere are many types of aid given to developing countries. They are distinguished by their purpose, source of funding, and the form that they take. These types of aid are often categorized into economic foreign aid (development aid), military aid, and humanitarian aid. Are you calling for stopping all types of aid (including humanitarian aid) and what alternatives would the writer of the above article recommend ?
Military aid is typically provided by say the US to Israel (apparently hundreds of billions) or China to Cambodia. Such aid is presumably not intended to lift countries out of poverty or help them develop but is provided for other purposes therefore not particularly relevant to this discussion.
DeleteThat said, the military would be a suitable conduit for humanitarian aid. The military typically has everything needed for a successful humanitarian operation. They have logistics expertise and trucks, aircraft, etc. They typically also have medical facilities and the capacity to house, in tents, tens of thousands and to feed them as well. No aid outfit comes even close. Yet they typically sit idel observing UN agencies and NGOs struggling.
That development aid, as we know it, has failed is indisputable. For a country to develop competent and caring governance with corruption under control is necessary. Aid has done nothing to help achieve that. One can make a case that it has worked counter to that.
The use of the military for delivering humanitarian aid is interesting. Hopefully, these militaries spend most of their time in their barracks doing nothing with all their useful gear just sitting there.
DeleteHumanitarian aid raises complex questions that haven't been sufficiently debated and dealt with. Should the taxpayers and governments in the West be held more responsible for the well-being of people in countries say in Africa than those countries' leaders?
ReplyDeleteThere are precedents where the WFP has suspended food aid affecting millions due to obstructions by governments and or rebel movements. Is this morally acceptable?
There are also precedents where governments and or rebel movements have been bribed to allow humanitarian aid to be delivered. Is that acceptable?
This brings to mind a real case in famine-prone Kordufan. The Dutch had a project there to deal with famine preparedness. The idea was simple: in good years you saved surpluses to be used during bad years. Grain stores were installed all over for this purpose. However, the project failed, there was never any grain in those stores. Why would the government take the trouble organizing and running this when WFP was just a phone call away when the next famine hit? Fortunately, the silos were made of fiberglass which subsequently made good roofing material.
Indeed thought provoking and to a large extent absolutely right. Governments of each country in any part of the globe should be held accountable, but to do that the people of those countries have to raise their voices are these donors willing to help them do that? Either politically or through media?
DeleteWhere are Russia and China when it comes to humanitarian aid?
ReplyDeleteLeave it to the gilt-ridden, naive, bleeding-heart Westerners. It is thankless, tedious, and often dangerous work.
ReplyDelete"TRADE, NOT AID" might be a fairer approach for support to less developed countries ???
ReplyDeleteRight on, and trade not aid almost rimes.
DeleteDear Thomas, you have raised some excellent points. Aid dependency creates a vicious cycle and needs to be complemented with capacity building in self-sufficiency. However, corruption and lack of opportunities compel the people who have been trained to look elsewhere for better pay. While we criticize the donors for supporting, let us not forget that there is a vested interest among many countries to continue the status quo to benefit from contracts to mines, oil extraction, etc. This support in turn continues to keep despots in power continued dependency. I have always advocated for using the military for relief purposes which as you rightly mention have the human resources, the technology and the heavy equipment to deal with crisis. This should be explored further.
ReplyDeleteIs there really evidence that Wester companies persuade their governments to give aid to say countries X and Y in Africa so they can get concessions for extracting valuable minerals? There are so many easier ways of doing this that are tried and practiced and work well but may indeed keep tinpot leaders in power. Such practices are exposed occasionally, sometimes with the help of practitioners in the aid industry.
DeleteI don't find these heavy-handed generic critiques of 'aid' -- they are far from uncommon, qv William Easterly and Dambisa Moyo among many others -- persuasive or helpful. It is easy to criticise aid, but it is spent on so many different things, in so many different ways, through so many different types of channels, that it is impossible to take a definitive view about its value. Throughout its history, official aid disbursement has been driven by the donor agenda, and relatively little has been used to address poverty directly; but without it many poor countries and people would be worse off. Broad-brush critics tend to ignore the good things aid has done, and the fact that many countries, especially in Africa, have suffered significant internal and external shocks -- droughts, wars, famines, epidemics -- which aid has helped to mop up. What would have happened without it? You cannot possibly prove that people would have been worse off, unless you think dying is an improvement. If you have to criticise, why not criticise the unevenness and the many discriminations in the development process, especially in the hands of leaders such as Museveni and Kagame (far from being the worst)? Why pin the opprobrium on aid? Aid is one among many means of transfer; it has no innate character of its own. The question 'Does aid work?' makes no sense. Aid is a gift or transfer of resources, on concessionary terms, to be applied to improvements in social well-being or economic productivity in developing countries. Apart from having this very broad purpose and a corresponding existence as a budgetary umbrella in the donor world, aid has no generic character. One would not ask 'Does investment work?' I am really sorry when I read titles and articles such as this because they play well with the media, and well with those who would cut aid and give the resources instead to defence budgets and anti-immigration measures. That seems to me a pity, and certainly not something UNICEF people would favour.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1980s, UNICEF and partners embarked on a bold mission – to immunize every child against preventable diseases. Together with governments, UNICEF facilitated one of the greatest logistical mobilizations in peacetime history. By the early 1990s, global childhood immunization levels reached 80 per cent.
DeleteWould this have been achieved without „ aid“ ?
Maggie is on the right track.
DeleteAs regards immunization that statement is correct and it would not have been achieved without UNICEF, but it was not sustained either by UNICEF, other partners, or independently by ministries of health in many countries. Consequently, it was a rather short-lived achievement, and therefore resources were wasted. Immunization may have been the only area ever where UNICEF had real expertise that was subsequently let go. At one point I suggested that UNICEF should expand in the area of vaccination, work with scientists to try to include other diseases, and work with vaccine manufacturers to ensure the availability of such new vaccines at a reasonable cost. I was told off: "Are you suggesting turning UNICEF into a vaccination organization". Since everyone was looking over their shoulders feeling where the wind was blowing nothing came of this. I can not remember how many times I was told by Carol to get out of EPI.
DeleteI should have mentioned that these immunization goals were often achieved by bribing staff of ministries of health to do what should have been their job in the first place. The Deputy Executive Director got his hands dirty in Khartoum negotiating how much the staff of the Ministry of Health in Sudan could skim off for their own pockets to immunize their own children. Mahendra, who has commented above, and who ran EPI in Sudan at the time can confirm this. Achieving goals in this fashion has nothing to do with sustainable development - it is showboating plain and simple.
DeleteLet me try to respond. The vast majority of those who have worked in the aid industry would disagree with a lot of what I have written. That is understandable, few like criticism and we can all flag something that we did that made some little difference, some projects that actually worked and may even have been sustainable. Also, it may not always be easy to see the bigger picture. However, It is a fact that the African countries that have received the most aid are relatively poorer today than they were 60 years ago. Whether the situation would have been better without aid is of course hard to prove. It is likewise hard to prove that aid slowed down the relative decline, that Maggi appears to suggest. It is almost certain that aid has helped some rather unsavory governments to stay in power and that was not good for their subjects. Moyo is not the only African critical of aid. There are many African intellectuals, economists, and political scientists who are also critical of aid - it is disrespectful to ignore those voices, they may indeed be more knowledgeable than any of us and have fewer vested interests. Maggi also seems to ignore the fact that there is a lot of corruption associated with aid as we all know too well, the USAID evaluation of aid to Afghanistan is a case in point that Maggi may benefit from reading. My key suggestion in my Article is that aid needs to be evaluated as a whole to establish if it is worthwhile. Which Maggi appears to see no need for - that is a strange position, particularly as it could prove her right. To continue in the same ruts, as Maggi seems to suggest, would be unwise, but it is easy to be generous with other countries' tax money. Contrary to what Maggi seems to think, everyone who makes an investment asks if will it work, that question should have been asked more often over the past 60 years when it comes to aid. Most importantly, Maggi seems to ignore the fact that no country has ever developed without competent, caring governance with corruption under control, something that can not be imposed from outside.
ReplyDeleteI just read your article in defense of OXFAM, to refamiliarize myself with your writing, following the scandal in Haiti. It is a masterpiece. All large organizations in existence for many decades are likely to face similar scandals. It is all about how they are dealt with. OXFAM, as you pointed out, dealt with it well. That has, unfortunately, not always been the case in the aid industry. That is sad and implies incompetent management.
ReplyDeleteI should, in my hasty comments last night, have addressed a few other points you made above. You imply that generic criticism of aid is meaningless and then you generically defend aid. That should logically be equally meaningless.
You state that it is easy to criticize aid. If aid does as much good as you imply, that would not be the case.
Blinkered glorification of the aid industry does not serve those who pay for it nor those who should benefit from it, while it may serve those who work for it. If aid organizations are headquartered in rich, expensive countries those countries may become the main beneficiaries of the aid with thousands of highly paid staff based there. When most aid goes to pay staff something has gone wrong. When many of those staff were not hired in a competitive process something went very wrong. When corruption is not dealt with, trust is not deserved. This list could be made much longer but may serve to show that there is a lot to criticize.
You say that aid has not addressed poverty directly. That is a devastating criticism.
Perhaps that evaluation that I am calling for could after all be beneficial.
Especially as they come in growing numbers, it is important that we are giving aid critics and their arguments more serious attention. Who better to do so than ourselves who are or were intricately involved in development aid and know the systems inside out? Even OECD in its OECD Development Cooperation Report 2023 has given space to Olusoji Adeyi, former Director of Health and Nutrition at the World Bank, to state (for example): [this] illustrates the dysfunctions and perverse incentives of development assistance for health; it undermines domestic government accountability for health.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone interested in debating the efficiency of development aid, I heartily invite them to read a typical aid planning document (a UNICEF CPD) and a report on results from development aid (a UNICEF Country Office Annual report or evaluation).
There is a lot of new thinking that old hands may be unaware of. This blog could serve a good cause by keeping us abreast. Surely that must be preferable to using the blog for mutual admiration.
DeleteSorry, Maggi for chopping up my response - here comes more. You imply that you are in favor of open borders and the free movement of migrants. Relating to that and other issues close to the heart of so-called progressives it may be interesting to take a look at Sweden a leading light for many progressives.
ReplyDeleteOXFAM, an organization close to your heart, may benefit from taking a look at the economic history of Sweden to learn about the policies that created wealth and the policies that redistributed it. The management may learn that stripping the six richest people in the world of their wealth and redistributing it to the poor may not be the best way to reduce poverty.
Also, those who favor the free movement of migrants may benefit from the experience of Sweden which has had open borders for 30 years. Some 30 years ago the population was below eight million. It is now 10 million due to migration and more than 20 percent of the population is foreign-born, among the highest in the world. During these 30 years, Sweden went from one of the safest countries in Europe to the most dangerous and violent. More than 700,000 migrants do not work but subsist on welfare. Important indicators have declined over these years. Many native Swedes did not like this development which gave rise to a racist party that gets more than 20 percent of the vote. A rather alarming development. The Social Democrats, the prime drivers of the immigration policy have recently reversed their view of mass migration saying that they did not fully foresee the negative consequences. Do progressives elsewhere have something to learn from this?
You also imply that people with views like mine have no place in UNICEF. That suggests that there should be a political correctness test for joining UNICEF. There may be different views on this.
Those who say it is easy for me to criticize the aid industry after having lived high on the hog in that very industry for well over 50 years, just before I am about to pop my clogs, are right.
ReplyDelete