A lot to think about, as Thomas Ekvall would argue. Aid by itself is not the answer. Can there be a ‘win-win’ here rather than a zero-sum game? Or, will the inter-dependence to make it happen lead in turn to a new type of dependency syndrome?
To add to the debate, will the developed world continue to develop further, taking advantage of a knowledge-based technology-driven new economy, or have we reached a stage of stasis? And, can labour intensive manufacturing in turn be outsourced totally to the least developed countries? If so, at what long term cost?
I am not getting this one. I may be opinionated, aggressive, obnoxious and arrogant and over-eager to take on things I do not like, things that I see as stupid, ignorant, unjust, corrupt, pompous or wrong, but I do not get what you are looking for here?
ReplyDeleteIf you could respond with your views on the second para of my post where I have mentioned you by name, please. Your views on zero-sum against win-win is quite relevant to set the discussion going. And of course your views on Africa and aid are no less relevant to the debate. You have said a lot about yourself, which are not true. Maybe you've done it out of modesty. Many would love to hear from you here.
DeleteRethinking Africa’s Future
ReplyDeleteAfter 2.6 trillion dollars in aid since 1960, Africa has not caught up with the rest of the world; it has fallen further behind. The continent is relatively poorer, less industrialised and more dependent than it was at independence. Foreign aid has failed.
What was meant to be temporary help has become a permanent dependency. Aid has turned into a parallel economy, sustaining the very weaknesses it was supposed to fix. Many African governments now answer more to donors than to their own people. Easy money discourages reform; corruption is common; accountability is weak. And still, the aid industry congratulates itself for caring.
The UN Development System and its network of agencies and NGOs are part of this failure. They have grown into vast bureaucracies that measure success by the size of their budgets and the number of reports produced, not by tangible improvements in prosperity or governance. The system’s main achievement has been to perpetuate itself.
An Orderly Exit
This dependency must end, not suddenly or chaotically, but in an orderly, planned withdrawal. Over the next four to eight years, Western governments and aid agencies should phase out development aid altogether. Humanitarian relief will always have a place in crises, but long-term aid should come to an end.
As the aid gradually reduces, African governments will have to face their citizens rather than their donors. They will be forced to tax, govern and reform. Responsibility will finally return. Removing aid will hurt, but healing rarely comes without pain.
Trade Over Aid
The West can still help, not with cheques, but with open markets and honest partnerships. Remove the tariffs and subsidies that keep African farmers poor. Encourage private investment, regional trade, and infrastructure that connects economies. Africa’s prosperity will come from factories, farms and entrepreneurs, not from another UN initiative.
Countries like Botswana and Mauritius have already shown what’s possible. Their success was built on discipline, clean governance and the belief that dignity lies in production. They prospered by rejecting dependency.
Ending aid dependency will be painful for everyone involved. Western bureaucrats and aid workers will have to admit that decades of development theory have achieved little. African leaders will lose the excuse of blaming history or donors. But honesty is called for, and Africa deserves the respect of being treated as capable of standing on its own.
Foreign aid was meant to be a bridge. It became a cage.
I have been reading with interest your comments on the "Beyond Aid" blog shared by Detlef. Much of your observations there bear relevance to what we seek to debate here. I wish many more will chip in with you here to take the discussion further. It has been our hope that the posts we carry on the Blog will generate lively dialogues through observations and comments. Now that you have set the trend, we hope to see many others follow it through.
ReplyDeleteIn 2024, Tanzania's GDP per capita was $1,120, which is 9% of the global average. In 1960, it was $275 or more than 60% of the global average. Few countries in Africa received more aid during these 60-plus years than Tanzania. Some food for thought.
ReplyDeleteThere is a clear, though not perfect, link between GDP per capita and respect for human rights. Wealthier societies tend to have better human rights records, but there are important exceptions.
DeleteAfrica lags behind due to poor governance, weak institutions, corruption, rapid population growth and aid dependency. Unless African governments prioritise accountability and self-reliance over aid dependence, the gap with the rest of the world will widen.
DeleteJames Shikwati (Kenyan economist): “The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. … Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa’s problems. … It weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need.”
DeleteDevelopment aid often fails to achieve its objectives due to several factors, such as:
ReplyDeleteMismanagement: Poor planning and execution by donor agencies.
Inadequate Planning: Lack of strategic aims or focus on strategic aims of the donor country.
Government Mismanagement: Mismanagement by recipient governments can compound the failure.
Structural Inertia: The aid system resists fundamental changes, leading to ineffective efforts.
Perverse Incentives: The system rewards short-term results over long-term impact.
Risk Aversion: Individual career concerns often outweigh the benefits of innovation.
Disconnected Feedback Loops: Those most affected by aid interventions have the least say.
These factors contribute to inaction in the international aid system, where aid organisations fail to implement what they know works despite having the tools and resources.
Botswana is often mentioned as an example of “aid done right works.” After independence in 1966, it received considerable Western aid. However, the government was stable, competent, and corruption-averse. Aid was used primarily for infrastructure and education, and the country already had sound fiscal management. Botswana’s success was driven far more by domestic governance and resource management than by aid.
ReplyDeleteThere should not be a major issue with discontinuing aid; it is, according to many on the extreme left, a pittance, a thin veil to hide centuries of crimes, and the aid workers are merely pawns or useful idiots in the hands of Sevlierauw-suited Western men in dark glasses running the world. It was never intended to lift Africa out of poverty, let alone help develop it. It was all about neocolonialism, control and dominance.
ReplyDeleteWould Africa Have Been Better Off Without Aid?
ReplyDeleteWhen Africa gained independence in the 1950s and 1960s, it quickly became dependent again. This time on aid. Trillions of dollars have been poured into the continent since then, but Africa remains poor, indebted, and politically unstable. Would Africa have been better off without aid, dealing with the rest of the world as all other countries do?
With the benefit of 70 years of hindsight, the answer is most probably yes. Aid has too often removed accountability. Governments that rely on foreign donors do not need to rely on their citizens. When revenues come from abroad rather than from domestic taxation, the contract between those who govern and the governed is broken. The elite answer to aid agencies, not to the voters. The result has been a cycle of weak governance, corruption, and endless capacity-building projects that build little except the aid bureaucracy.
Instead of stimulating business and entrepreneurship, aid has often been a disincentive for private initiatives. Donor-funded schemes crowd out local businesses and attract talent away from the private sector. The constant flow of aid money discourages reform and protects leaders from the consequences of mismanagement. It is no coincidence that the best-performing African countries, such as Botswana and Mauritius, are those that focus on sound institutions, trade, and investment.
By contrast, the countries, globally, that developed fast over the past 50-60 years did so without any significant aid. They embraced competition, exports, property rights, and accountability. They succeeded not because aid workers and development experts from the other side of the world engineered development, but because they were allowed to fail, learn, and reform. That is how all countries have developed. Why would Africa be different?
The path forward should replace aid with economic engagement. Remove trade barriers that keep African goods out of Western markets. Channel capital into private investment and infrastructure that yield returns. Treat African countries as capable partners in global commerce.
After 60 years, the verdict is clear: aid has not helped Africa. A continent rich in resources and talent deserves the dignity of self-determination, not another decade of handouts. The right thing now is to end the aid era in an orderly way and allow Africa the freedom to rise on its own terms.
This suggestion will be seen as heresy in the powerful, righteous global aid community, often led by failed politicians with their contacts up to date. They will, despite the facts, denounce it as callous, dangerous and risking lives. The elite in Africa might chime in.
DeleteOn the other hand, those who oppose aid may point out that the aid community and the elite in Africa often skim off the lion’s share of the aid for themselves and may be more interested in feathering their own nests than helping Africa develop.
Over the past decades, the former group has won hands down. It will be interesting to see how this develops over the coming years.
There's much to add to the debate and I wish the exchanges would continue. You have touched upon here a very live and sensitive issue around aid - the politics of development assistance. Politicians on either side seem to keep the dependency alive with strong vested interests entrenched around the aid industry. I wish more could be said about it. At the same time, in a highly inter-dependent world today, any pocket of under-development remains no less a threat to the developed world. It would be far too idealistic to believe that the under-developed regions of the world will, given the opportunity, all rise up to a state of bliss. Many argue that the inter-dependency with promise of development does in reality perpetuate a new kind of dependency syndrome. In short, can development assistance be fully done away with? is there a win-win through development assistance? Or is it all a zero-sum game?
DeleteIf we have not found a win-win formula after 80 years of trying, perhaps it is time to throw in the towel.
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected again. If the four stakeholders are: 1) the Western taxpayers, 2) the aid workers, 3) government officials and other elites in Africa, and 4) the impoverished Africans, it has always been a win-win. Numbers 2) and 3) have won consistently.
DeleteThat’s a smart rejoinder, Thomas. You seem to have said it all.
Delete