So, is foreign aid a waste of money? With all the hoopla going on with Bono and others clamoring for more foreign aid to Africa, how can it be a waste of money? After all, many are still starving to death, others are dying from preventable or treatable diseases like diarrhea or malaria. How can the West turn a blind eye to the plight of millions of Africans that still rely on foreign aid? A recent Christian Science Monitor article ("To eliminate Poverty", CSM, 17 October 2005) suggested that "The noblest charity is to prevent a man from accepting charity; and the best aims are to show and to enable a man to dispense with aims". Are we making Africa as a continent continually dependent on the West for handouts? How do we end this cycle of poverty? Is debt relief, more aid, or disengagement the answer? Below we have two guest entries from Jeff L., and James K on whether foreign aid is a waste of money...
Dr. D.
I would imagine that an initially negative response to the concept of economic aid is hard to come by. Besides, isn't it the ethical and moral duty of any wealthy nation such as the United States to support less fortunate countries like those belonging to the African continent? It would be easy to respond with an emphatic "yes!" if you were unaware of the underlying conflicts involved with this affair. Suppose however, that economic aid wasn't the solution to the problems in Africa. Suppose that economic aid only fueled African conflict. If you believed these statements, would you still support the practice of foreign aid grants to the continent?
The United States has developed a trade based relationship with many African nations, in which it exchanges manufactured goods and economic aid in return for raw materials. An individual could easily assume that Africa is gaining necessary items for economic and industrial development through these interactions. This however, is not the case. Many African nations are being exploited by the United States (Segal). Aside from a few exceptions, African nations have developed a "negative balance of payments in the flow of aid, trade, and other resources" (Segal). That means in essence that America has taken more from Africa than it has offered. How can Africa ever develop industrially if it continually exports raw resources at a lower rate than it imports foreign goods? The answer is that it can not. Africa will never develop economically until it is able to compete with foreign markets, and the practice of foreign aid is only allowing outside nations to exploit Africa for its cheap goods.
There are a few places throughout Africa that have gained more through trade than they have given, namely South Africa. Ironically enough, South Africa is home to a certain level of "white-dominance" (Segal). According to Aaron Segal, the only places in which these exceptions occur are places in which a large white population is present or the Pentagon has interest in developing a military base (Segal). Although to America it may seem that economic aid is a very productive agency, to Africa, the supposed benefactor, it is a cause of exploitation and a breeding ground for mistrust directed at the western world.
To look at economic aid from a different perspective, we can explore the use of it once it reaches the African nations. Although African nations have received over 110 billion dollars in aid since 1995, they remain among the poorest and uneducated countries in the world (Dicklitch). A large percentage of the foreign aid, which was intended to improve African governments, education and various other ailments, has been pocketed by the political leaders (Dicklitch). Not only does this handicap the development of Africa, but it allows kleptocratic single-party states to thrive. By sending economic aid Africa"s way, America is only empowering corrupt leaders and disturbing any chance Africa has at escaping their current problems and developing new society.
After familiarizing myself with the corruption and greed associated with the practice of foreign aid it is much easier to denounce the concept as unnecessary. Not unnecessary in the sense that Africa is no longer in need of aid or that America no longer has a commitment to third world countries, but rather, unnecessary in the sense that foreign aid is being granted and used for the wrong reasons. I would go as far as to say that foreign aid is a waste of money. Why should we continue to exploit the federal treasury, in order to fill the pockets of corrupt leaders? Or on the moral level, how can we continue to use aid as an excuse to exploit Africa for its goods? The concept of economic aid on its most basic level is easy to agree with, but once it becomes manipulated it is better left unpracticed. In fact, economic aid isn't the answer at all. In order to help African countries, we need to find solutions to their problems of industrialization, corruption, and exploitation.
Dicklitch, Susan. "African corruption is a crime against humanity." Christian Science Monitor, August 9, 2004.
Segal, Aaron. "United States African Relations." J-stor online journal.
For more information on foreign aid relations with Africa, visit J-stor's online research database.
Jeff L.
Is Foreign aid in Africa a waste of money? In short, right now in the non-democratic countries -- it is. Foreign aid is not a new concept; it has been successfully used since the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe after WWII. Foreign aid given to Africa is different then aid to most areas of the world because of the rampant corruption in politics and abysmal conditions of economic and sometimes social channels. Since the 1960's foreign aid to sub-Saharan Africa is has reached about 500 billion dollars. In Africa most of the aid sent goes from our government to the government of the African country, and not directly to the people who need it most. Once the African government has the aid money they are free to do with it as they wish, and the governments who submit the aid do not have too much control as to how it's distributed. The corrupt leaders do not provide relief to those who need it most and instead spend the money on programs and services designed to keep the current regime in power. According to Doug Bandow, from 1982-1985 Ethiopia received 1.8 billion dollars in aid and spent 1.6 billion dollars on military, Zambia received 1.6 billion dollars and spent 700 million dollars on military, and Zimbabwe received 1.5 billion and spent 1.3 billion dollars on military. Donating billions of dollars in additional aid likely will continue to finance military projects within a country and keep the leaders' Swiss bank accounts well stocked in the millions. It seems logical at first that more aid should be sent to those countries, which are experiencing bloody civil wars because of the number of refugees and displaced people who need help. However, sending aid to these countries is an absolute waste because the money never reaches the people who need it, instead the money is used to continue fighting the civil war and more people end up dead or needing help.
So then why is there a global call to send more aid to African countries? Many multi-national corporations lobby for increases in aid because not only does it make them look like the "good guys" but they too end up seeing the benefits. Corporations that are friendly with the authoritarian leaders are likely to receive breaks from the government because of the persistence of cronyism in these corrupt countries. These corporations do not need the relief money, which is meant to feed the poor people; they simply want to turn more of a profit. The poor continue to suffer because the incoming aid reaches only the rich and powerful.
I believe that most people are some what disenfranchised over the amount of aid already sent to Africa with little to no progress being shown. In order for foreign aid to be effective as relief to the poor, the corrupt officials of African countries have to become accountable for their actions. Until then more aid might as well be halted because continuing to fund the corrupt government helps to keep the poor suppressed. Do you believe that providing more money to countries such as Sierra Leone or Niger, which rank last and second to last on the Human Development Index, will change the situation at all? I think it will actually make the situation worse. Infusing more money into a politically, economically, and socially unstable countries is a recipe for disaster. Like the infamous Notorious B.I.G. said "more money more problems." Before any aid is sent to any African country, the country needs to be relatively stabilized. Corrupt authoritarian leaders need to be deposed and democracy needs to be instated, otherwise the aid will continue to perpetuate the vicious cycle of oppression. I am not saying that we shouldn't give any money to these African countries that need it the most. What I am saying is that other measures need to be taken first so that more aid is not wasted and starts to make a difference. James K.
16 comments:
Foreign aid to begin with is rather vague, it's an external source of financial assistance but the questions remain, 'does the external source have a personal agenda' and 'where is this assistance' going to.
The problem with international aid to impoverished African nations resounds in the politics of many corrupt developing nations where politicans siphon off large chunks that are actually supposed to trickle down to its citizens.
It is doubly worse when you have self appointed life presidents who surround themselves with cronies which means there almost never is a break from the cycle of corruption. If these corrupt politicans have no sensitivity building their personal wealth with their own country's resources, what could possibly change their attitude when it comes to outside resources.
In a sense, aid reemphasises helplessness and gives no guarantee that the aid will be put to proper use. A better idea might be an international committee in place to observe the distribution of aid and documenting marked improvement because of it. Granted African countries do not appreciate external interference, but can they really be trusted to use the money wisely rather than stashing it in their Swiss bank accounts? And if foreign aid is meant to uplift the country and that isn't guaranteed, who uplifts its people?
i have been very confused about the issues of aid for africa. part of me feels that aid is necessary and need to be given no matter what and the other part feels that it needs to be cut down. yes africa is severly underdeveloped but that is due to several reasons,one being corruption. most of the times, when aid is given , it never reaches its citizens but rather fills up the pockets of the leaders. i feel that money should not be given at all since most of the time, it is completely misused. non profit agencies need to monitor the aid more closely rather than just giving aid and then forgetting about it. on the other hand, when aid has been given in terms of food and clothing, it is bad food, and unusable clothes. with this i mean that the food is unedible since it is so long ago expired and the clothing is usually winter wear and not suitable for the hot african weather. this brings us to another issue - when these agencies have their own personnel overlooking the aid missions, they are usually paid large sums of money which is questionable for a non profit agency. if we continue the aid, then africa will continue to be dependant and will never be able to sustain itself. if we stop the aid, then god only knows what will happen.
The only problem with refusing to send any more aid until the country cleans up its act is that hundreds of thousands or millions of people may die before that happens. Stopping all aid is not practical - the only thing that I can think of doing is not sending aid to the governments but rather to international humanitarian non-profits that are working in the areas (as far as food and clothing aid goes). As for developmental aid, stopping this kind of aid to corrupt governments may be an appropriate policy.
Jeff T,
Nicely written. I agree with you. Foriegn aid, in the terms you described, is not doing African nations any good. It's harming them and making things worse. The West needs to re-think its foreign aid policy and practice if we REALLY want to help these nations succeed.
Jeff T. is supposed to be Jeff L. I typed wrong. Sorry
James K,
I agree with your thought that the money that is sent to Africa never reaches the people it was sent to help. What sort of "security" measures would you propose to make sure the money gets to where it needs to go? I was wondering if you knew whether or not donating countries specifically designated where their money should go when they gave it to a country in need? Is the money just given and, a "spend it as you wish" mentality accepted? Or does the US, for example, give a nation say 100 million dollars and tell the recieving nation that they want it spent on education.
matt colip- I do not have any ideas for security measures that could be taken to ensure that the aid money gets to where it needs to go. A very radical and unpopular idea would be to have the UN or other coalition force send troops into the countries to make sure aid is distributed in the most fair fashion. (I do not support this action) As for knowing whether or not donating countries have the ability to specifically designate where aid goes, I can only cite the many examples of aid not reaching the areas where it is needed the most. (Geographical, Economic, or Social areas) It would be logical to assume that the donating countries would have asked that the aid go to specific areas, at least a couple of times. For years the aid has been given to the corrupt leaders and they have decided that there are far more important places to use the donated money than on education, clean water, or food for the poor. So yes i believe the money is given to the country and the passive 'spend it as you wish' mentality has been accepted.
Jeff L.-
I agree that foreign aid is a waste of money. Although it is our duty as civilized human beings to help each other out when in need, foreign aid will never fix any of Africa's problems. Either a dictator will siphone the money out of the country into Swiss Banks, or the U.S. will use it as a means to obtain resources. In both ways, foreign aid becomes a waste of money. Donations only work when they are given for the right reasons, and when they are happily accepted. In Africa's case, neither of these instances take place.
I do, however, believe that the Live 8 concert did bring a lot of global attention to the problems in Africa. Those performers definitely accomplished their goal. It was a pretty smart move on their part.
But I still believe foreign aid is a waste of money. If Bono and the international community really want to help Africans- they shouldn't send them money. They should help Africans build strong institutions to create a system of checks and balances to prevent corruption. If corruption can be limited, then donors will have more assurance that their money is going into the right hands for the right reasons.
-Kristy G
Thomas T. ,
I agree that ideally the western world should send aid to humanitarian organizations, but I feel that it wouldn't be a substantial amount of aid, atleast not enough to deal with the overwhelming poverty in Africa, and I believe that if the amount of aid that was sent began to grow, the leaders could step in and begin to siphon some of the aid away from the organizations. YOu have to remember that the leaders in Africa have such great power, they can control almost any commerce moving through their territory.
Jeff L.
- Jeff L.
Sending humanitarian aid to starving countries is just a short-term solution, and in fact, it may even marginally impede self-sufficency. Aid generally consists of giving a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish (although most of the people receiving aid are actually capable farmers that cannot farm due to the circumstances.)
While you're correct in saying that the dictators probably coherce large amounts of money from aid organizations, you still have to do what you have to do to keep people alive. If the country's government doesn't care about its own people, then only the international community is left. Yes you may have to bribe corrupt government officials to keep the civilians alive, and it is sad that much of the aid money actually ends up in the enemy's hands. But nobody argues that Oscar Schindler's shouldn't have bribed the German government to keep more than 1000 Jews alive. Nobody argues that because his aid money went to the enemy that it takes any value out of his saving 1000+ lives. If the choice is between giving some money to a corrupt government in order to save 100000 lives or not giving an money at all and losing 100000 lives, I would choose to give money to the corrupt government any day.
What's wrong with engaging the UN to do their job. Why can't they be incharge of aid money distribution so long as it's not ineffecient and corrupt itself?
I think the UN would be a good organization to turn to, it too needs reform.
We could "hit two birds with one stone", reform the UN and properly distribute aid money to developing nations.
Thomas T.,
I can understand your point, that aid is worth it just to save a few lives. But, if you continue to give more money to corrupt officials, you are essentially giving them more power to continue the suppression of their people. So you might be saving those few lives, but you are setting the corrupt official up for future suppression on a wider scale. Soon, the number of people that need help will become greater because you had given more power to the corrupt official. So in essence, you are making the problem worse by giving aid.
-Kristy G
- Kristy
You're right that we need to be sure that we're not just making the problem worse by solidifying the corrupt dictator's rule. Just cutting off aid completely, and thus damning many civilians to death, is not the correct solution. Instead, we must take other means to end this problem, such as halting developmental aid (which is different than humanitarian aid) to the country until changes are made. Sending the humanitarian aid through NGOs instead of the state is the best way to increase chances of the aid actually reaching the people. With regard to some of the inefficiencies of the NGOs expressed in the latest reading, these problems must be addressed. (They may have already in some NGOS because it's been 15 years since the writing of the book, but this should be confirmed before we make any conclusions).
I thought that one guy's comment was interesting in the video "The Continent that Overslept." He said that when donors give aid, they never follow up on where the money is going and how it is being spent. Without anyone (the country or the donor) keeping track of aid, it makes it easier for African officials to use it in the wrong way. The guy brought up a good point-- he said that when a donor gives aid, they should ask what happened to the aid from last year and where did it go? How was it used? Donors should demand proof as to where the aid from last year went and how it was used before giving additional aid. If the country cannot prove where the aid went, then aid should not be given for the current year. But this ties in to what Thomas T. said about humanitarian aid. This type of aid should continue to be given no matter what the situation. But as for developmental aid, African countries should show proof that they are using the aid correctly before additional aid is given.
--Kristy G
I thought about that same comment made in the "Continent that Overslept" about how donors or aid giving countries never follow up on where their money goes. What were they thinking blindly giving money. I was surprised to hear that the money was never accounted for. That's why we are in the state of insecurity when it comes to giving or not giving funds. What were we thinking...?
It would appear that giving aid to Africa only enables Africans to kill
each other on far larger scales than
the village to village fighting that
has kept them in poverty for thousands of years
Post a Comment