During this years G8 summit I think it only fit to discuss one of the main pressing questions that have gained enormous momentum since the release of the critically acclaimed "Dead Aid" by Dambisa Moyo, that is, the question of "AID" is aid dead in Africa as Ms. Moyo claims or is it the duty of the worlds richest economies to continue to sustain those that are "slacking behind." Now when we phrase it like that the obvious answer would be "of course Africa should be self-sustaining, sure the West cannot keep giving us free money annually."
I would argue the contrary, in fact I would have to respectfully disagree with Ms. Moyo's thesis. She starts her literally piece by first giving a historical account of the economic development and the impact of Aid in Africa. She underlies her economically saturated AFRICAN HISTORY with some useful numbers, designed to supposedly back up her argument, that historically aid has been a detriment to Africa, the lack of any political, social or contextual analysis immediately debilitates her thesis. Africa's story can hardly be analysed in a swift economic recant. In fact, taking such a "class-room" based outlook on such a topic only further distances the author from the people who she seeks to speak on behalf of (the African people). Paul Collier explained very eloquently in his book "The Bottom Billion," that too often "aid" is viewed from too much of a partisan lens, an approach which so often reiterates the old saying "viewing the world from your own lenses." "What is it about aid that causes such intense political disagreement?" he says "It seems to bring out the worst in both left and right. The left seems to want to regard aid as some sort of reparations for colonialism. In other words, it is a statement about the guilt of Western society, not about development...The right seems to want to equate aid with "welfare scrounging." In other words, it is rewarding the feckless and so accentuating the problem."
Ms. Moyo falls under the latter. Ms. Moyo's answer to Aid, is to replace it with the so called “free market”, i.e, let capitalism pave the way out of poverty, very often forgetting that Capitalism never was and never will be concerned with the poor (as if Flint Michigan was not a wake up call , Marx would be turning in his grave). The basis for her argument is essentially "corruption", since aid regimes (in her view) have no regulatory structures annexed to them, they are free to be abused by the leaders and therefore aid doesn't work, nor does it drive innovation (I wonder where the cause and effect is, aid and leadership are mutually exclusive, if access to aid is stifled by corrupt leadership then surely we cannot say that AID in itself is the problem?). But wait CAPITALISM is the answer, let the market rule after all no one is wiser than that of the market. This should be viewed with great concern especially us Africans, who like Moyo all desire the betterment of our continent. It is as if Moyo has not been living in this world the past couple of years where this so called market has not necessarily regulated itself.
Free Trade, Free Trade is the underlying mantra of "dead aid," it is advocated as a path for encouraging exports. But this in itself has not be proven, Ghana is used as a successful example, but she refuses to comment on the effects it had in the over-valuing the Ghanaian cede and making exports expensive, once exports are expensive interest in export declines. Not to forget the much too publicized effect of free trade, i.e, unfair trade practices which more than often puts developing countries at a disadvantage. Going back to seeing from one's own lenses, contrary to what Moyo states, according to Collier the middle ground should be (that is, not the leftist or rightist approach) what he dubbs "the thin silver of sanity called aid for development," after all that is essentially what the goal is. As much as I may grin from cheek to cheek at the fact that the Colonialists are paying back Africa's version of reparations, essentially what is important is whether this so called reparation goes towards development. Collier takes his stance from the perspective of the BOTTOM BILLION, those bottom poor of the world to whom without AID destitution would be a wish, to those bottom billion (of which majority of the African nations fall under), a reasonable estimate is that "over the last thirty years it has [AID] added around one percent point to the annual growth rate of the bottom billion." he continues "This does not sound like a whole lot, but then the growth rate of the bottom billion over this period has been much less than 1percent per year- in fact, it has been zero. So adding 1percent has made the difference between stagnation and severe cumulative decline." Come again Moyo?
Perhaps her most daring statement was that "the Chinese are our friends." Reading these few lines my skin flinches and I start to develop this allergic reaction, on close examination I come to find that I am allergic to the juxtaposition of the words "the Chinese are our friends," in explaining Africa's current economic relationship with China. This seems to me more hypocritical than any, amid the shameful acts of human rights abuse in Africa supported by no less than Chinese arms dealing and transference of power play from the West to the Far East, Ms. Moyo seems to think that somehow China would be much kinder to us than their Western counterparts? Where is this proof? But obviously in interviews where this question is raised she shrugs of this genuine concern with once again this idea that Africa is a supposed equal partner and "open to all." If the Dalai Lama's refusal of visa to South Africa (for the fear that China may reverse it funding for the World Cup games) does not ring a disturbing bell in one's ears I would not know what will, perhaps we shall finally wake up when all our currency reads "made in China."
It is a shame that Moyo does not go directly to those rural areas where aid programs are particularly designed merely to sustain life (and do in fact work), to bring but a new day for another, those rural areas where class-room based economics means nothing but just a way to feed one's child just for another day in hope for a brighter future. On the question of how aid programs actually help those in need, those who cannot wait another minute let alone another day for a structured government system to be designed, she conveniently shrugs it off and goes back to the stump speech "aid is not working."
I rest on Collier's thesis, the problem with poverty in Africa cannot be explained by elaborate one area themed approach, Collier has gone further in analysing the various traps through which a nation can remain in poverty, aid is effective given certain preconditions, often aid is carried out by aid agencies, which has according to Collier proved to be more successful than resource rents (e.g. Oil). On the other hand, the step into the right direction is a dialogue among all those concerned as to the future of Africa..It is refreshing to have young intellectuals like Moyo come on-board ready to offer alternative approaches, and I believe there should be a lot more Moyo's, Africa more than anything needs new ideas...for in the famous words of Tu Pac "the old way isn't working so it's on us to do what we have to do..to survive".
3 comments:
marcia, i agree with u on the issue of free trade; i don't think we're in the position to trade 'freely' with the more developed countries who are by far more advanced and effective than we are. there simply isn't a level playing field. that is why some advocate for fair trade instead, to take into account the disadvantaged position that poor, third world countries are coming from, and their peculiar needs.
on the future of the continent, and the sustainability of aid, i think we need more space and time to discuss that. (i just remembered the post-election group we formed; do you think we can revive it?)
when it comes to china, we hit a sensitive spot. i guess the dilemma we face there is whether to willingly submit to the devil, or to plunge headfirst into the deep-blue sea. i'm aware that some in the policy-making and academic circles find the beijing consensus extremely attractive, and lesser evil than the washington consensus (which some analysts claim died some years ago).
but no matter what measures we take or where we turn to, moyo's free trade as panacea to our development woes is simply not the way to go.
see, we agreed again!!! ;) [well, with some qualifications on china]
Well, where shall we start? Living in the U.S. I can tell you that congress is filled with too many crooks, and Africa is truly the last of their concern. It's almost like paying lip service. Aid has been provided and received for a long time, but an economic and social evolution which is necessary cannot happen without weaning the continent of off the proverbial teat. To view it from my scientific background, genes die out of the genepool because they're selected against, i.e. you can't see, and you get eaten by tigers. Now, man inents glasses (aid) and the bad genes survive. People have always been able to live within their means, and I don't know if famine and extreme poverty has always been a part of the picture, but I can't help but think that logically people only had as many kids as their resources and their land could sustain, and I'm tempted to think that the extreme poverty felt in some parts of the world are due to individuals being stuck in two worlds- The simpler old world where they could sustain themselves of off the land and resources- and the new world where capitalism actually created their poverty. Capitalism, needs a poor and a rich in order for there to be a value. We can't all eat steak, and drive V12 engines to work everyday and burn through gasoline like there's no tomorrow. In order for Africa to come up, someone's got to cut back. It's just that simple. In order for Africa to also develop in a positive longterm manner, we've got to turn to methods whereby we live within our means, and are less dependent on Aid, but this will take an intellectual as well as a labor revolution. Smarter farming, smarter resource management, smarter politics, and stronger coallitions will all lead to the entire continent having better leverage in trade negotiations. IT's quite simple honestly. I've got resources. You need resources. Let's cut the bullshit, and get a fair deal going. We'd first have to fix government, and some of the aforementioned things, but I do believe progress will be made. (Aid directed towards infrastructure such as roads, and hospitals would be great. Perhaps assistance in providing stable energy-too many power shortages- and assistance in creating a stable consistant water processing system for water access to more people)
Kofi, you are right we should definitely revive that post-election discussion board, let's rive up some interest in our own affairs..I am a little pumped after the Obama speech..Will, you are so right AID is like a double edged sword, but I think what peeves me off the most the that some of us speak much too soon forgetting that on the ground AID programmes are what keeps most African economies afloat, without which most countries will be all but dead (if they already aren't, e.g. Somalia). There is no doubt we want an ideal world of no aid at all, but that is exactly what it is IDEAL..Ideal because take away the AID programmes now and you will be sending out a death sentence to millions of Africans. Let us find a practical way forward..I actually agree with your suggestions, little steps at a time, AID for development doesn't just mean food, it means capacity building, e.g. give African students access to scientific infrastructure or research databases and let them come up with their own innovative ideas to solve their own problems, stifling the drain of knowledge...But surely, the FREE MARKET is another bad answer for the times we live in :)
Post a Comment