From Bono to Angelina Jolie, the ‘cool’ humanitarian thing to do these days is to send money to Africa, you know, to help feed, shelter, educate and provide medical services to the starving boney children with flies on their eyes. What may come across as shocking to the Bonos of our world is that not all humanitarian efforts have helped the continent, at least that’s what Moyo would say. Most Africanists have heard of Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo for her clear-cut assertion that foreign aid has not only stagnated, but that it has also been the root cause of developmental retardation for the African continent. Perhaps it is a combination of Moyo’s conservative side and her African roots that have given her considerable attention, often compared to Ayaan Hirsi-Ali -another conservative figure bred on the continent who is widely known for criticizing the Prophet Muhammad. It comes as no surprise that both Hirsi Ali and Moyo have contributed their knowledge and experience to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a harbor of conservative scholar academia.
The emergence of popular, educated African women icons such as Moyo has given Western as well as other audiences new paths for understanding why Africa’s predicament is still enduring decades after colonial rule. Moyo’s perspective is not a completely unexplored opinion, authors such as Paul Easterly have advocated for diminishing help from bureaucratic organizations and instead searching for what he refers to as ‘homegrown development’. So what is fundamentally different about ‘Dead Aid’? Moyo’s audience ranges from prominent politicians such as Rwandan President Paul Kagame who have been pushing for gradual independence from foreign assistance, to economists such as Jeffrey Sachs who advocate for the ‘end of [African] poverty’ through Western aid.
Throughout her many interviews, Moyo reiterates the main issues that she also raises in her book, one of which argues that foreign aid fuels corruption since there is no transparent allocation of the donation. Moyo raises an interesting point about the lack of fund appropriation for foreign aid; she also understands how this has trapped Africa in an aid dependency cycle that, coupled with operational bureaucracies, disables the development of private enterprise. Thirdly, Moyo argues that ‘large inflows of capital… really kill off the export sector’ because most African nations are abundant in extractable minerals and resources. Finally, Moyo elaborates on the consequences of corruption that result in the African government’s lack of accountability, rather than being held responsible by its people, governments have geared their liability to international organizations and businesses. As a result, Moyo makes the assertion that an African middle-class is barely existent, instead the disparities between the wealthy who remain in power and the poor who are barely surviving, continue to be the center of African realities.
Personally, I would say that Moyo’s collection of data that support her one-sided views have elements of truth within them, however, it would be unrealistic to reinforce a 'let's cut off all foreign aid to Africa' instantly. Despite the corruption and the bureaucracy, foreign aid has been the main source for the survival of at least an estimated millions, for this reason, the plan to decrease and eventually cut off foreign aid would be to strengthen the government's provision of public services. The measures would take time especially because most African governments are known for their notorious personal economic drives, that is why an internal change in the political institutions would have to be upheld alongside the development of a stronger civil society. As Moyo suggests, micro-finance is one of the most effective ways of establishing these goals since a 'homegrown' or bottom-up development could be sustainable in the long-term growth of Africa.The biggest challenges remain: how to deal with political greed? how do we create incentives for African governments to establish public services?
President Bush is inviting the G20 members to
a “Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy” to be held in the
Washington DC area on November 15th.
Bush, along with French President Nicolas Sarkozy
and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, outlined and called
together the meeting of the G20 at the end of October. The summit is set to
take place on November 15 and according to the White House it will discuss the
“causes and efforts to resolve [the financial crisis] through more effective
regulation and reform” as well as “the effects of the crisis on emerging
economies and developing nations” whose concern over the long-term impact has
grown extensively since the crisis hit.
The G20 members are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada,
China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United
States and the European Union.
Sadly, it's little surprise that South Africa is the only African country among them.
Continue reading "Exclusive G20 Financial Summit Looks Like Business As Usual for Excluding Africa in Global Economic Policy" »
Africa Action joined with global civil society in signing this letter.
October 28, 2008 - The day before the United Nations (UN) meets to discuss its new high-level taskforce on the global financial crisis, chaired by Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, and two weeks before the US hosts members of the Group of 20 to address the same issue, a coalition of 630 organizations from 104 countries have issued a statement demanding a truly global response to the global crisis and laying out a set of principles for doing so.
“Of course it is imperative to agree quickly on measures to address the immediate crisis and protect ordinary workers, low-income households, and other extremely vulnerable sectors from the impacts”, said Lidy Nacpil of Jubilee South - Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development.
“But since the impacts are likely to be the greatest on the poorest people, and in emerging economies and developing countries”, Ms. Nacpil continued, “shouldn’t all countries –governments and peoples – have a say, not just those responsible for this crisis?”
Continue reading "New undemocratic “Washington Consensus” won’t fix global crisis, state over 630 groups from 104 countries" »