Introduction
This paper assesses the points of view of two authors, Dambiso Moyo and Jeffrey Sachs. The two authors take two opposing points of view regarding Aid in Africa. Moyo is of the view that African countries should not be given aid, while Sach holds the view that, Aid has helped African countries to alleviate their social and economic problems (Sachs, 2009, p. 1). Sachs takes a more personal approach by basing her arguments on the irony that Moyo is a beneficiary of aid because she explains that Moyo received aid to publish her article on African aid and furthermore, Moyo is a beneficiary of a financial assistance program designed to facilitate her study in Harvard and Oxford Universities.
Sachs holds the view that aid has done a lot to help African countries to transition from poverty into economic prosperity. She cites different instances where aid is crucial to African society. For instance, she explains that malaria treatment, tuberculosis treatment, antiretroviral treatment, the purchase of vaccines, and immunizations require the support of western governments (Sachs, 2009, p. 3). These are just a few examples cited by Sachs that require western intervention (in the form of aid) because they touch on the very essence of our humanity.
Sachs also gives evidence of the little percentage of the national budget that western governments allocate to aid in Africa because she explains that five cents of every $100 dollar of American household money are allocated to aid (Sachs, 2009, p. 8). In addition, she explains that a huge chunk of America’s budget goes to military spending and government bailouts. In this regard, Sachs holds the view that African aid is essential for the long-term prosperity of the continent.
Moyo reacted to Sachs’s accusations by taking a factual point of view to defend her arguments (Moyo, 2009, p. 1). Moyo explains that Africa is poorer now than it was a few decades ago. She cites a case where four decades ago, less than 10% of Africa’s population was living in poverty, and now, more than 70% of Africa’s sub-Saharan population is living on less than two dollars a day (Moyo, 2009, p. 6). Citing this example, Moyo explains that Aid has done little to assist African economies out of poverty.
She also holds the view that African leaders are less accountable to their citizens because they rely so much on western powers. Reference is given to the fact that, since the African taxpayer does not fund most of their government’s revenue, African governments are less accountable to their people (Moyo, 2009, p. 5). Moreover, Moyo says that African governments continue to lack incentives to support their own economies because they rely on aid a lot.
Moyo’s view tends to be the majority view in today’s society because most western citizens believe that Africans (or their governments) are to blame for their current situation. Evidence is given of the American society, where most citizens believe that a huge chunk of their government budget is given to Africa in the form of Aid. They also believe that this money is squandered through graft and corruption (Sachs, 2009, p. 8). From this understanding, a majority view supporting aid cuts to Africa is growing. However, weighing Sachs’s and Moyo’s arguments, I agree with Moyo that aid is not the best solution for the African continent.
Sachs and Moyo tend to agree with this point of view on different levels. For instance, though Sachs is of the view that, aid should be given to Africa, she also holds the view that some certain types of aid, like food aid to Africa, should be discontinued because Africa should be encouraged to grow its own food (Sachs, 2009, p. 8). On this basis, Sachs agrees with the fact that aid is not entirely beneficial to Africa. I also hold this point of view. Based on this analysis, subsequent sections of this paper explain why aid is not food for Africa.
Free Aid and Corruption
Foreign aid that is given to Africa is known to create a sub-servant kind of relationship where African countries become servants of their donors (HubPages Inc., 2011, p. 1). Moyo explains this fact by noting that, instead of African governments being loyal to the electorate, they become loyal to the army of donors who finance their governments (Moyo, 2009, p. 6). There is a strong connection between free aid to Africa and corruption. African governments are known to waste public funds through graft and such like practices (Wadhams, 2010). So far, millions of dollars have been lost through misappropriation of donor funds by African governments, and the continued loss of such funds does very little to solve African problems. In a recent report by the African Union, it was estimated that corruption costs the African continent about $150 billion per annum (Wall Street Journal, 2009, p. 4).
There is also less accountability from African leaders regarding the use of donor funds, and therefore, most African governments get way with swindling public funds. If rich nations continue to give free money to Africa, a vicious cycle of dependency and corruption is created, thereby worsening the poverty situation in Africa. For instance, there is a strong perception among African leaders (and the world) that foreign aid is essentially free. From this perception, there is little incentive to guide African governments to put aid money into productive use. For instance, African governments are not obligated to use their money in a particular way (Wall Street Journal, 2009, p. 4). Conversely, a lot of foreign aid goes into financing unproductive projects.
Foreign aid has, therefore, corrupted the minds of African leaders by thinking that it is some form of free and permanent flow of income. As a result, African leaders are less creative in finding other sources of income to finance their governments. After years of researching the economic situation in the African continent, Moyo does not support the view that African countries would have collapsed if it were not for western aid. Moyo proposes an alternative approach to the situation by explaining that if western powers encouraged the autonomy and growth of African economies, poverty would have been reduced (Moyo, 2009, p. 6). Instead, Africa has been dependent on aid for a long time, and consequently, it has been unable to develop strong institutions of governance and structures for economic growth. For instance, Africa is known to have a vast amount of natural resources, but its people are very poor. This is ironic. Foreign aid is at the center of this phenomenon because it inhibits the potential for Africans to grow their economies.
Free Aid?
The mentality that African aid is free is a misconceived idea because African governments are paying a lot of money in loan repayments to their western partners. Already, it is reported that African governments every year in loan repayments pay about $20 billion (Wall Street Journal, 2009, p. 4). This financial arrangement between African countries and western donors work towards worsening an already bad situation. Most African countries are poverty-stricken, and western donors keep giving them loans that have an interest payment attached to them (Léonard, 2003, p. 26).
Furthermore, this aid money is given to African leaders without a proper accountability framework. As a result, the western government keeps perpetuating the “corruption culture” in Africa because they keep giving African countries financial loans while they know such money does not benefit the African population. Instead, such money is swindled in corrupt deals. Essentially, the African continent remains poor and indebted, while a few African leaders become rich at the expense of their people. The “foreign aid mentality” seems to be blind to this phenomenon. In 1978, an IMF representative in democratic republic of Congo warned that the Congolese government system was so corrupt that there was very little hope that the country’s creditors would get their money back (Wall Street Journal, 2009, p. 4).
Ironically, the IMF still gave Congo a very big loan after this report. It is almost as if western powers are very oblivious to the corruption levels existing in African countries. For instance, it is estimated that Congo’s long-serving president, Mobutu Seseseko, who ruled Congo from 1965 to 1997, swindled his country close to five billion dollars (Wall Street Journal, 2009, p. 4). Such is the extent that aid is ineffective in African development.
Conclusion
The entire debate regarding if Africa should be given foreign aid (or not) is a raging debate today. Regardless of the arguments, clearly, foreign aid has done little to help Africa grow out of poverty. In fact, this paper shows how African countries have become poorer, though they have consistently received aid for decades. This situation shows that, though aid helps in saving lives, it does very little to solve the long-term problems of the African continent. Aid has crippled the capability of Africa to develop its own homegrown solutions.
References
HubPages Inc. (2011). Is Continued Aid Bad for Africa? Why I Agree with Zambian Economist Dambisa Moyo. Web.
Léonard, D. (2003). Africa’s Stalled Development: International Causes And Cures. New York: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Moyo, D. (2009). Dead Aid. Web.
Sachs, J. (2009). Aid Ironies. Web.
Wadhams, N. (2010). Bad Charity? (All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt!). Web.
Wall Street Journal. (2009). Why Foreign Aid Is Hurting Africa. Web.