Back to Index

Foreign aid: How to sink a continent
The Africa Report
October 2006

A big new push of aid may be exactly what Africa doesn't need. More important might be an understanding of the effects of aid and the damage rich countries do. Right to reply at www.theafricareport.com

Three big developments are forcing a rethink on aid policy. Firstly, the Washington consensus policies - pushed by the IMF and the World Bank - are not working and may be making things worse. The numbers of poor people rise while schools and clinics close. The new thinking has concentrated on achieving the Millennium Development Goals and called for a big push of aid.

Secondly, the 9/11 attacks on the US and increasing dependence on West African oil made Washington realise that Africa could be strategically important. Lastly, Chinese commercialism in many forms has invaded Africa.

Last year, the G8 club of rich countries pledged to double aid to Africa by 2015, which was seen by the aid agency lobby as a huge triumph. But some are asking how best to spend it. There is growing agreement both about the end of the Washington Consensus and that detailed policy conditionality on aid should be relaxed. And there should be better coordination of aid: too many donors working individually are chasing too few governments able to use it.

Equally, there's consensus that aid is best given directly to governments. The logic is that development can be done only by states and their peoples. It is also much cheaper to give money directly to governments. But serious money should be given only to governments with the will and capacity to spend it on development. Thus only Botswana would truly qualify for aid because its government is doing the right things. But Botswana doesn't need aid. Why? Because it is doing the right things.

What about President Yoweri Museveni in Uganda and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia? Their governments have the will and capacity to deliver development to their peoples. But if they feel threatened - as both were in recent elections - they resort to repression. That is unacceptable to donors; and hence both lost some of their direct budget support.

Britain's development minister Hilary Benn ended a recent speech on aid with the words "it's the politics, stupid", arguing that without strong institutions and capable states there can be no development. World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz and the US Council on Foreign Relations are saying similar things.

Finally how much are the donors prepared to do at home to allow Africa to develop? They contribute to Africa's impoverishment, for example by handling African corruption money. Tony Blair's Africa Commission recommended tracing, freezing and returning assets stolen by African tyrants and corrupt ministers.

The big push, urged by the aid agencies and theoreticians like Jeffrey Sachs, sets up a relationship between Africa and the world that is not deliverable. The alternative is to go for a long-term commitment to Africa that includes carefully targeted aid but which concentrates on a better understanding of Africa, an acknowledgement of the West's part in its failure and a willingness to engage better with Africa by stopping some of its own damaging practices which contribute to Africa's failure.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP