What would happen if North America and Europe called up Africa and told them that in just five years they would stop sending aid money to help fuel development projects and the economy?
This is the main question that Dambisa Moyo poses in her book Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working And How There Is A Better Way For Africa. Her thesis is simple: millions of dollars worth of aid money being pumped into the African continent is actually doing more harm than good.
I'll admit that when I first began reading this book for class I was a little shocked. How could Moyo possibly say that aid money was slowing development in Africa? However, once I kept reading, and began to understand the fundamentals of her argument, it all came crashing down and made complete sense.
It's important to first understand the exact type of aid money that Moyo is lamenting against.
For instance, in her opinion, aid money given in lieu of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake or flood, is acceptable. In this case, I have to agree. When a catastrophic event of this nature takes place it is absolutely necessary to help fellow humans that are experiencing life-threatening danger. To just sit back and do nothing would be irresponsible. Now, I'm not saying that everyone should hop on a plane and rush over to wherever such an event occurs, but giving even the smallest amount can go a long way to ensure that a child has clean drinking water for a day.
However, with emergency aid and charity aid, Moyo advises people to be wary of where exactly money is going, because charities may not be spending money where they say they are.
While I understand that this is something to be skeptical about, I also understand that there are many overhead costs to running a charity, and not every dollar raised can necessarily go directly towards a development project or program. There are transportation costs involved, salaries, insurance payments, accommodations for staff and so on. To any respectful charity or NGO, these are realistic costs that must also be met.
However, charities or NGOs that simply hoard their money or find alternative and inappropriate ways to spend their fundraising dollars have no excuse. Moyo is absolutely correct in stating that these ventures should be avoided, because they are indeed helping no one.
The same argument, she argues, can be said about African governments that receive large monetary loans or transfers from rich, developed countries. Billions of dollars have been given to a number of different African countries, but issues regarding poverty, food and water supplies, education and numerous other basic human rights still loom over many people's lives. Mass corruption and civil wars are also present, and only make matters worse.
So why is it that Africa has been stuck in a cycle of dysfunction? If countries are receiving millions of direct dollars each year, why are so many life-threatening problems still present?
After completing Moyo's book, paired with my own knowledge and opinions, I believe that a severe lack of sustainable projects, couple with irresponsible governments.
For example, if a country receives, let's say, five thousand dollars to help alleviate hunger, and rations are given out to families, only a bandaid solution is provided. While those families may be fed for a week, what happens afterwards? Would it not be more sustainable to invest that money in agriculture tools and educational workshops to teach the families how to farm and feed themselves for a prolonged period of time? Then, not only would they be able to feed themselves, they would also be able to sell portions of their yields and create a small income for themselves.
By simply continuing the pattern of bandaid solutions, in various circumstances, people are becoming dependent on aid money. This is not a solution, but rather a corrupt system that forces people to live off of reliance. Systems such as these are not helping anyone.
Many governments, rather than helping their people, are also responsible for only making matters worse. Instead of using aid money to better their country and their people, some African leaders simply mismanage their country's economy, and take large sums of money for themselves and immediate family members, friends and close supporters.
Robert Mugabe, the leader of Zimbabwe, has been criticized both nationally and internationally for mismanaging monetary funds and running his country's economy into the ground. While he has a lavish lifestyle, his people are suffering.
This is not uncommon in many African countries. There are multiple leaders that take money and invest it only in themselves rather than bettering their country as a whole. While many Western countries and donors actively avoid proving aid to these leaders, it is difficult to completely avoid corruption.
This has become a sad reality when attempting to help people in developing countries. As a result, it has become extremely important to recognize where your aid money is going, and what exactly it is funding.
In order to properly help those in need, sustainable projects must be funded that target basic human needs. That is the first step developing countries need to take in order to become self-sustainable.
Nicely done Lizz. You've covered the broad strokes of a complex problem with great clarity. This is why Muungano is so unusual. We have attempted to create a situation where the local people and their leadership have become invested in the project to educate and feed the high number of special needs kids in their community. But we still encounter much corruption from the local political leadership. Turf wars between leaders and owners of neighbouring schools for instance are commonplace. And we have even been forced to terminate employees for theft as an example. It's a desperate environment and under such circumstances humans tend to resort to desperate behaviour. Sustainability is also very difficult since local industry is absent and the people subsist in an economy that hardly functions. We are attempting to address these issues with an established probiotic yogurt kitchen and a new goat farm to provide milk (goats are fairly low maintenance creatures). We have struggled with microfinance projects too, as a way of promoting small business, but again, under such dire economic circumstances, the challenges are immense. Our organization is the opposite of most NGO's in that we have very little overhead because we are run entirely by volunteers. The downside is that we are often overburdened, and burnout is a real problem. It's tough to maintain a consistent base of volunteers to keep the funding going and the project alive. Great article!
ReplyDelete