By Edith Jibunoh, Africa Outreach Manager at ONE
At ONE, we agree a vigorous public debate is needed on how best to combat extreme poverty in Africa, but your post suggesting ONE is trying to “discredit” and “misrepresent” Ms. Moyo is untrue and not particularly constructive. As anyone who goes to our website site can see, we aren’t trying to discredit her, we are responding, substantively, to her arguments. You suggest we aren’t addressing the merits of her proposals, but the first item we posted on our site was a seven page point-counter-point addressing the merits of her proposals. This document clearly lays out where we disagree with the arguments she is making.
In terms of the emails you refer to, yes, we emailed people in Africa who we work with to see what they thought, as many are involved directly with aid-funded initiatives. Their experience is very relevant in thinking through the impact of Ms. Moyo’s claims. So it wasn’t an attempt to shut a conversation down, but an effort to open one up. And it’s succeeded! We’ve also been in a direct and ongoing conversation with Ms. Moyo, before and after the book’s release. Our concerns are no surprise to her. We agree with your concerns about aid transparency and, as you know, we recently helped launch “publish what you fund”, an aid transparency effort. We share the goal of “asking that aid benefit the poor” (as you write on your website) and we campaign to ensure that it does.
Mr. Easterly, there is another thing we agree on: let’s make this a thoughtful and constructive discussion about the best policy for Africa. In that spirit, it would be good to know if you join Ms. Moyo in her belief that all aid to Africa (with the exception of humanitarian aid following emergencies) should be cut off in five years, and that Africans would not suffer as a result. As just one example, what do you think would happen to the 2 million Africans now on ARVs, funded by aid?
Lest you think we are misrepresenting Ms. Moyo’s point of view on what aid should be exempted, see her own words below to Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
ABC News Foreign Correspondent: Is Aid Killing Africa?
Reporter: Philip Williams
Broadcast: 17/03/2009
WILLIAMS: And you’re absolutely confident that removing that aid is not going to leave at least some people without food and medicine?
MOYO: I think the ones that will be effected most will probably be the African elite as opposed to the broader population.
WILLIAMS: What will they lose?
MOYO: I think they will lose possibly their bank accounts in Geneva in the worst-case scenario. But, I think beyond that they would also lose the ability to have leisure time and they’ll be required to actually go out and start to work hard to find money to support their social programs in Africa.
WILLIAMS: If you cut off aid within 5 years, surely that’s going to leave millions of people without the support they are now dependent on – food aid, medical aid – aid that really keeps people alive.
MOYO: I don’t believe that’s the case. Most Africans do not see any of the aid that you are alluding to. It’s…. again, their best case scenario on some projects is 20 cents in the dollar that actually makes it to an African – and that’s best case. Effectively, if we continue down this path, we will have many more Africans living in poverty in many… in a few years to come, and that is really the problem – that there are no jobs coming out of an aid model.
13 Comments
We read the email. You emailed Africans to require that they disagree with Moyo!
It is sad, but Moyo is right that most African don’t see the massive aid, especially those who need it most. And beyond that, the point is that African leaders and Africa should be responsible for the social programs, that is a common sense.
The reporter’s question as of “If you cut off aid within 5 years, surely that’s going to leave millions of people without the support they are now dependent on – food aid, medical aid – aid that really keeps people alive.”
that question should be actually a question to the aid insdustry, not to Moyo. Let me reformulate that:
“After half a century of aid, you now have millions of people dependent on food-aid, medical-aid, etc-aid, how do you justify your existence for the next half century?”
I read the whole transcript, and while she did make the quote that implies she is talking about all aid, elsewhere she specifically does differentiate between the two, in a couple places.
So it might be best to actually ask her straight-up the question, rather than each cherry-pick their favourite quote.
Hm… how about we directly ask the people who receive aid? Not just academics or experts, but also shopkeepers, farmers, refugees, etc.
My organization, CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, has been undertaking an effort called the Listening Project. So far “teams” have talked with over 3,500 people in 14 countries (and counting). In every place we engage people in open-ended conversations about their experiences with assistance, what they think is useful or not useful, etc. All the reports are at: http://www.cdainc.com/cdawww/project_profile.php?pid=LISTEN&pname=Listening%20Project
I won’t summarize what people have said, or guess how they’d comment on Dead Aid, because, well, it wouldn’t do justice to the huge diversity of voices and opinions. Those who are interested ought to go and read what they’ve said directly.
I daresay there is a similar amount of diversity of opinion among Africans about the value of aid as there is among westerners. In either case, African opinions should not automatically trump western opinions because they are African.
As critical as I am of foreign aid approaches, I think Moyo’s simplistic solution is a non starter. We don’t have to speculate about what would happen if aid was cut off. There are some illustrative examples like Somalia which has been without significant aid for 17 years. Do we really want to create more Somalias?
What is sad is that the aid effectiveness debate is incredibly important, but calling for it to be completely shut off (Moyo) or saying it is important without facilitating a dialogue on how and why foreign assistance needs to be fundamentally reexamined (ONE campaign), this only does development and more importantly the people of Africa a great disservice.
I believe, what we should be discussing is the fundamental macroeconomic paradigm of bi-lateral and multi-lateral assistance. It is unsound by its very structure. In the model as it exists, the donors are effectively the consumers (consuming “development projects”), the suppliers are the subcontractors of the world (both for profits like Chemonics and donor dependent NGOs), and the people actually living in poverty are simply a factor of production in development – they are the labor. They participate in development projects but only in the implementation, as a factor in the production of the “development project”. For all the emphasis on participation, they are ultimately not the consumers of development – they have no influence on the demand curve. Their preferences, opinions, and needs are not what determines the purchasing of development projects. The priorities of the donors do that. And as a result the pace of innovation, and the ability of market-based competition to weed out poor suppliers does not happen as it should. Suppliers of “development” can completely mess up a project(s) and continue to sell their services to donors. Until the poor are the consumers of their own development projects, meaning they affect the demand curve for services (and donors are willing to pay the costs but follow the will of the people that development is supposed to helping) then we will continue to have serious problems.
I am a repatriated African citizen.
I am no where close to being one of the wealthy elite, but I have an education and a passion for research – medical research.
I wish I knew how to be politically correct / diplomatic. I don’t know any elites in my part of Africa [unless having lived abroad puts me in that category]. I have access to the internet when at work.
Oh why, oh why couldn’t have received that email from ONE!
Anonymous: I agree that African viewpoints should not automatically trump non-African points of view. But when you look at the history of debate and dialogue when it comes to aid in Africa, it is about time we heard more African voices such as Ms. Moyo who challenge the conventional wisdom. IMO, her opinions resonate among a lot of educated Africans who instinctively understand that LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE growth is BEST achieved using proven development strategies that are tweaked to each particular African country’s situation.
Travis: you make an excellent point and inasmuch as we have to have aid, a move to incorporate the principles you identify will yield better outcomes. It will probably be a messy process initially though!
My key issue regarding aid (and this is why Ms. Moyo’s thesis resonates with me and others I know), is the inherent tendency of aid to foster dependency OVER TIME. It provides a crux to African governments so that they are not compelled to become more effective at carrying our their mission of leading their citizens into a materially different world.
Stopping aid in 5 years might be a tad drastic but it certainly ensures that Ms. Moyo’s book garners attention which in turn leads to additional debates which is a good thing. In a static sense, one would find it hard to argue vehemently against the utility of most aid projects no matter how ineffectively they are delivered. But when we continue to deliver aid in the amounts we are talking about and see the results we get in terms of growth, poverty alleviation and income distribution, it begs the question: is there is a better way?
“Smart aid” initiatives like those mentioned above by Travis are a good thing. But more importantly we need to start incorporating timetables on both macro and micro levels so that aid recipients are “weaned” off aid and do not become “addicted” to it. Conceptually, we should try to ensure that any such timetables incorporate assumptions of private sector/market driven initiatives filling in the gaps left by the reduction of aid components.
I will finish with one observation. When the world economy was booming just a few years ago, advocacy groups for aid were quite vocal that Western economies should increase aid flows since their economies were flush. Now that the world economy is in the tank, these same groups are agitating for more aid to help emerging economies hurt by the global slowdown. Each of these reasons make sense in isolation. Put together though, it shows a mindset that seems to automatically assume that more aid under every scenario is always a good thing.
If you look at the income gaps between the West and most African countries, it is quite easy to fall into that sort of thinking. We have so much, they have so little…therefore we should help more. Nothing wrong with the sentiment, but just throwing more aid money at Africa IMO has a tendency to stunt the growth of the very culture, institutions, governance and work ethic that is key to sustainable wide spread economic development.
I work in Niger, and I understand well Moyo’s concerns, because it is true that often putting the nice ideas of “help” into practice is very frustrating. That’s why I think aid can be STRONGLY improved, and more money is not necessarily the solution (or at least the critical part of it).
But from there to saying that all aid (except humanitarian) is bad there is a long way to go. That’s why I have to agree that Moyo’s simplistic idea of shutting down aid is reckless, not only for those who are on ARVs, but also for other sectors.
I have no doubt that, at least in Niger, if aid was not there their situation would be much worse, in the short, medium and long term.
JAP,
I want to ask you a sincere question and would welcome an answer in the same spirit.
When you say that Niger will be worse off in the short, medium and long term without aid are you saying that you cannot envision a future Niger at some point in the future that is prosperous, self-reliant and does not need aid?
Dear Nana;
What I’m saying is that if scenario 0 occurred (aid pulled back from the country within 5 years), the situation would be much worse in the short term (for reasons that I’d call ‘obvious’), and that it would not improve much over time (by much I mean not as much as it improves WITH aid).
I don’t think my statement is equivalent to your question. To see why, imagine a possible scenario where aid stays, and pulls back after 20 years because it is no longer necessary.
But to reply to your question, (and although it is very open because “at some point in the future” could mean 300 years so anything could happen), given the country’s present situation I have serious problems envisioning such scenario (we’re talking about the 4th lowest HDI in the world).
Cheers;
JAP
JAP: Let me respond to your last post in a couple of ways.
Philosophically, when aid organizations/workers have the mindset that those they are “aiding” cannot survive without aid, it leads to all sort of undesirable outcomes. Aid recipients implicitly or explicitly absorb the message that they are incapable of running their own affairs. It leads to dependency and it leads to mediocrity. If you set low expectations, you will typically get what you expect…and this is true for all human beings not just Africans.
In a more practical vein let us look at the economics of the matter. I will arbitrarily define the short term as 5 years, medium term as 15 years and long term as 30 years. Niger’s per capita income is $700 (all figures are from the CIA World Factbook) with a real per capita growth rate of 5.9%. If that rate is maintained for 30 years, per capita income in year will be $3908.20. Not good enough I agree especially with a population growth rate of 3.6%. However, if Niger can average 10% growth rates for 30 years, it will see a per capita income of $12,214. If it can double the 5.9% rate to 12%, it will enjoy a rather eye popping per capita income of $20,971.
In one sense then, it is quite simple what we need to do to make progress in a country like Niger. These 30 year per capita numbers of course need to be discounted into present day dollars to see their true worth but it is obvious that if we can get growth rates up (and not by a whole lot more from what we see today),Nigeriens will be better off. It is possible to see a Niger in 30years that does not rely on aid for the bulk of its budget.
Net-net, if Nigeriens and those looking to work with them in terms of development do NOT have faith in such scenarios,then any progress made will most likely be accidental. If such faith exists, there are no guarantees that such scenarios would come true but at least the country will be actively working towards a better future.
The problem with aid programs (not all but a significant portion) is that is assumes that such double digit growth scenarios are not possible or are only possible with massive increases in aid (which is not going to happen anyway). But we can all point to countries that have enjoyed such growth rates and they did so without the sort of aid inflows we are talking about in the African context.
JAP: Let me respond to your last post in a couple of ways.
Philosophically, when aid organizations/workers have the mindset that those they are “aiding” cannot survive without aid, it leads to all sort of undesirable outcomes. Aid recipients implicitly or explicitly absorb the message that they are incapable of running their own affairs. It leads to dependency and it leads to mediocrity. If you set low expectations, you will typically get what you expect…and this is true for all human beings not just Africans.
In a more practical vein let us look at the economics of the matter. I will arbitrarily define the short term as 5 years, medium term as 15 years and long term as 30 years. Niger’s per capita income is $700 (all figures are from the CIA World Factbook) with a real per capita growth rate of 5.9%. If that rate is maintained for 30 years, per capita income in year will be $3908.20. Not good enough I agree especially with a population growth rate of 3.6%. However, if Niger can average 10% growth rates for 30 years, it will see a per capita income of $12,214. If it can double the 5.9% rate to 12%, it will enjoy a rather eye popping per capita income of $20,971.
In one sense then, it is quite simple what we need to do to make progress in a country like Niger. These 30 year per capita numbers of course need to be discounted into present day dollars to see their true worth but it is obvious that if we can get growth rates up (and not by a whole lot more from what we see today),Nigeriens will be better off. It is possible to see a Niger in 30years that does not rely on aid for the bulk of its budget.
Net-net, if Nigeriens and those looking to work with them in terms of development do NOT have faith in such scenarios,then any progress made will most likely be accidental. If such faith exists, there are no guarantees that such scenarios would come true but at least the country will be actively working towards a better future.
The problem with aid programs (not all but a significant portion) is that is assumes that such double digit growth scenarios are not possible or are only possible with massive increases in aid (which is not going to happen anyway). But we can all point to countries that have enjoyed such growth rates and they did so without the sort of aid inflows we are talking about in the African context.
I suspect that Moyo’s argument is deliberately simplistic (for the widest accessibility) and provocative (to demand attention). I would not immediately qualify her motivation for doing so, to be dubious and self serving – especially if it stimulates the kinds of discussions here and in the right places).
The hope is that putting something like cutting off African aid in 5 years on the table, will force a shift in focus to how to wean Africa off aid in the short term (however you can realistically define that short term), and stimulate the types of investments required for productivity growth which is the only way to lift living standards and put a dent in poverty – investments that aid can certainly be shown to be crowding out both in actual dollars and policy attention. Perhaps there are ways to tie every aid dollar to some multiple of market-driven dollars.
The fear, however, is that camps with hidden agendas will form and try to: either use Moyo’s argument as proxy policy and her as some Hirsi Ali-esque poster child for an argument that is really an opening declarative: or push some anti-Moyo African to discredit her argument while arguing for the current status quo. In lieu of some real tough policy discussions with no arguments off the table.