The always provocative and insightful Chris Blattman asks:
How come all the Africans getting press on the aid debate are conservatives and libertarians? Moyo, Mwenda, Hirsi Ali. The list is getting longer. All make good points (well, at least Mwenda does) but these hardly strike me as indigenous voices. Most seem to be channeling Milton Friedman. There’s nothing wrong with a little Friedman in your thinking, but is this “authentic Africa” or the product of elite education in the West?
I see two hypotheses: (1) Africans hate aid; and (2) it is easier to get on camera if you are African and hate aid.
I’m going to lean towards… um… number 2.
Where are the Africans on camera with something different to say? Reader suggestions welcome.
Why wasn’t anyone complaining all those years when most African economists were employed by or consulting for the aid agencies, and thus automatically could not criticize aid? And why isn’t anybody complaining about “elite education in the West” for Latin Americans, Turks, Indians, Indonesians, Koreans, or Chinese, some of whom also borrow ideas from Milton Friedman? Is there a double standard for Africans?
I think Blattman’s hypothesis (2) may be partly correct. I would add corollary (2b): Africans working for aid agencies and repeating their platitudes are just as boring as all other aid officials, few of whom show up on camera. How about hypothesis (3): there are a variety of African opinions on aid, and it is healthy to have an aid debate taking place within Africa.
11 Comments
I think the point was that there is no debate in the media. Currently the media is all Africans who hate aid. A few years ago it was all Africans who wanted aid.
You are right, debate is important. But debate should be evenly shown. As I’m sure any politician would tell you, the press can do a bang up job of only showing half the story. In the current climate hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 3 are both perfectly valid conclusions to be drawn from monitoring the media relating to Africa.
Anti-aid campaigners might partner with an African for the same reason that economists writing about the KKK might partner with Roland Fryer.
”Absolutely, there’s an insulation effect,” says the Harvard economist Edward L. Glaeser. ”There’s no question that working with Roland is somewhat liberating.”
http://www.sachsreport.com/Towards%20a%20unified%20theory%20of%20black%20america.htm
George Ayittey, an authentic African and an economist to boot, has been pretty critical of foreign aid for a lot longer than the people you mention. I don’t think he is particularly Friedmanesque…he just knows what hasn’t worked and why.
http://www1.american.edu/cas/econ/faculty/ayittey.htm
Should it matter who is making the argument about the effects of aid? Or is it that selection of who makes any argument in the media is never perfect? We Africans do not complain much about how much Britney Spears is on TV or the obsession with Michelle Obama’s clothes. Anyway, i think the debate should not be about the aid debate in this sense. Anti-aid voices have been at this for some time including Mwenda. Am yet to hear anything new.
Blattman is not always insightful and provocative…most of the time he appears uniformed…
I have no doubt that millions of Africans support the aid coming into their countries. But there is nothing controversial about this view so it doesn’t get noticed in the media.
I think the debate should not be reduced to a mere vote for or against aid. Especially from Chris Blattman who (I think) can contribute a lot to the substance of the debate. The debate is simply two or three things: 1) What is aid supposed to accomplished over the years? 2) Did aid actually accomplished those stated goals? What are the accomplishments? 3) is aid opened ended? If not what is the target date for it to end so that it can be held accountable by that date.
As long as the answer to point 1 is NOT something like “Sustainable economic growth”, then we in fact agree with Moyo with almost all respect. Otherwise we need to bring answers to 2) and 3).
Even though a clear counterfactual is not there to help answer those questions properly, the existing evidences lean toward the “anti-aid” arguments.
I see Dambisa Moyo is now saying that “In the 1970s 10 percent of the population [in Africa] was living in dire poverty. That number is now over 70 percent”. That’s rubbish, as I’m sure you know. I look forward to this blog subjecting Moyo’s work to the kind of careful scrutiny it gives to those on the other side of the debate.
I see Dambisa Moyo is now saying that “In the 1970s 10 percent of the population [in Africa] was living in dire poverty. That number is now over 70 percent”. That’s rubbish, as I’m sure you know. I look forward to this blog subjecting Moyo’s work to the kind of careful scrutiny it gives to those on the other side of the debate.
I guess the key question here is what makes a commentator authentic? Once you start answering that question all the power plays and prejudice behind these debates show their ugly faces.
Whatever happened to playing the ball and not the wo(man)?
Albert @ The Open Budget Blog
I am African, but I oppose Aid. I have seen first hand how it destroys the very fabric of society that it proffeses to build in the first place; dependency and all.
It is not a new story!
Even Humanitarian (food) Aid does more than feed hungry stomachs. In Gulu (northern uganda) a recent study shows skyrocketing diabetes rates among children in the IDP camps (the GM maize they get from food Aid!!)
Beggars are not choosers! So, who will sort that mess up? Aid again……
The sad story continues…..