After President Trump announced a 90-day overseas spending freeze, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said “every dollar” must be “justified” by evidence that it makes the US safer, stronger and more prosperous.
I acknowledge that stance may sound ungrateful. At first blush, many might counter that starving people have no agenda. Destitute parents still need to feed their children. Turning a blind eye to their plight is inhumane.
Let me explain why the African Energy Chamber (AEC) continues to push for free-market solutions rather than good-will handouts from USAID. There was an era when Africa and Western pop music were closely linked.
Western entertainers spearheaded a number of internationally renowned events to raise awareness about the plight of starving Africans and generate funds for famine relief.
In December 1984, the supergroup Band Aid sang about feeding the world, asking “Do They Know it’s Christmas?” Within a year, the group had raised over $9m. Three months later, USA for Africa released “We Are the World” and banked $44.5m after one year for its African humanitarian fund. Then on a hot July day in 1985, the worldwide concert event Live Aid raised more than $150m for famine relief in Africa.
These are just a handful of grand and noble gestures intended to lift Africa out of poverty. These famous events arguably raised both awareness and funds. Unfortunately, the efforts — and others like them — fall far short of making any real socio-economic change. In fact, some argue that injecting monetary aid into Africa, time and time again, has actually done more harm than good.
History of ‘Help’
Even aid genuinely given to help Africa tends to do more harm than good.
Since 1960, more than $2.6tn has been pumped into Africa in the form of aid. From 1970 and 1998, when aid was at its peak, poverty actually rose alarmingly — from 11% to 66% — due in large part to this massive influx of foreign aid that counteracted its intended good.
Aid decreased long-term economic growth by fuelling systemic corruption, in which powerful aid recipients funnelled foreign funds into a personal stash instead of public investment. Many leaders realised that they no longer needed to invest in social programmes for their constituents because of the revenues from foreign donors.
By NJ Ayuk @BizCommunity
