(NEWZIMBABWE) China can transform Africa: Moyo
COMMENT - Quite frankly absurd? Clearly Goldman Sachs's Dambisa Moyo knows nothing about the history of imperialism, which Cecil Rhodes described as 'a bread and butter issue'. I'm much more worried about Chinese than British colonialism, because the Chinese have the numbers and the British never did. They could replace everyone in the SADC area, and only go from 1.3 billion to 1 billion.
China can transform Africa: Moyo
28/02/2013 00:00:00
by CNN
ZAMBIAN economist Dambisa Moyo is an outspoken critic of international aid, arguing for years that foreign hand-outs stifle Africa's development, perpetuate corruption and hinder the continent's growth.
A New York Times bestselling author, Moyo first grabbed international headlines with her 2009 book "Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa."
Since then, she's penned two more books, on the subject of the decline of the West, and the effects of China's commodities rush.
In a new interview with CNN's Robyn Curnow, Moyo explains why she's optimistic about the future of Africa. She looks at the positive impact that China can have on the continent and details the key drivers that will spur Africa's economic growth.CNN: The aid debate is so different from before ...
Dambisa Moyo: So much has happened in the last five years -- whether you're in Africa, South America or Asia, nobody talks about aid anymore.
Policy makers themselves are going out and issuing debts in the market. My own country, Zambia, did a fantastic bond, a $750 million 10-year bond, last September. The discussion is so much more about job creation and investment, which is such a fantastic story and it's obviously partly to do with the fact that the traditional donors are having a financial problem, fiscal problem, on their balance sheets. They just don't have the capital anymore to hand out cash like they did in the past.
CNN: The Chinese story has been thrown into the mix, has that changed the landscape?
DM: Yes, absolutely, but in a strange way it's exactly what we need in terms of delivering economic growth and meaningfully reducing poverty. We need jobs, we need investment, we need trade, we need foreign direct investment, whether investment domestically but also from the outside.
It's not some magic pill, everybody knows that this is the formula, and finally the Chinese are showing up, again, not just in Africa, but around the world with that elixir, that mix of opportunities to really transform these countries. Remember, 70% of the populations of these places is under the age of 24. There is no escape: we have to create jobs.
CNN: A lot of people are critical of Chinese "neo-colonialism" but you argue that's not the case.
DM: Well, it's not, because China has so many economic problems in itself. You know, this is a population of 1.3 billion people with 300 million people that live at the level of Western living style. So they've got a billion people to move out of poverty. The notion that they would be spending their time trying to colonise other places is just, frankly, absurd.
Aaarghh... On why widespread poverty is not merely NOT an impediment, but a driver of imperialism:
(GOWANS) US Ambassador Echoes Cecil Rhodes
what's left on September 24, 2011
By Stephen Gowans
Rhodes, founder of the diamond company De Beers and of the eponymous Rhodesia, had made the following remarks, which Lenin quoted at length in his Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.
I was in the East End of London yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for ‘bread,’ ‘bread,’ ‘bread,’ and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism …
My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced by them in factories and mines.
The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists. (3)
I'm not saying that China should be given a red carpet, carte blanche, to come into Africa or, indeed, anywhere in the world, and do what they like. We do need the investment, we need job creation and we do need actual trade in these places. But I think what's really essential is to focus on what China can do for Africa, as well as what Africa can do for China. And I think that discussion is not had as objectively as it should be.
Ultimately, the responsibility of how China engages in Africa is really at the domain of the African governments. We would not be worried about the risks of neo-colonialism or abuse, environmental abuse and labour issues, if we trusted the African governments to do the right thing.
CNN: How do you see the trends playing out in the next decades?
DM: I'm an eternal optimist. I'm probably the wrong person to ask, because I do believe that the structural and fundamental structures of Africa right now are poised for a very good few decades. If you look at an economy through the lens of capital, which is basically money; labour, which is basically how many people do, you have and what skills do they have; and productivity, which is just, how efficiently they use capital and labour, the trend is very clearly in favour of Africa.
We've got a very solid fiscal story. The debt-to-GDP ratios in Africa today at the sovereign level are nowhere near the burdens that we are seeing in Europe and the United States.
The labour story is very positive - 60-70% of Africans are under the age of 25. So a young population dynamically needs to be leveraged, so definitely we need to invest in skills and education to make sure that we get the best out of this young population. And then, in terms of productivity, this continent is a great absorber of technologies and all the things that can help us become more efficient.
Therefore, these three key drivers: capital, labour, and productivity, help spur economic growth. Now is it going to be smooth sailing? Of course not - there will be volatility, but I think the real investors in Africa will be able to make delineation between risk and uncertainty.
CNN: And it's about a country's resources, too, right?
DM: That's a brilliant question, because actually the answer is no. I think it's really about the structural things that I mentioned: capital, labour, productivity.
Why do I say that? Let's take a look at the African stock market. There are about 20 stock exchanges in Africa and about 1,000 stocks that trade in Africa -- 85% of them are non-commodities. We're talking about banking, we're talking about insurance, we're talking about retail, we're talking about consumer goods, logistics companies, telecommunications companies, those are the stocks that are on the African stock market.
CNN: Do you feel a sense of responsibility to represent the African success story?
DM: Well, I suppose, for me, I feel a responsibility to tell the truth. This is a great continent. I went to primary school on this continent, secondary school, university, I've worked on this continent and I think that it's a great disservice that, for whatever reason, people have usurped an imagery of Africa that is absolutely incorrect.
They focus on war, disease, corruption and poverty. That is not all about Africa and I think it's really essential if we're going to turn the corner, we need to take that responsibility, as governments, as citizens, not just Africans, global citizens to say, "that's actually not true."
There are more poor people in India than there are in Africa; more poor people in China than there are in Africa, but somehow there's a stigma for decades that's been associated with the African continent that is completely unjustified -- and it's that I find objectionable.
Labels: CHINA, COLONIALISM, DAMBISA MOYO, NEOCOLONIALISM
Read more...
Miles Sampa asks Dambisa Moyo to get her facts right before making divisive statements
TIME PUBLISHED - Sunday, August 26, 2012, 2:58 pm
The government has advised US-based Zambian born writer Dambisa Moyo to have her facts straight on economic issues before making divisive statements that have the ability of painting a bleak picture of the country.
The advice is coming from Miles Sampa, the Deputy Minister of Finance who says Ms Moyo has lately been issuing statements on Zambia’s economy largely based on opinion rather than fact.
“As an economist, Ms Moyo knows that you don’t go around making statements that make the country look bad without facts,” Mr Sampa said, “she has insinuated that investors are wary of coming to Zambia when our in trays are full even as we try to empty them.”
At a recent Economics Association of Zambia discussion forum in Lusaka, Ms Moyo tabulated a shopping list of things she believes have gone bad in Zambia including an unstable economic playground that scares away investors.
But at no time, according to Mr Sampa, did she place a finger on anything tangible or give a scientific example of how investors are now discouraged of coming to Zambia.
“Criticism without facts seems to be the latest avenue for venting personal anger, frustrations and disappointments by people like Ms Moyo,” Mr Sampa said.
Under the previous Rupiah Banda administration when she released her first book Dead Aid, Ms. Moyo was treated like royalty, a trend that led her to land various board positions on multi-national corporations whom she sometimes speaks for.
Ms Moyo’s attacks did not end at investors sounding alarm but she went further to question the Zambian government’s decision to pass a law banning the use of US dollars in domestic transactions which has even been commended by Wall Street Journal analysts.
Mr Sampa said: “If an educated economist cannot appreciate the importance of rebasing our currency, then I wonder whether I should continue pursuing my PHD.”
Mr Sampa said: “If an educated economist cannot appreciate the importance of rebasing our currency, then I wonder whether I should continue pursuing my PHD.”
Ms. Moyo whose two books Dead Aid and her latest cover How the West was Lost have attracted mixed reactions, was in Lusaka recently giving her views on the economic direction of Zambia under the PF administration.
Her views, however, have been seen by other economists and bankers such as Mr Sampa as ‘skewed’ and sometimes even nostalgic of the previous administration that listened to her without question.
“I would like to tell Ms. Moyo and other critics that Zambia is open for business despite the futile negative criticism we continue to get by those that wish us ill,” Mr Sampa said, “ours is a national duty and calling, not a personal war.”
[Zambia Daily Mail]
Labels: DAMBISA MOYO, MILES SAMPA
Read more...
Dambisa Moyo ticks off PF over policy inconsistencies
TIME PUBLISHED - Thursday, August 23, 2012, 11:53 am
Zambian born and internationally acclaimed Economist Dambisa Moyo has criticized the clear lack of policy consistency exhibited by President Michael Sata’s administration.
Dr. Moyo said policy inconsistencies which have characterized the PF rule is the number one enemy to Zambia’s economic development. Dr. Moyo observed that the PF government is busy focusing its energies on less important issues at the expense of pressing developmental issues.
She cited the shifting of the provincial capital for Southern Province and the rebasing of the Kwacha as matters that are less important which the government would have not started working on.
“I was in Livingstone yesterday (Tuesday) and I discovered that the provincial capital has moved to Choma, I find that highly irritating because I know that this country has more pressing issues to focus on, shifting of capitals is not one of them,” Dr. Moyo told a parked cheering audience.
Dr. Moyo said investors worldwide are not interested in working with governments that seem to lack a predictable and consistent set of policies.
She said the signing of some statutory instruments without the full participation of the business community has the potential of increasing uncertainties.
Dr. Moyo added that Zambia has many developmental challenges that requires but noted that the country is basically “pussyfooting” at the margins.
Dr. Moyo who was named one of the 100 influential persons in the world by TIME magazine was speaking last evening during a public lecture organised by the Economic Association of Zambia and sponsored by Barclays Bank Zambia.
“I was in Livingstone yesterday (Tuesday) and I discovered that the provincial capital has moved to Choma, I find that highly irritating because I know that this country has more pressing issues to focus on, shifting of capitals is not one of them,” Dr. Moyo told a parked cheering audience.
And Dr. Moyo has charged that it is embarrassing that some commodity rich countries such as Zambia are failing to take advantage of the high commodity prices to benefit the poor.
Dr. Moyo who is also a bestselling author has projected that copper prices would remain high in the medium to long term and urged Zambia to take advantage of the boom to develop infrastructure and make meaningful savings.
She says she finds it highly embarrassing that some commodity rich countries such as Zambia are failing to maximize their returns on natural resources.
Dr. Moyo warned that the current boom cycle will not last forever adding that only countries will clear foresight and policies will benefit.
She emphasized the role that trade plays in economic development saying Africa cannot develop if the continent continues accounting for only 2 % of global trade.
Dr. Moyo also took a swipe at the failure by African governments to implement most of the sound economic policies developed over the years.
She said everyone is agreed that regional integration is one sure way of accelerating trade among African countries but no one wants to move fast and implement the regional integration agenda.
Labels: DAMBISA MOYO, NEOLIBERALISM, PF
Read more...
COMMENT - The author does not understand the nature of donor aid. DA is replacement taxation, it is not charity. By stopping 'donor aid', the West would force African nations to start taxing their extractive industries, which is why will maintain DA at all costs. They are not run by their own people, but by representatives of the same trillionairs who own the mines, the IMF/World Bank, and transnational banks.
Untaxed/Unshared Exports from Africa: $1000 billion
Donor Aid: $250 billion
Taxes paid: $0 billion
Charitable giving: $6 billion
No one gives away a quarter trillion dollars. It is a scam, with the misery industry functioning as cover and a disinformation device. Donor Aid is paid involuntarily by western middle class, working class and ordinary companies. Transnational corporations do not pay taxes anywhere, all they do is hoard wealth for their trillionair shareholders.
How Africa can weather global melt-down
30/12/2011 00:00:00
by Tafadzwa L. Chaunzwa
ALTHOUGH I am never particularly thrilled to be thousands of feet above the ground for any prolonged period of time, I have in the past few years learnt to love long flights. Not because of the additional, superficially free meals on the plane but rather the exceptional people I always seem to meet and converse with on these long trips. Except for the occasional obnoxious fella, I usually luck out and sit next to some of the most interesting people from all over the world when I take lengthy transcontinental flights.
From philanthropists coming back to America from a summer working in rural Zambia to a brilliant 21 year old Harvard graduate about to start her 2nd year at Johns Hopkins Medical School, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with some very intellectually engaging individuals. Through this, I have not only come to learn a lot from what these people have to say, but a lot more about my own perspective and stand point on various issues.
On one of my most recent trips – an Ethiopian airlines flight from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to Rome, Italy, I was fortunate enough to sit next to a very pleasant gentleman from Germany. Reinhardt, as he introduced himself shortly after I took my seat, was on his way back home to Giessen, Germany after an African safari break in Zimbabwe.
With the still ensuing debt crisis in Europe preoccupying my concerns about the global economy, I knew if Reinhardt would be interested in discussing the economic situation in Europe at any point during the flight, the flight would not be so long after all. Surely only the naïve would disregard the profound implications of a European economic collapse on the world and the African continent in particular.
EU nations and their American partners are the major financiers of most international aid organisations and global financial institutions. Unfortunately, the Americans have gone through their own share of trouble lately, having only recently experienced their first ever credit down-grade in August of this year.
Further still their leaders have failed to reach a consensus on how they will deal with a massive budget deficit, a deadlock that has further perturbed the already volatile global financial markets. With the world’s largest economy going through this ordeal, a European collapse would not only serve to exacerbate the global financial crisis but also spell doom for institutions like the IMF, the Global Fund, WHO and even USAID should the Obama tabled sequestration go into full effect come 2012.
This would surely have dire consequences for many African countries which unfortunately rely on international aid to keep their own economies afloat. Anti-aid advocates like Dambisa Moyo – author of “Dead Aid” would be quick to point out that African nations should not be extending their hands out for this “aid” (which only brings corruption and further poverty to our shores) in the first place. However, looking at the situation on the ground, African countries (for the most part) are stuck with autocratic leaders that are neither willing to relinquish power nor re-orient the foreign aid arrangement that seems to benefit them so well.
While both sides of the isle seem to recognize this as a problem (for example in a recent political debate, my fellow Duke University alumni and US presidential candidate Ron Paul criticized American aid as taking money from poor people in America (a relatively “rich” country) and putting it in the hands of rich people in poor countries) no one seems to be willing to take major restructuring measures with regard to aid. Indeed the aid arrangement doesn’t do people on either side justice. Never-the-less, in an interconnected world, it is difficult to picture a scenario where Africa would not be directly and adversely affected by a European failure, even if aid was not in the equation.
Luckily these gloomy thoughts were somewhat put to rest (at least for the next few hours or so) by my very optimistic plane buddy who turned out to be a renowned economist at the prestigious University of Giessen. While he acknowledged that there is no easy fix to the predicament the world’s poorest continent finds itself in, he did suggest several approaches that may be followed to leverage and emancipate the African people.
Not much for solving a problem within a problem, Reinhardt quickly discarded the idea of throwing away foreign aid in its entirety as this is in all honesty just a child of the much bigger and ever deepening economic entrenchment Africa has been growing into since the days of colonialism.
Although I initially disagreed with much of his recommendations as I thought them to be pertinent only to large and industrialized economies, we were able to reach common ground on a number of points. Together, we were able to formulate a list of changes that we felt needed to be made in order for the African continent to become globally competitive. I list some of these measures in the remainder of this article, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. I deeply encourage the same level of discourse among all peoples; African and non-African alike, to come up with solutions for the continent’s problems.
Regional Blocks
While the problems faced by the Euro zone do not do this strategy justice at this point in time, creation of regional economic blocks may be the way for Africa to truly achieve self sustainable economic structures that have realistic chances of tangible growth.
Africa makes up a meager one percent of the global market and with 54 countries on the continent; the contribution of each country on average is laughable. But if you sum up the “negligibles” you will surely have a tangible. If African countries can bring their economies together we can have entities that are globally competitive. For instance a Southern African Union, where Angola helps bring in the oil, Zimbabwe the diamonds and brain power, South Africa the much needed industry and commerce and the other countries bringing what they can to the table, we would surely have a formidable economic force.
Again with the lessons of the euro zone, regional blocks may in the future help enforce fiscal discipline among member states. France and Germany have been at the fore-front of making sure weaker EU economies adhere to strict austerity measures before they can receive any bailout funds to dig them out of the holes they dug themselves into by careless spending and building up sovereign debt that far surpasses their GDP.
Should the Euro zone survive this phase, it is not unreasonable to anticipate appropriate reforms in Europe. These reforms may in turn lay down the basic ground work needed for a successful integrated economic block, be it in Africa, Europe, Asia or Latin America.
While it would be premature to lay down any additional guidelines for future economic blocks on the continent, I believe one of the greatest issues that are also key learning points from the euro crisis has been that of currency. If a group of nations is going to agree to use the same currency, they may as well be willing to get into some sort of political agreement that allows a functional federal system that undermines a great deal of their national sovereignty.
Looking at the cases of Greece and the US state of Michigan, which also went through an economic meltdown of comparable proportions, it is not difficult to see the importance of an efficient federal center to the success of any union.
Under normal circumstances a state would devalue its currency to make its products more competitive on the global market when faced with such difficulty. However because both Greece and Michigan were stuck in single currency zones (the Euro and US dollar respectively) they were not able to do this. Unlike Greece, however, Michigan happens to be part of an established federal union (The United States), and could be bailed out by the Federal Reserve relatively easily avoiding the same catastrophic failure that we have seen in Greece.
Smaller government
This is a non-starter in most African countries, but I will go ahead and mention it anyway. When it comes to small government, the American Republicans seem to get it. It is deplorable that as much as 97.8 percent of GDP in countries like Zimbabwe goes into government spending.
Governments, due to populist politicians often push socialistic agendas that allow excessive spending programs the countries simply CAN NOT afford. As countries like Spain, lreland, and again, Greece have come to learn in recent year, you can live outside your own means only for so long. Huge entitlement programs have plunged these countries into the crisis they find themselves in today and there should be no room for this in Africa.
While I believe governments should do the best they can to provide their citizens with the very basics like security law and order (excluding healthcare) African countries are simply too poor to have governments provide for their people without running their countries down.
Again take Zimbabwe as an example – in the mid to late 2000s the central bank had to resort to printing money to keep the government from shutting down, the same move that brought about the worst inflation run in the world’s history. Rather governments should look to privatize most sectors. This not only brings liquidity to an economy but encourages foreign investment, as businesses run away from excessive government regulation.
Individual as capital
A rather unorthodox look at the individual as capital may also be central to solving the African problem at the core. After all, society is merely a summation of individuals and just like everything else; reflects the quality of separate entities it’s made-up of.
That is, if your country has a low literacy rate, has most people living without access to any form of media, how then do you expect them to chose (if they even have this privilege) the right leaders. Intuitively an empowered and educated individual can do a lot more for their community than can one who is not. If African states sought to emancipate their populations at the individual level, the “African trajectory” would almost certainly change its course. In a nutshell - build a well educated generation and trust them to make good decisions.
Diaspora Bonds
To spear-head economic growth in the very countries where excessive emigration has led to economic depreciation, the African Diaspora itself may be the answer. People usually have a home country bias when it comes to investing. For instance, a Zimbabwean living in the United States may be more willing to overlook some risks associated with investing in a Harare business than would an American of equal standing.
African countries may take advantage of this inherent lack of objectivity that individuals have towards their countries (whether this is necessarily a positive or not is purely subjective) to have them buy bonds and provide the much needed capital necessary to keep an economy going.
As I mentioned before the list above is non-exhaustive and there are several other strategies that I have formulated or learnt from others, but thought these were worth mentioning in my first article here. I will in the future look to discuss issues of African development from as objective and informed a stand point as I can and encourage you to look out to this space in the future. I welcome your feedback and look forward to engaging in constructive discourse aimed at developing our homeland.
Tafadzwa L. Chaunzwa is a Zimbabwean research scientist at Harvard and MIT in the United States. He can be contacted at chaunzwa@MIT.EDU
Labels: DAMBISA MOYO, DONORS, GREAT DEPRESSION II
Read more...
USAid: Biggest sponsor of hate speech
Saturday, 08 October 2011 23:04 Opinion
AFRICAN FOCUS By Tafataona Mahoso
On October 5 2011, NewsDay published a top front page story called “(Jonathan) Moyo licks Mugabe’s shoes”. On the very same day The Daily News also carried the same story but with a top front headline declaring the exact opposite: “Mugabe fed up with (Jonathan) Moyo”.
The two papers used as source material the lecture which Honourable Professor Jonathan Moyo had delivered at the Southern Africa Political and Economic Series (Sapes) Trust the previous day.
In that lecture, Prof Moyo had said that the US diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks confirm what Zimbabweans already knew or suspected ever since US Assistant Secretary of State Walter Kansteiner revealed in August 2002 that the US government was using “independent journalists”, among other forces, to effect illegal regime change in Zimbabwe.
Now, WikiLeaks has named Sydney Masamvu and Stanley Gama as two of the many journalists and editors who have been so used and are still being used.
In August 2002, Zimbabweans expected the media community to respond to Walter Kansteiner’s claims, to deny or confirm them. There was deafening silence.
Today there has been no professional response from associations of journalists on the revelations about Sydney Masamvu and Stanley Gama.
Instead of addressing the moral and professional issues raised by these cables — which are confirming what was alleged in August 2002 — both NewsDay and The Daily News responded by gratuitously attacking Prof Moyo, calling him all sorts of demeaning names.
The two papers, to use their own language, proceeded to unleash “hate language” upon the professor, precisely because of what he said in his lecture.
In the same lecture, Prof Moyo also accused USAid as one of the key sponsors of the journalists being used in the illegal regime change campaign. This allegation can be confirmed not just in Zimbabwe but in other parts of the world where the US has engaged in illegal regime change.
The question then arises: why does USAid need to corrupt journalists and media houses?
In September 2004, the US Defence Department published its “Report of the Defence Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication” which included statistics from opinion polls conducted by Zogby International in July of the same year.
The statistics showed not only that people in the so-called Middle East disliked US policies and US influence. It also showed that the levels of dislike were increasing.
The US Defence Department (the Pentagon) tried not to alarm their government. So they split the opposition to US policies into two categories: “Soft Opposition” and “Hard Opposition”, so that the opposition would not appear overwhelming.
The Pentagon created a spectrum of Middle East opinion as follows:
* Hard Support (for US government): Middle East regimes and their retainers;
* Soft Support: Middle East regimes and their retainers, plus a few technocrats;
* Neutral: Some of the professional class and some regular and poor;
* Soft Opposition: The overwhelming majority; and
l Hard Opposition: A substantial minority (more than we want to admit).
The Pentagon then warned that:
“(North) Americans are (however) convinced that the US is a benevolent superpower that elevates values emphasising freedom and prosperity at the core of its own national interest.
Thus, for (North) Americans, US values are in reality world values — exemplified by
the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the 1975 Helsinki Accord — so deep down we assume that everyone should naturally support our policies. Yet the world of Islam — by overwhelming majorities at this time — sees things differently.”
The Pentagon concluded that Moslems “see American policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and democracy as hypocritical, and American actions as deeply threatening”.
They could have said the same about Zimbabweans, Iranians, Palestinians, Cubans, Venezuelans . . .
According to the July 2004 Zogby poll, opposition to the US message increased from 76 percent in 2002 to 98 percent by 2004 in Egypt; 61 to 78 percent in Jordan; 87 to 94 percent in Saudi Arabia; and 61 to 88 percent in Morocco by the same year 2004.
Opposition to US-Iraq policy was 98 percent in Morocco; 97 percent in Saudi Arabia; 93 percent in Lebanon; and 91 percent in United Arab Emirates by 2004.
Opposition to US policy on terrorism was 82 percent in Morocco; 96 percent in Saudi Arabia; and 84 percent in Lebanon by 2004.
Opposition to US policy toward Palestinians was 93 percent in Morocco; 95 percent in Saudi Arabia; 90 percent in Lebanon; and 90 percent in United Arab Emirates by 2004.
But the US is worried about what is happening in the Moslem world as indicative of a world-wide trend.
In September 2010, the US Centre for International Media Assistance (CIMA) and the National Endowment for Democracy published a study called “Winds From the East: How the People’s Republic of China Seeks to Influence the Media in Africa, Latin America and South East Asia”.
Note that the areas covered here represent most of the South and the East outside the Middle East, which was covered by the Pentagon study. But the concerns are the same.
The CIMA concluded that the global media template which has dominated most of the world outside China and the former Soviet Union has been the US template: in movies, TV, newspapers, radio, video and book publishing.
That template is eroding fast; and the role of China and the BricS countries is making that erosion faster and more steady. Brics refers to Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. This is because the Brics countries have created more economic space for countries of the South and East to move and buck the aid system dominated by the Washington Consensus since the 1950s.
USAid has been at the heart of that global aid system together with the World Bank and the IMF. This means that in the last 20 years or so, USAid has escalated its efforts to buy goodwill, to buy public opinion and to bribe opinion makers, particularly journalists.
Before looking at particular cases, it is important to get a sense of the size of the global aid regime which is corrupting foreign-sponsored media and foreign-sponsored journalists even here in Zimbabwe.
Economist Dambisa Moyo’s book: Dead Aid — Why Aid is not working and How there is another way for Africa, asks the question on Page 54: “Why give aid if it leads to corruption?”
First, she says there is pressure to lend or to give aid.
“The World Bank employs 10 000 people, the IMF over 2 500; add another 5 000 for other UN agencies; add to that the employees of at least 25 000 registered NGOs, private charities and the army of government aid agencies (including USAid): taken together around 500 000 people, the (entire) population of Swaziland . . . Their livelihoods depend on aid.”
So, if we go back to my last two instalments, it is not just the vilification of targeted countries which has been made “professional” (which means placed in the hands of full-time demonisers); corruption and bribery have also been professionalised.
There are hundreds of thousands of persons employed full time to corrupt professionals; and there are even larger numbers of those being corrupted. The corrupters are promoted the more people and institutions they corrupt.
The recipients are also promoted, the more “help” they accept in the business of corrupting public opinion for the empire’s benefit.
This is the context in which we must see the corruption of journalists and editors working for so-called “independent” media. The context was spelt out in a recent paper.
In an article called “The Corrupt Role of NGOs, Donors and Civil Society in the Zimbabwean Crisis”, Paul Rumena Chimhosva had this to say about these “professionals” in the anti-Zimbabwe racket.
“These so-called leaders (in the NGO sector) have holiday houses in places like Cape Town and other exotic places around the globe. People based in Zimbabwe, selling out on the people’s struggle, have set themselves businesses in Botswana and South Africa.
“So-called human rights campaigners on behalf of Zimbabwe, like Eleanor Sisulu of South Africa, have enriched themselves to obscene levels . . . individuals who cannot provide any meaningful contribution to humanity have found themselves a very lucrative pastime: crying crocodile tears on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe and getting paid for it.
A simple audit of estates of individuals who lead all these mushrooming Zimbabwe “crisis’ NGOs should show the donors how much their investments actually reach people of Zimbabwe. A huge chunk of their donations are destined for the pockets of the few.”
Anyone who observes the global mass media will not fail to notice a strange pattern: Despite claims of diversity and pluralism of media in the West, despite claims of competitiveness and independence of the Western media, the Western framing of the unfinished African liberation project follows a predictable, stereotypical and often racist pattern.
This is so to the extent that one can expect the views of the global multinational corporations, the views of the major Western capitalist powers and the views of the major global mass media to coincide on fundamental questions concerning Africa.
The global oligopolies are the biggest beneficiaries of this orthodox framing but major Western governments also benefit because they see the ideological role of the media support of the oligopolies as helping to make their own national economies grow at the expense of those of the South and the East which are targets of the alliance.
But what is more disturbing is a pattern which began in the US-sponsored coup d’etat in Iran in 1952; was repeated in the US-sponsored coup d’etat in Chile in 1973; was repeated in the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic between 1999 and 2004; was repeated in the US-sponsored but foiled coup d’etat against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2002.
In Chile, by the time of the coup d’etat against President Salvador Allende in 1973, more than 30 percent of US projects in that country were media projects.
Editors and journalists were attached to US media spies who “handled” them and told them how to craft language and headlines for local political stories, with the singular object of demonising Allende and making his illegal overthrow by the US appear justifiable.
In Iran, by the time Dr Mohamed Mosadegh was overthrown, US spies were influencing 80 percent of the content of those media they had sponsored and set up.
A similar pattern can be found in the struggle to overthrow former Yugoslavia President Slobodan Milosevic from the 1990s until 2004.
Now, the current WikiLeaks have also revealed a similar pattern here in Zimbabwe which is orchestrated by USAid and the NGOs it has helped set up and finance.
Sydney Masamvu and Stanley Gama have been fingered as among the journalists and editors who are furthering the US programme of vilification and demonisation against Zimbabwe’s leaders and politicians.
What came out in August 2002 as a general indictment of “independent” media houses by former US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner has now come back with names of editors and journalists attached. But the media houses employing those journalists have kept quiet. So have the journalists’ associations.
Under normal circumstances, Stanley Gama would have resigned already.
Instead, he has unleashed hate language against Prof Moyo, again using the very same paper which is supposed to serve its readers and not personal vendettas.
Why does Stanley Gama want to subject readers to such unwarranted attacks? What information value did the attacks give to readers?
Labels: COLOUR REVOLUTIONS, DAMBISA MOYO, JONATHAN MOYO, JOURNALISM, NEOCOLONIALISM, PROPAGANDA, USAID, WIKILEAKS
Read more...
COMMENT - There is a direct link between corruption and deregulation.
Dambisa bemoans Africa’s high ranking on TIZ corruption index
By Chiwoyu Sinyangwe in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt
Wed 14 Apr. 2010, 03:00 CAT
DAMBISA Moyo has said it is a tragedy that most African countries rank among the worst performing countries in the world on the Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index (CPI) but still want to attract quality investments.
Moyo said
many countries had even failed to jump the first hurdle as far as making the continent attractive to quality foreign direct investment was concerned owing to bottlenecks such as corruption and huge bureaucratic institutions.
The Zambian international economist and New York Times best-selling author of Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way For Africa said even African countries that seemed to be making progress were doing it at a very slow pace.
“Either actual corruption or perceived corruption clearly drives economic investments,” Moyo said. “However, if you go and look at the transparency international CPI, it is a tragedy to see that we continue to see that most African countries rank among the worst performing countries in the world. And the thing that is quite striking is that there is not so much movement even over the long period of time.
“There are some countries that are actually improving but on the whole, we still have a situation where there are a lot of countries where the actual or even perceived corruption continue to pose a serious problem and naturally, no one wants to invest in a place where there is rampant corruption."
Moyo called on African countries to expedite the acquisition of credit rating to improve their competitiveness and attractiveness.
“…the first thing investors ask is 'what is the credit rating of the country or of the company that is looking to issuing debt?' My estimate is that there are only 19 countries on the African continent that have credit rating,” she said.
“So, many countries are failing to jump even the first hurdle which is when an investor says what is the credit rating. Most of them do not have a credit rating… It seems to me that this is a very simple question that can be done in a very quick and meaningful way and it helps as potential investors and for ambassadors of Africa to say look at the progress that these countries are making.”
Moyo also said it was equally disappointing that most African countries ranked the lowest in the World Bank's doing business survey.
She said it did not make sense that most Africans countries were among the lowest-ranked and the hardest places.
“If we are so desperate to do business and spur investments into this continent, why should it be that these are the most difficult places to do business in?” wondered Moyo.
Labels: CORRUPTION, DAMBISA MOYO, NEOLIBERALISM
Read more...
You can't teach a thirsty childTheme: Water and sanitation
Adam Oxford
guardian.co.uk
Seven-year-old Irene laughs and disappears into the tall grass, leaving her friends waiting on the dusty footpath. A couple of minutes later, she reappears, holding an old plastic bottle which she's just filled from a small stream.
The water inside is green with algae and insect eggs float on the surface. Irene smiles and takes a sip, then carefully screws the top on and puts it into her bag.
Irene walks this route through Simakakata community near Kalomo in Central Zambia every day, commuting barefoot between her home at Chibwe Farm and the area's only school. It's a 14km round trip which takes around two and a half hours each way. She sets off at 7am and gets back, exhausted, just in time for nightfall and bed.
Normally, Irene won't drink anything from the time she leaves home in the morning until she gets back at night. The borehole at the school ran dry years ago, and the nearest functioning one is privately owned and strictly rationed. It's closed to the schoolchildren from 10am daily, and from September to December when it runs low, they are often turned away altogether.
At home, Irene fills pans from a small pond just behind the single room hut she lives in with her sister, her parents, her orphaned cousin and her two baby brothers. It's almost identical to the slow stream that she's just visited. The five month rainy season only finished a week ago, but the water is already cloudy and still, while cattle and children drink side by side from the same pool that's used to wash clothes.
Her story isn't unusual. Statistically, just 40% of the rural population in Zambia has access to safe water, but a 2006 survey by the Central Statistics Office found that that number drops by half again in some of the poorer provinces.
The scarcity of safe water hits areas like Simakakata hard. On top of occasional outbreaks of cholera and typhoid, a fifth of children here will have suffered from chronic diarrhoea within the last two weeks. The resulting dehydration is the main reason that the under-five mortality rate is over one in ten.
Irene's headmaster, George Matantilo, explains that the more subtle effect of water-borne illnesses is to derail the community's ambitious plans for development and self-sufficiency.
"Of course the children are often ill," he sighs, "And when they are sick, they can't come to school, so they fall behind in their studies. If they keep missing lessons, they won't improve, and as they grow up they lose interest in education. Most of the adults here aren't educated, but they don't want their children to spend their lives looking after animals like they do."
Lack of water for basic sanitation exacerbates health problems in a culture where eating without cutlery is the norm. For older girls at schools like these, it can be even tougher: one in five spend a week every month at home because they're embarrassed by not having anywhere to wash during menstruation.
Responsibility for improving access to clean water lies with the government, but like many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, money in Zambia is scarce. Export revenues have been hit hard by the global recession and corruption remains rife. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) reported concerns in February that government officials had used funds for rural water supplies to install private boreholes on their own plots.
Chola Mukanga runs the non-political blog Zambian Economist (www.zambian-economist.com), which hosts lively discussions about development issues within the country. He takes issue with another Zambian commentator, Dambisa Moyo, whose book 'Dead Aid' is currently riding high in the best-seller charts with the message that international organisations should "turn off the tap of aid" to Africa within five years.
"At the moment," he says, "Ninety-five percent of funding in the water sector comes from foreign aid, because the water companies are not in a position to fully recover costs through rates. Without aid in this area, the impact on lives would be immediate."
There are promising signs that money is being used more effectively, says Mukanga. Local radio stations are encouraging debate among the rural population, providing information and an independent voice for communities in a country where most media outlets are state owned. The traditional authorities are also proving themselves a powerful force for change, offering reliable long term oversight for new projects.
"Chiefs are emerging as a real voice to push for a better deal," he explains, "One of the best sanitation drives in Zambia is led by Chief Macha in Choma, who commands confidence from donors and government."
Westone Sianchongwe is the Senior Facilitation Officer for Response Network (www.responsenetwork.org), a local NGO which works through the traditional authorities to start self-help projects. He's a passionate advocate for communities like Simakakata, and encourages them to solve problems without outside help wherever possible. Drilling a borehole, though, costs over 62 million kwacha (around £7,500) and meeting the needs for the Kalomo area alone would require over half of all the extra government funds earmarked for developing the water infrastructure this year.
"We've sunk 12 boreholes in Kalomo district," explains Sianchongwe, "To achieve the Millennium Development Goals they need 2,500 more. Without intervention from outsiders or NGOs, I do not foresee a time that 100% water coverage will be achieved."
There is hope for Irene, though. George is working with a UK charity to raise funds for Response Network's 13th borehole, which will be on the site of a new school building at Simakakata. With a reliable water supply, he says, he'll be able to attract more trained teachers to work here and irrigate a garden for the children to grow vegetables which they can sell to raise funds for the school.
"The most important thing," he concludes, "Is that the children have something to drink during the day. You can't teach a thirsty child."
This longlisted article was published on 23 July 2009. It was written for the Guardian's International Development Journalism Competition between 1 April and 22 June 2009.
Labels: CHOLA MUKANGA, DAMBISA MOYO, DONORS, WATER
Read more...
Donors need a holistic strategy for aid effectiveness
Written by Prof Fackson Banda
Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:00:46 PM
Sweden and the Netherlands have suspended their aid to the Ministry of Health, a key ministry in Zambia's strategy to attain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The reason advanced for such a move - a legitimate reason, we might add - is that both countries will not tolerate corruption.
The fact that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has announced an investigation into the circumstances under which one Ministry of Health official accumulated his ‘wealth’ clearly gave rise to the events that led the two key donors to suspend their aid. There is one comfort in all this: The two donors have merely suspended their aid.
As soon as the Auditor-General has conducted her forensic audit, we hope that the two donors will come back to the aid of the heath sector. At the same time, we hope that the government will have put in place corruption-proof institutional measures that will array the fears of the donor community. The health sector needs donor aid. But such donor aid needs to go to the intended beneficiaries.
Donors cannot go scot-free, however. It is too easy to suspend their aid. I think that there is something that the donor community may have overlooked here. What has happened in Zambia demonstrates three things. First, there is corruption in the country, as is the case in all other countries. Second, there is limited capacity to prevent, and let alone, fight the scourge. Third, there is a vibrant civil society - spurred on by whistleblowers and a robust private media system - which continues to advocate for stronger anti-corruption strategies.
To explain: Although their capacity is limited, and although they may be politically constrained, the Anti-Corruption Commission brought to light the allegation of corruption at the Ministry of Health. The Auditor-General has moved in to establish the veracity of the allegation, while other investigations are underway. The media - especially the private press - have stepped up pressure for the government to institute a more robust anti-corruption strategy. Civil society bodies have also stepped up pressure on the government to take greater responsibility for transparency and accountability in the civil service.
We must not forget: The Auditor-General's annual reports have become a hall-mark of systematic documentation of lapses in the country's public finance management. But rarely have donors suspended their aid in reaction to the Auditor-General's annual reports, which have almost always documented systemic inadequacies in the way our public institutions manage public finance.
Donors, too, have a responsibility for the way our public institutions manage their resources. And that responsibility does not necessarily reside in suspending or withholding aid to such critical sectors of Zambian society as the Ministry of Health.
Such responsibility is acknowledged even by the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, adopted in 2005 at a High Level Forum in Paris, France. The Declaration is based on “core principles” which both donor and partner countries “believe will increase the impact aid has in reducing poverty and inequality, increasing growth, building capacity and accelerating achievement of the MDGs.”
The basic philosophy underpinning the Paris Declaration is one of mutuality or co-responsibility. In other words, both donors and partner countries are responsible for the effective management of aid. To suspend aid to the Ministry of Health, as Sweden and the Netherlands have done, amounts to a near dereliction of responsibility on the part of the two countries.
While the Paris Declaration recognises that “partner countries” - a euphemism for aid-dependent or poor countries - must exercise their sovereignty in managing aid, it places responsibility for the management of such aid on both donors and partner countries. In this regard, it mentions two things. First, donors are called upon to reform and simplify their “policies and procedures to encourage collaborative behaviour and progressive alignment with partner countries' priorities, systems and procedures.” Second, it calls upon both parties to define “measures and standards of performance and accountability of partner country systems in public financial management, procurement, fiduciary safeguards and environmental assessments, in line with broadly accepted good practices and their quick and widespread application.”
It is clear that “collaborative behaviour” is encouraged. It is also clear that donor countries are encouraged to participate in instituting the kinds of institutional arrangements that can ensure that their money is transparently and accountably used. To put it differently: Donor countries must help build the institutional capacity of partner countries needed for proper public finance management.
There are, of course, donors who attempt to assume such a holistic strategy towards supporting partner countries. Such a holistic strategy includes supporting specific “projects” as well as the totality of the institutional-implementation architecture of government. The reason is simple: project-specific funding cannot be dislocated from the context of institutional capability. This should call into question donors whose insistence is on “project” support.
It is perhaps because of such piece-meal, “projectified” approaches to supporting partner countries that Dr. Dambisa Moyo, in her controversial book, Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa, describes as a myth the notion that billions of dollars in aid sent from wealthy countries to developing African nations has helped to reduce poverty and increase growth. While one can question her radical solutions, one cannot but agree with her - and many other development scholars and activists before her - that donor aid has not been wholly effective.
The principle of co-responsibility - binding donor and partner countries in a pact of mutual support - needs to go beyond just providing the money. It must involve devising, along with that money, systems in which both donor and partner countries can invest confidence. What this does is that it places an equal obligation on donors to ensure that their support is successful. Indeed, such aid must be holistically linked to other institutions that enhance transparency and accountability in society - civil society, the media, political parties, and the like.
The Paris Declaration clearly acknowledges that “corruption and lack of transparency, which erode public support, impede effective resource mobilisation and allocation and divert resources away from activities that are vital for poverty reduction and sustainable economic development. Where corruption exists, it inhibits donors from relying on partner country systems.”
The underlying assumption here is that, when donor countries provide support, they are convinced that partner countries' public management systems are sufficient to guarantee the effectiveness of their aid. However, in situations where problems emerge, such as is the case with the Ministry of Health, there is need to look, not just at the allegation of corruption, but also at the fact that the system has been able to locate that corruption. This is important because it shows that the system is capable of locating and localising the corruption.
In other words, the alleged corruption at the Ministry of Health must send three signals. First, corruption is still endemic in the government system. Second, the system is capable of locating and localising such corruption. Third, there is potential for the system to cleanse itself of corruption. Of course, the third point is related to the amount of political will that can be mounted to support the systemic attempts at ejecting corrupt elements from the system. It is here, perhaps, that we can better appreciate the action by Sweden and the Netherlands to suspend funding to the Ministry of Health.
The action seems to be a political message to our ruling political elite to encourage the system to function more robustly. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the exposure of corruption is, in itself, a celebratory act. Let me put it differently: While donors should lament the fact of corruption, they should also celebrate the fact of exposure. Woe unto those countries whose corruption is so deeply buried within the system that it cannot be located, let alone exposed!
For aid to be effective, then, it must be configured so holistically as to addresses its short-term, project-specific objectives and the institutional context within which such objectives are realised. It is such aid, I would argue, from which it is easy for a partner country to subsequently wean itself.
Labels: DAMBISA MOYO, DONORS, FACKSON BANDA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH
Read more...
Dead Aid: lively debate, deeper issues
Written by Fr Pete Henriot
Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:54:52 PM
It was a very packed room and the debate was also very packed! Last Friday night’s programme of the Economics Association of Zambia (EAZ) featured Dr Dambisa Moyo presenting her thought-provoking book, Dead Aid. As lively as the debate was about her arguments, I thought much more significant was the revelation in the discussion of several deeper issues facing the future of development in Zambia.
So, first let me sketch some comments on the debate about the book, and then offer some highlights of the deeper issues coming out of the discussions. Not “either-or”
Moyo’s presentation at the EAZ meeting (and in several other public appearances last week) defended the two major theses of her study. First, foreign aid for Africa has failed to promote development, and second, there are alternatives that are more promising. She speaks of Africa in general, but her argument is applicable to her homeland, Zambia.
What has aid brought Africa and Zambia? Corruption, dependency, dysfunctional governments, lost opportunities, debt burdens, conflicts, et cetera. Certainly no positive and long-lasting gains! Add to that the depressing story of non-African “do-gooders” spreading terrible stories about Africa in order to appeal for more help for us poor folk!
And what are the alternatives for Africa and Zambia? More foreign investors, closer business relationships with China, engagement with bond markets (negotiated debts), trade, more use of local money and remittances from overseas Zambians, et cetera. Coupled with ending aid, all this would stimulate more local entrepreneurship and a brighter future.
Moyo argues in person as persuasively as she argues in print and must be taken seriously. But I thought that one of panel respondents, my JCTR colleague Humphrey Mulemba, stated the most telling critique of her arguments: “It isn’t either-or!” Just as there can be another side to the dark picture she paints of aid, so there is another side to the bright picture she paints of her liberal alternatives.
For example, some foreign aid received by Zambia has indeed worked well in creating employment and long-term development. One thinks of feeder roads in rural areas, or clinics and schools in many parts of the country. And assistance to meeting the HIV and AIDS pandemic has certainly been life-saving.
And some of Moyo’s alternatives are certainly open to questioning. Foreign investors have dubious records of promoting corruption, returns in bond markets aren’t too likely if the global economic crisis continues, and Chinese connections need much closer evaluation for social benefits as our recent Zambian experience well demonstrates.
The point made by Mulemba that deeper thought is needed in order to break out of an “either-or” approach was echoed by one of the first audience respondents, a woman who asked for more nuanced argument. Two concluding respondents, Zambian Aids Council Chairperson Bishop Joshua Banda and former Bank of Zambia Governor Jacob Mwanza, made similar points about the need to dialogue between the two positions if we in Zambia were really to move forward.
Clearly, a simplistic one-way approach is neither correct nor helpful.
Audience feelings
But what fascinated me more upon reflection was the general tone of reactions from the audience on Friday evening. I hope I’m fair in thinking that much deeper issues were being touched upon than the question of the pluses and minuses of foreign aid for Zambia. Central to the issues being raised was a widespread feeling of disappointment, dismay, even disgust, about the current role of our government, Parliament, and political parties - both ruling party and opposition parties - in addressing the country’s needs.
Repeatedly during the discussion there arose grievances about failures of our political leaders to seriously address the ineffectiveness of government development policy. Moyo’s complaints about corruption were cheered with examples given from the audience of current scandals in too many GRZ offices. (A gentleman who identified himself as an employee in the Ministry of Health had difficulty in making his intervention amidst raucous heckles from the audience!)
Criticisms about the lack of effective policies were reinforced with examples of indabas with unfulfilled recommendations, international meetings that appear never to result in meaningful implementations and foreign travel (complete with expensive airport send-offs and returns) that seemed only to benefit the travelers and not the people who remained home. Moyo’s call to innovate was countered with citations of mediocre leadership. There seemed to be a feeling that the current crop of politicians of whatever party is more innovative in hurling petty insults than in proposing solid programmes.
Enough is enough!
I got a sense that the hearty applause directed toward the thesis laid out by Moyo was in reality at the deepest level a cry of “enough is enough!” to the current drift of government policy, politicians' dialogue and citizenry passivity. Zambia is simply too rich a country to have two-thirds of its population living below a demeaning and unacceptable poverty line!
Yes, I believe that the lively debate about this particular book should really tell us here in Zambia something much more profound than the ups and downs, positives and negatives, of foreign aid and its various alternatives. One of the panelists at the EAZ event, Dr Fred Mutesa from UNZA, called for us to “think outside the box” of ordinary development discourse. I feel that two of the major hindrances to that exercise are selfishness (unwillingness to sacrifice power and profit) and lack of serious feeling of what people are suffering (absence from real-life contact).
Coming back from the Friday evening discussion, I wished that some key government leaders and politicians from different parties had been there to hear the cries of people who want and expect something better from them.
Sad example
Let me cite one very sad example, the fact that on the very day of this spirited debate about good governance the National Constitutional Conference (NCC) froze in facing up to the challenge of greater accountability and transparency. Led by key Government officials and ruling party members, the NCC failed to endorse the well designed, widely debated, and convincingly accepted constitutional clause that mandated parliamentary oversight of new loans negotiated by the government.
At the very moment of unfolding and mounting scandals in government about lack of accountability and transparency – scandals that are resulting in massive suspensions of funding for live-saving assistance to key ministries – leading politicians are rejecting more accountability and transparency in aid programmes! Do they not see the irresponsibility displayed by such action? A chance to turn back the consequences of Moyo’s anti-aid arguments is simply rejected out of hand.
For me, the lively debate provoked here in Zambia over Dead Aid is a “wake-up call” to pay greater attention to much deeper issues of the relevance and credibility of political leadership. Am I right or wrong?
phenriot *** jesuits.org.zm This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Labels: DAMBISA MOYO, NEOLIBERALISM
Read more...
Dambisa blames aid for Africa’s dysfunctionality
Written by Mwala Kalaluka
AID has contributed to the dysfunctionality of many African states, economist and Dead Aid author Dambisa Moyo has observed. And former Bank of Zambia (BoZ) governor Dr Jacob Mwanza said Zambians admire Moyo over her decision
to tackle a topic that is not just politically sensitive but has very strong sensitive groups.
During the Economics Association of Zambia (EAZ)-organised discussion titled: Why Aid is not working and how there is another way for Africa, Moyo said aid had contributed to a system where African governments had abdicated their role in providing public goods.
"The problem with aid-culture is that the government does not have to provide that role because someone else is doing it," Moyo told a packed room at Lusaka's Taj Pamodzi Hotel.
"Our governments are needed to be at the forefront of delivering growth, setting the agenda. They have to take a leadership role. It is not good for African leaders to take a back seat."
Moyo said it was a pity that many African governments viewed aid money as permanent income and subsequently failed to craft better alternatives to financing development.
"This begs the question 'what is the responsibility of African governments?'" she said. "If it is true that African governments have abdicated their roles...then we should obviously stop voting for African governments, we should start voting for Sida [Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency]."
Moyo said she had learnt a lot over the last four or so months that she had been on tour following the publication of her book, Dead Aid.
Moyo said the type of aid she talked about in her book was not the humanitarian or non-governmental organisation type but the government-to-government aid, which she said comes with philosophical issues if it was heavily relied on.
She said one of the philosophical issues in the aid culture was the celebrity culture, where celebrities from the West usually attend G8 to push for more aid for the African continent.
"Celebrities talking as if they have been elected to talk for Africa, when they have not," Moyo said amid applause. "Africans should not tolerate this attitude."
Moyo said these celebrities used such meetings to perpetuate a negative perception of the African continent and she wondered how such a scenario would help Africa create a generation of young people who could move the mantle forward.
She said corruption was one of the ten reasons why aid had contributed to the dysfunctionality in the economy.
"We have a problem and frankly I believe that giving free money anywhere in the world means that it is actually vulnerable for the taking," she said.
Moyo said aid had contributed to civil strife in Africa.
"We need to make Aid finite. We have to turn-off the taps towards increasing dependency on other forms of financing," said Moyo.
Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) debt, aid and trade programme officer Humphrey Mulemba said not everything about aid was bad but that there was need to find the right blend of aid and ensure that it is administered properly.
University of Zambia (UNZA) development studies lecturer Dr Fred Mtesa said the greatest contribution that Moyo's book had made to scholarship was to challenge the conventional mindset of Zambians.
"We hear our leaders everyday praising the supposed virtues of aid and asking for more," Dr Mtesa said. "We Africans and Zambians in particular must begin to interpret these issues seriously. She has gone on to make very plausible prescriptions of how to move forward."
And Dr Mwanza said both nations giving and those receiving aid had strong bureaucratic entrenchments.
He said some countries giving aid had a lot of entrenched interest in aid to an extent that they made parallel diplomatic representations.
"You have put us on the map," Dr Mwanza told Moyo.
Labels: DAMBISA MOYO, DONORS
Read more...
COMMENT - So countries should get off aid, but corporations shouldn't?
Moyo endorses bailing out of private companies by govts
Written by Nchima Nchito Jr
Saturday, May 23, 2009 7:45:06 AM
ECONOMIST and author of Dead Aid Dambisa Moyo yesterday said there is nothing wrong with gover nments bailing out private companies to save their economies.
Featuring on Radio Phoenix’s Let the People Talk programme, Moyo said the principle of bailing out companies was sound as long as the reasons behind it were right, citing the US where the government bailed out businesses in an effort to salvage the economy.
She was responding to a question on whether it was right for the government to refuse to bail out Zambian Airways following the suspension of the airline’s operations early this year due to operational difficulties.
“First of all, you have to have resources in order to bail out a company and also as I said, it’s important to understand what the implications of the collapse of one entity will have in terms of ripple effects for the economy as a whole,” she said.
Moyo added that the government could have had its own reasons for choosing what to bail out and when.
“Perhaps a one relatively small airline in the context of the economy may not be something that the government will view as a priority because they are competing needs obviously in the country with respect to education, and health care and so on so the government has to make a choice,” she said.“As I said, this is simply a superficial argument coz like I have just been reading the newspapers to know what’s happening with respect to Zambian Airways and not because I don’t know any intricate details.”
And Moyo said Africans had allowed both local and international media to negatively portray the continent.
“The tendency is to focus on war, poverty, disease and corruption and yet there are so many amazing things about our continent,” said Moyo.
“One of the hard truths is that we are responsible as Africans for tolerating the fact that the world continues to paint us in such a negative way, our leadership I believe should take a stand and say this is not the way we want to be portrayed. You know there are places that are desperately poor like many people in India, the billions of people round the world. Places like China still have significantly large populations of poor people but nobody feels sorry for them.”
Labels: DAMBISA MOYO, HYPOCRISY, NEOLIBERALISM
Read more...
Moyo’s dead aid sparks debate
By Austin Kaluba in London
FROM musicians to film stars, there seem to be a new scramble for Africa. This time it is not to grab regions and renaming them but to offer aid and solutions afflicting Africa, the most insulted continent.
The ‘benefactors’ range from musicians like Sir Bob Geldof who jumpstarted his plummeting career by helping to organise the much-publicised We Are The World concert in the 80s to Madonna, who has been exhibiting her ‘humanitarian’ concerns by adopting children from Malawi. Africa is not short of aid givers.
The new crop of aid givers in form of celebrities has just joined Western countries, which have been giving aid to Africa for many years. The million Pound question is does this aid work? Our own academic, Zambian-born Dambisa Moyo feels strongly that it does not.
Dr Moyo argues in her book Dead Aid that recipients of aid would be much better economically if they were left to sort out their economic woes using homegrown solutions.
The book has sparked heated debate receiving praises and dismissals in equal measure. Kofi Annan has praised ‘Dead Aid’ as a “compelling case for a new approach to Africa”.
A global economic strategist at the investment bank Goldman Sachs in London, Dr Moyo formerly worked as a consultant at the World Bank in Washington DC. She grew up in Lusaka, Zambia, and studied economics at Harvard University and then (for a doctorate) at Oxford.
Dr Moyo, who was talking to a large audience at the just ended Oxford Literary festival argued hotly that aid had not merely failed to work but has worsened Africa’s problems. Is she right?
This writer interviewed the academician after her controversial presentation on how useless aid has been in solving economic problems in Africa. The articulate, petite and glamorous academic has been featured on several programmes in Europe and Africa to discuss her argument on aid.
The assertion has also aroused heated debate in Western papers and academic circles. If her conclusion was made by a person with humble education, it could have been dismissed as not holding any water but Dr Moyo cannot be dismissed as a charlatan considering her education.
The first stage in her argument is that aid is easy money which one can compare to winning a lottery. If governments had to rely upon private financial markets, they would become accountable to lenders, and if they had to rely upon taxation, they would become accountable to voters.
She had likened aid to oil, arguing that it only helps in enabling powerful elites to embezzle public revenues. She catalogues evidence, both statistical and anecdotal.
But the gist of Dr Moyo’s argument is for governments, which depend on aid to find better alternative. Governments could find money for development through financial markets, both international and domestic.
Considering the number of projects and organisations depending on aid in Zambia and many countries in sub-sahara Africa, it is difficult to outrightly agree or disagree with Moyo’s stance.
Zambia, which Dr Moyo cites in her book, is heavily dependent on aid since she got independence in 1964. The fact that the country is still impoverished can be attributed to countless problems.
According to the Overseas Development Institute report of 2000 compiled in collaboration with Nordic African Institute Uppsala, Zambia is a heavily aid-dependent country.
The report while stating that Zambia depends on aid shares the same conclusion with Dr Moyo’s that the country remains impoverished despite this massive external assistance.
It further states that Zambians have found themselves living in conditions of abject poverty despite foreign aid growing from a small trickle to a virtual flood.
In the 90s the major donor countries to Zambia were the United Kingdom
(37 per cent of total EU aid), Sweden (eight per cent), Denmark (nine per cent), Finland (three per cent), Germany (seven per cent) and the Netherlands (10 per cent).
These countries together with the European Union which contributed (11 per cent) have a long history of co-operating with Zambia. Together these bilateral donors, including the Commission, covered 86 per cent of total EU aid. Their share of total aid to Zambia was 35 per cent.
Since independence, aid flows to Zambia have been increasing. During the 1960s the annual average inflow was US$19m and in the 1990s it had grown to US$907m.
Most of the aid has been from European donors, although towards the end of the 1990s, European aid stagnated. The slack was, however, largely compensated for by aid coming in from multilateral sources.
The sector composition of aid has undergone significant changes. In the 1970s, aid was directed to the productive sectors (agriculture, trade and tourism) and in the form of import/balance of payments support. In the 1990s aid was redirected to the social sectors and to debt reduction strategies.
In the 1960s foreign aid provided Zambia with technical assistance and contributed towards various capital investment projects in the country. Today, foreign aid has also expanded to become a strong political player in the country.
The issue which this report deals with is whether the policy and practice of European donors, or more specifically, members of the European Union (EU), is attuned to the fact that poverty reduction is the most pressing human issue in Zambia today. For the most of the 1990s a staggering 65-70 per cent of the population has been living on or below the poverty line.
Things have not changed 19 years after the report was published. Given the political and economic role of foreign aid in Zambia it is highly relevant to ask how well the aid from the donor communities is used.
Basing on this report one would ask several question on how most important European donors reflect the pressing issue of poverty reduction in Zambia or any other African country that is dependent on Aid.
Is poverty reduction a major objective for European aid? If so, how is this reflected in their respective aid programmes? Has European aid contributed to poverty reduction in Zambia?
With Zambia and many African and Third World countries depending on aid sometimes from their former colonial masters, Dr Moyo is partially right to state that poverty reduction is far from being the major objective for aid.
Would Britain for example want to see Zambia, its former colony improves economically and weans herself from dependence on its one time colonial master?
On the other hand, would Zambia or any other African country dependent on aid be better off economically if they chose not to cling to aid?
Commenting on Dr Moyo’s stance on aid, the former chief economist for Department for International Development Adrian Wood, has argued that there should be a ceiling to aid as a proportion of the budget.
“The consensus academic view, to the extent there is one, is probably that large aid inflows, like large oil revenues, tend to reduce government accountability to citizens,” he argues.
However, Mr Wood adds that cutting aid may not be the best response. ‘‘My preferred alternative is to strengthen its potential for ‘governance conditionality’: aid agencies should insist on both transparent budgeting and free and fair elections.
“That said, I have to admit that Moyo has a good retort. She shows how feeble aid agencies have been: when occasionally one gets tough, others compensate.’’
Within aid agencies, performance is judged predominantly by short-term criteria such as how much aid is disbursed, rather than longer-term effects on accountability. Based on past behaviour, a government could assume that the aid would keep flowing more or less regardless of what it did.
However, even admitting the severe limits of donor ability to improve governance, Mr Wood doubts that many of Africa’s problems can be attributed to aid.
‘‘It is, in my view, something of a sideshow. Because it lends itself to a simple morality story of guilt and reparation, it receives more attention than is warranted. Paradoxically, despite her radically different argument, Moyo has ended up with the same punchline as the conventional, politically correct diagnosis: Africa’s problems are the consequences of our transgressions.’’
“By the same token, I think that Moyo’s message is over-optimistic. She implies that, were aid cut, African governments would respond by turning to other sources of finance that would make them more accountable. I think this exaggerates the opportunity for alternative finance and underestimates the difficulties African societies face,” Mr Wood further points out.
A review of Dead Aid in the Economist while agreeing with Dr Moyo also noted the book’s shortcomings. “Dead Aid does not move the debate along much. Yes, she has joined the chorus of disapproval - and that in itself might surprise a few diehards who think that Africans should just be grateful for the aid and shut up.
But her arguments are scarcely original and her plodding prose makes her the least stylish of the critics. Moreover, she overstates her case, almost to the point of caricature.”
But the Guardian was not this kind in assessing Dead Aid. Madeleine Bunting condemned Dr Moyo for generalisations. “One suspects that behind this book is a remarkable woman with an impressive career and very little time for learning how to write a good book.
“The result is an erratic, breathless sweep through aid history and current policy options for Africa, sprinkled with the odd statistic. There are so many generalisations skidding over decades of history, such frequent pre-emptory glib conclusions, that it is likely to leave you dizzy with silent protest.”
The review further noted that despite being poorly argued, Dead Aid would boost Moyo’s profile. ‘There are many who will want to promote her views, only too eager to cut aid budgets as pressure builds on government spending.
The danger is that she will end up on the wrong side of the argument. The battle is to press for more effective aid, not cut it altogether. Her proposal to phase out aid in five years is disastrously irresponsible”
Matthew Rees writing in The Wall Street Journal noted.
“It is too bad that Ms Moyo did not stop now and then to draw directly on her personal experience — not only on her work as an investment banker but on her early life in Zambia. (Her mother is chairperson of a Zambian bank; her father runs an anticorruption organisation.) First-person accounts might have made her argument even more vivid. Even so, it is vivid enough.”
Maybe Dr Moyo went too far by stating that Africa does not need aid considering the evidence to the contrary. Her argument should be how effective is this aid in bringing development.
Despite the book being rather simplistic like Chinua Achebe’s book with an ambitious title The Trouble With Nigeria, Dead Aid succeeds in questioning the seemingly well meaning benefactors who claim to know the panacea to Africa’s economic malaise.
This casual approach to Africa’s problems has been extended to celebrities with inductees who include one Sir Bob Geldof-nicknamed Mr Africa and bubble gum musician Madonna who thinks she has solutions to the continent’s problem despite failing to rescue her marriage.
An objective analysis of the book came out in The Spectator with Michela Wrong writing “One can challenge this book’s thesis, however, and still hail it as marking a turning point. In the past, Africans might privately wax cynical about western aid policy, but they were content to leave the public debate to be waged by Irish pop stars, American celebrities and paunchy white men in suits.
“Television producers and conference organisers routinely scratched their heads trying to find opinionated Africans ready to argue the issues. Moyo belongs to an emerging generation of articulate, self-confident and angry Africans who are now doing just that. Not before time.”
Those who want to understand part of Africa’s economic problems will have a better alternative between people like the U2 band leader Bono or Oxford/Havard educated Moyo.
Labels: DAMBISA MOYO, DONORS, NEOCOLONIALISM, NEOLIBERALISM
Read more...
Up close with Dambisa Moyo
Written by Aida Edemariam
Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:09:00 AM
DESPITE receiving more than $1 trillion from the West over the last half century, Africa remains in dire economic straits. Dambisa Moyo thinks aid is to blame and should stop.
The breakfast room of the Hôtel Balzac on the Champs-Elysées is slowly filling up with the murmuringly well-heeled when Dambisa Moyo makes her entrance, in an oyster-coloured sheath dress and platform heels half as high as her calves.
She is, if not demure, very ladylike; tightly controlled and girlishly friendly - she was at a party here last night so knows most of the people making their way to their €76 breakfasts, and has to keep saying "hello", in her quiet, American-accented voice.
She is forthright, however, on the subject of what she refers to as "the book", rather than "my book", and occasionally "the prescription", rather than "my prescription": Dead Aid, which was published this month, and in which she argues, in no uncertain terms, that foreign aid has been bad for Africa, and must stop.
People are listening. Rwandan government ministers read her book and asked her to come to talk to them; she is about to fly out there. A piece she wrote on the subject in a national newspaper drew responses from policy directors of three major charities. Paul Collier, a former mentor whose theories about the effects of geography and resources on economic growth she draws on, began his review of Dead Aid by comparing her to Dutch feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose critique of Islam has forced her into hiding. Many people will disagree vociferously with her; many will think she is being recklessly contrarian - but, as Collier pointed out, they cannot easily dismiss her.
It isn't just the archipelago of degrees (the chemistry BSc from Lusaka, Zambia, the MBA in finance from American University in Washington DC, the masters from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, the PhD in economics from Oxford); or the high-profile jobs (as consultant at the World Bank, then as head of economic research and strategy for sub-Saharan Africa at Goldman Sachs, until about a month ago); or the fact that in a time when there has been a general bemoaning of the lack of big-idea books from women this is a big-idea book from an African woman, a vanishingly small number of whom are ever heard from at all - although all of these play a part. It is because everyone knows that things aren't quite right, and that something must be done. The question is what, and this is Moyo's contribution.
She would be the first to admit that others have taken her tack, that aid simply doesn't work: William Easterly, for example, in The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good; Peter Bauer, the Hungarian-born economist to whom Moyo has dedicated her book, was arguing that large transfers of aid were a mistake as far back as the 1960s. It is an argument often made within Africa, too: her mother, chair of a leading Zambian bank, and her father, a linguistics academic-turned-anti-corruption campaigner, couldn't believe she was giving up her evenings and weekends to write tens of thousands of words about such a self-evident truth. "They were kind of, like, so what? It's kind of the emperor has no clothes. Yes, nice book. Great that you could articulate it, and you can turn the pages, but - everybody knows it doesn't work."
She makes it clear at the outset what kind of aid she means. She does not mean humanitarian or emergency aid, mobilised in response to calamities; she does not mean charity-based aid, given to specific organisations and people on the ground, in order to achieve specific things (she sits on the boards of several charities, one of which distributes antiretrovirals); she is hopeful about a new attitude to food aid, whereby the money is used to buy food from farmers within a country, and then distribute it to those in need, instead of flooding the place with foreign food that undercuts local growers. What she means is "systemic aid", the vast sums regularly transferred from government to government, or via institutions such as the World Bank.
She paints a dismaying picture of the history of that aid, beginning with the realisation, at Bretton Woods in July 1944, that Europe would need massive injections of cash to get back on its feet (and the concurrent establishment of the World Bank and the IMF). The Marshall Plan did a similar job. Both were so successful in Europe that it seemed sensible to assume that the same paradigm could apply in Africa. But these capital injections, she argues, worked in Europe because they were limited in scope, and Europe had the institutions to make the most of them; this was not true in many African countries. And there were other, not particularly altruistic imperatives: the cold war had begun, and "aid", writes Moyo, "became the key tool in the contest to turn the world capitalist or communist". Geopolitics trumped sense, again and again.
Rising oil prices in the 1970s meant that international banks were awash with money, lax with their policies, and lending at low interest rates; many African countries borrowed large sums to pay off existing debts - until 1979, when another oil crisis prompted banks to raise their interest rates, and those debts could no longer be serviced. In Africa, 11 countries defaulted. When their finances were restructured by the IMF - they were lent money to pay off what they owed - they simply sank deeper into debt. The 80s also saw aggressive trade liberalisation and privatisation: the IMF and the World Bank lent large amounts of cash on the condition that free-market policies were adopted - policies that often led to the destruction of local industries that could not compete. By the end of the 80s debt servicing meant a net reverse flow of money, from poor countries to rich. This could not continue, and campaigns for debt relief soon followed - but they were accompanied, Moyo notes drily, with campaigns, such as Live8, to send large amounts of new aid, "and thus the prospect of fresh debt, all over again".
More than $1 trillion has been sent to Africa over the last 50 years. And what has it all achieved? She wants to know. "Between 1970 and 1998, when aid flows to Africa were at their peak, poverty in Africa rose from 11 per to a staggering 66 per" - roughly 600 million of Africa's billion people are now trapped in poverty. She would admit that aid has done some good on a local level, however her conclusion is uncompromising: "Aid has been, and continues to be, an unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster for most parts of the developing world" - and Africa in particular, which is "shearing off. The rest of the world is going one direction, on one growth trajectory, and Africa is going completely in the opposite direction. And yet we sit around and discuss sending another $50bn dollars of aid? I mean, come on."
Why is Africa different? Wisely, perhaps, she doesn't get entangled in generalities about colonial guilt, and refers only in one short paragraph to "the largely unspoken and insidious view that the problem with Africa is Africans - that culturally, mentally and physically Africans are innately different. That, somehow, deeply embedded in their psyche is an inability to embrace development and improve their own lot in life without guidance and help." Her argument is that, for whatever reason, the problem is "pity. We don't feel sorry for the Chinese. The Chinese have 30 million people who live like us, if you will. Western standards, but a billion people living in dire poverty. Do you think anybody feels sorry for the Chinese? No. What about Indians? India has a huge proportion of poverty-stricken [people] - does anybody feel sorry for them?"
And the pity, in her reading, has been devastating. It has meant a blind eye being turned to corruption - aid being like striking oil, or finding diamonds, in its potential to tempt. It has meant a kind of continent-wide addiction (with, as the policy director of Christian Aid pointed out in a letter to the Independent, the concomitant "loss of self-control, ability to think forward, the confidence to act for oneself and believe in oneself"). And it's not just the developing countries that become dependent: around 500,000 people, Moyo estimates, depend on disbursing aid for their livelihoods. It is self-perpetuating: multilaterals have to keep lending in order for debts to be serviced. It nurtures, she argues, civil war: it becomes worth fighting over resources. Over the past 50 years 40 million Africans have died in war - equal to the population of South Africa.
Increasingly, over the last decade, the stick that accompanies the aid carrot has been a demand for "good governance". What is meant is transparent institutions, rule of law, lack of corruption; in practice, this is often equated with multi-party elections. But, as she quite scornfully points out, "the western mindset erroneously equates a political system of multi-party democracy with high-quality institutions . . . the two are not synonymous." Many African countries have dutifully held elections - but that hasn't made them any more liberal, or improved the quality of their civil institutions.
Like many of us who grew up in Africa (in my case, Ethiopia, where, she claims, 97 per of the government budget is attributed to foreign aid), she saw the aid economy in action - the flash 4x4s, the high salaries, the foreign workers living cushioned lives on nice exchange rates. "In addition it was clear how little say not only the citizens have, but the governments have. You hardly ever saw participation from domestic policymakers in designing and discussing what was, essentially, our future - Africa's future. I mean, there are so many classic examples of people's lives essentially being shaped and designed by policy that's not domestically constructed." She cites the donor who refused to give any aid unless an entirely new town be built in Zambia, despite the government's protests that they would be left holding the baby, as indeed happened; or George Bush's requirement that two-thirds of the $15bn he was giving to fight Aids had to go to pro-abstinence programmes, and none could go to any establishment that provided abortions.
Partly, of course, it's about power, and purse-strings; partly, she believes, it's a PR issue, "there are many well-spoken, smart African leaders who should be on the global stage"; very largely, given that so far not many are, it's a case of who gets to do the talking, and increasingly, it is people like Bob Geldof and Bono, the most visible representatives of what she calls, in a thrillingly withering manner, "glamour aid". "There are African policymakers who are charged with the responsibility of creating policy, and implementing policy. That's their job. Long, long lines of people have stood in the sun to vote for a president who is effectively impotent because of donors or because glamour aid has decided to speak on behalf of a continent. How would British people feel if tomorrow Michael Jackson started telling them how they should get out of the housing crisis? Or if Amy Winehouse started to give the US government advice about the credit crunch? And was listened to? I think they would be perturbed, and worried. I mean, they've completely disenfranchised the very people we've actually elected!"
But what she's particularly keen on is that people pay attention to her solutions, of which there are a few. First is the issue of bonds. To those who object that this is yet another kind of debt, but with higher interest rates, she answers that that's part of the point: aid lending has been far too lenient (50-year terms, low interest rates, more money lent even if a country defaults). The capital markets are not forgiving of corruption: mess up once, and that's it - there is no more cash. "Where private capital trumps aid every time," she writes, "is on the question of governance." Her critics would point out that this is a tricky position to hold in the current financial climate, where countries that have gone to the capital markets, such as South Africa (one of her examples for how to do it right), are already beginning to struggle. But she is bullish: it is a unique opportunity, she says, for a complete systemic overhaul.
She proposes more dealings with the Chinese, who, she says, have done more for Africa's infrastructure and economic growth in the last five years than America has done in the last 50. A great point in their favour is that they give the impression, at least, of striking business deals between equal partners; it is foolhardy to underestimate the animating effect this has on governments used to being preached at and condescended to. There are real worries, of course - the fact that China ignores human rights abuses in its quest for commodities, as in Sudan (the west, she counters, was a willing handmaiden to the rise of many corrupt and violent governments and doesn't have a leg to stand on); worries about empire building, that China will eventually want to protect its investments by force (for the moment, she says, that's irrelevant - what matters is progress now); about undercutting local industry and taking jobs from Africans (this, she says, must be dealt with by policy-makers). She refers to surveys that indicate local people feel things have improved with the arrival of the Chinese, "in terms of living standards, incomes, jobs, and so on. It suggests to me that people feel this new model seems to be working, where Africans are treated as equal partners." It remains to be seen, however, how the general drop in commodities prices over the last few months will affect this optimism; also the fact that Chinese growth is slowing down.
She is not the first to note that free trade is freer for some than for others, that trade protection means that each European cow gets $2.50 a day in subsidies, "more than what a billion people, many of them Africans, each have to live on every day" - but her solution is not yet more banging on the doors of the EU and the US, but to turn elsewhere, to Brazil and India and China, which has 1.3 billion people, and only 7 per arable land. "What an opportunity!" She advocates more microfinance, and efficient banking of savings (Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has estimated that the value of savings among the poor of Asia, the Middle East and Africa is as much as 40 times all the foreign aid received throughout the world since 1945) and remittances (33 million Africans live abroad, and many send money home; in 2006, remittances accounted for 40 per cent of Somalia's GDP).
Her biggest and most controversial solution is that all aid should be turned off in the next five years. But isn't this cavalier, and deeply irresponsible? Wouldn't it damn millions to even more suffering? Most people, I suggest, would find that very hard to watch. "It's hard to watch already. There are many countries where 70 per cent of the population is living on less than a dollar a day. If we continue down this path, the extreme could be that we end up with huge uprisings. Remember that in a lot of these countries 50 per cent of the population is under the age of 15. In 10-15 years, you have so many people on the streets who have no jobs, no prospects, that you end up in a situation where the state implodes. And we've already seen that in Africa, in cases like Somalia. There are no vested interests, there's no growth, there are no jobs, no prospects for the future. Most Africans, I believe, if you went to them and said this is going to be tough, but we're going to assure you that your children are going to have a better future, I'm pretty sure most families would [be] willing to make the sacrifice. That was how America was built. Families made major, major sacrifices so that their children would have a better life. And Africans are willing to do that. They are not different. They have the same aspirations and hopes that everybody else has."
Isn't she playing into the hands of governments that would like to wash their hands of such responsibilities? "Quite the contrary. They absolutely should be involved. Things like disease, risk of terrorism, political instability, are no longer contained by borders, and probably never really were. It's actually beneficial to the world as a whole to see Africa as an equal partner as opposed to a drag on the economy."
Isn't she suggesting yet another wholescale capitalist experiment on Africa? "I'm going to paraphrase Obama's inaugural speech. Capitalism is undoubtedly, unquestionably, the system that has best delivered and reduced poverty. Bar none. Even with its flaws. There is not another system that has delivered more. So does it need reform? For sure. Does it have to be regulated better? Definitely. But to think that we should now ignore everything that it has done for the past 200 years is foolhardy."
Probably the answer is a careful combination of her proposals and other things: Christian Aid, for example, suggests plugging the corporate tax loopholes that mean poor countries lose a minimum of $160bn a year. Much more aid, suggests Collier, should be in non-cash form: in peacekeeping, security guarantees, trade privileges, governance.
Moyo may not have all the answers, or even the right ones - but the fact is that aid levels are dropping whether we like it or not. The Catholic aid agency Cafod recently estimated that the current crisis, and the weakening pound, could cut $41bn, in real terms, out of the UK foreign aid budget over the next seven years. However, she is determined to begin an urgent conversation, one not confined to suited white men and middle-aged rock stars. When she was writing the book, she says, she also was not trying to reach "economists, because we already know. Dead Aid was really targeted at African policymakers, and anybody, globally, who's interested in seeing Africans become an equal partner in the world. I wanted to talk to anybody who watches TV and sees a poor starving African child and thinks, 'This is ridiculous,' - but at the same time is interested in finding a long-term solution. Who's not just going to say, 'Oh, I'll write another cheque for 14p,' who thinks, 'I actually want to see these countries really rise up from this horror, into something where the country and its people contribute meaningfully - not just to their countries, or to their continent but to the world as a whole. I want to know African artists, musicians, teachers, doctors, lawyers, writers - I want them to be on equal footing.' I want people to call their MPs after reading it and say, 'Hang on, you're asking us to give more aid - do you know that there are actually other alternatives? What do you think about that?'".
Labels: DAMBISA MOYO, DONORS, ECONOMY
Read more...
