Essay about Foreign Aid in Africa

The large cash injection would then create a “greasing the gears effect” and allow for the jumpstart of economic development. Between the years of 1948 and 1952 the U.S. granted $13 billion to revamp the European economy (Dambisa, 2009: 35). This particular method achieved great success in post-World War II Europe and was known as the Marshall Plan. Due to its effective and unquestionable success in this era, the model was applied to economic development in Africa with the confidence that the same outstanding results would ensue. However, the application of the Marshall Plan to Africa is problematic for three reasons. One, the Marshall Plan had a rigid duration period of five years while, the concessional loans and grants to Africa over the last 50 years have been unending (Dambisa, 2009: 36). Two, European institutions were already in place to receive the aid efficiently and effectively. In Africa, however, these same institutions are either non-existent or grossly ineffective due to corruption (Dambisa, 2009: 37). The vast amounts of corruption have been heavily documented. Mobutu Sese Seko, President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1965 to 1997, for example, stole an equivalent of U.S. 5 billion dollars from his people (Dambisa, 2009: 48). However, even the less corrupt rulers of many African countries had few options as to what to invest the aid money on. Consequently, the bulk concessional aid goes directly into consumption without a variety of investment outlets. This process does not solve the problem but instead, allows for the cycle to continue. Lastly, three, the money from the Marshal had specific targets to repair physical infrastructure such as, roads, communications, sewage, factories, and electric systems (Dambisa, 2009: 37) In Africa today, the scope of the

"Between 1945 and 1983 the U.S. gave away $321 billion in foreign assistance, concessional loans, military aid, and humanitarian assistance." (Cato Policy Report, 1991) The Clinton administration task force admitted that, "Despite decades of foreign assistance, most of Africa and parts of Latin America, Asia and the Middle East are economically worse off today than they were 20 years ago." (Conservative Chronicle, 1994) United States financial aid does not help the problem it stabilizes it until it's withdrawn.

Governments and state agencies need to be more concerned in the obliteration of poverty through providing foreign aid. "As much as people think that America does its part in providing foreign aid, statistics from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development show that the U.S has been at the bottom of the list of industrialized countries as per proceeds that they give to foreign support." (Singer, 2009)

Whether or not foreign aid is being used as a tool or as a weapon remains a question. Each year we use foreign aid to threaten hungry countries all over the world. People fear the United States will withdraw from any type of aid they are associated with causing even more trouble than good. About half of U.S. foreign aid goes to the six countries that are Washington’s allies; these are against terror attacks and drug transportation. Foreign aid is viewed as good because it makes the world a safer place, it leaves countries cleaner and healthier, however others view it as harmful because of the cost, it fuels rampant corruption in countries that receive it, and it creates poverty.

First, cutting foreign aid, not completely, and only by half will eliminate 17 billion in spending. Reducing the amount of foreign aid does not necessarily mean depriving developing countries of resources they are dependent on. The perceived obligation for the United States to provide foreign aid may be reduced by greater donations from other countries, properly managing loans which are granted as aid and enforcing tax regulations within countries receiving funds. Moreover, alternate supporting countries could contribute a more desirable amount of their gross national income on aid. If additional donor countries regulated merely four percent more of their gross national income on foreign aid, the added bestowment would effectively alleviate the United States over a hundred billion dollars, while still maintaining the status quo of what countries in need receive. Alternatively, another option would be approving loans to developing countries. Loans are a tool capable of

Sub-Saharan countries received their independence at various times during the 20th century with approximately $1 trillion dollars being transferred in the form of aid to the African continent. The African content is huge, where its size is equivalent to combining China, Mexico, Western and Eastern Europe, United States, Japan and Iberia (refer to Exhibit 1). The aid that has been provided to the sub-Saharan nation has always seemed to be a band aid approach to helping Africans by giving them food, water, medicine along with other basic essentials needed to survive. Where if you look at the money that has been spent on those developed nations towards getting them to be self-sustaining, a trillion dollar in foreign aid to Africa seems to

On the basis of the viewpoints ascertained above, I firmly agree with author Jeffrey Sachs on the premise of utilizing foreign aid as a tool for economic development and helping improve the lives of others however, regarding policy I contend that state governments should not become the direct beneficiaries of aid. This is to say that instead of providing capital resources to governments which according to Swanson’s article can “make governments more despotic, and can also increase the risk of civil war since there is less power-sharing”1 [3] we should instead focus on a project based-approach forms of foreign aid as seen evident in the combat of malaria in Africa. Such approaches have (according to Sachs) have been successful. For example,

America is known to always be there help others around the world, but many think we’ve gone too far. The National Debt is at it’s all time high of $19 Trillion, and we are unable to afford to give out any more money. On the other hand, foreign aid is probably the biggest reason why the countries we help haven’t attacked us. There’s many pros and cons to this question, but in reality, foreign aid is needed. Whether we’re in debt or not, that doesn’t mean we should abandon others because it’s gotten a bit tough.

All human beings regardless of their background require a set of resources to survive. These are food, water, shelter and clothing in addition to this, healthcare, education and sanitation are also essential for a person’s wellbeing. In 1949 Truman’s Inaugural Address “we must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas” raised awareness of the fundamental belief that countries that are far more developed should be assisting underdeveloped countries to improve their living standards. Aid is the giving of money, goods and advice by one country to another. The principle of giving and supporting others through “foreign aid” blossomed during the 1960’s, technological advances provided opportunities for televised reporting in the United States of inhumane situations in other “underdeveloped” countries. The idea of tackling poverty took hold and the UN and Bretton Woods Institutions (originally formed for post-war reconstruction) became mechanisms for action on development.

In Dambisa Moyo’s book, Dead Aid, Moyo explains how foreign aid to Africa from the international community has not benefited the African countries as similar types of aid have been used to stabilize other nations successfully, such as the US aid in the reconstruction of post World War II Europe in the Marshall Plan. According to Moyo, the challenge that many African countries face is a cycle of aid dependency, “with aid’s help, corruption fosters corruption, nations quickly descend into a vicious cycle of aid. Foreign aid props up corrupt governments – providing them with freely usable cash” (Moyo, 2009, 49). These governments typically interfere and disregard the rule of law, transparency of civil institutions, and the protection of civil liberties, which, according to Moyo, makes “both domestic and foreign investment in poor countries unattractive” (Moyo, 2009, 49). As a result, fewer investments lead to declining economic growth which contributes to poverty. In a growing response to poverty, international donors “give more aid, which continues the downward spiral of poverty” (Moyo, 2009, 49), which perpetuates underdevelopment and ensures failure in the most aid dependent countries.

Many influential thinkers view foreign aid as one of the best tools for eradicating poverty. However, my aim is to prove this belief wrong by demonstrating that if the capital is given to the wrong types of government then it works to further perpetuate inequalities. Nations thrive only when they establish inclusive governments—ones that promote free markets that permit citizens to not only spend freely but also to invest to promote the flow of capital. On the other hand, governments that use authority to consolidate power in the hand of only a few, such as one in Mexico, may show some economic growth but at the cost of the well-being of the majority.

Most people feel obligated to assist others in need. In major crises like natural disasters, wars, medical outbreaks, and the struggling economies of the developing world, many citizens of developed countries believe it is morally right to provide assistance in situations like these, in response to being more fortunate. However according to Mark Goldberg, an editor of the United Nations and global affairs blog UN Dispatch and host of the Global Dispatches Podcast, discusses the truth behind foreign aid. He reveals that foreign support is an issue that is widely misunderstood by the general public, and is one of the most complicated subjects. Foreign policy has been under a huge debate and there is an obvious need for reformation, for it lacks clear leadership and strategic planning. In fact political leaders are very skeptic about foreign policy, and often find ways to push it back. What the citizens of first world should be inquiring, is foreign aid actually what we think it is, or are the internal reasons of the politics reshaping its truth?

The aid literature has long been accused of being Northern/ Euro centric in its focus. This accusation still stands today. There have nonetheless been important contributions to the aid debate from African scholars. There have been some general studies on the responses of aid recipients to northern ODA (Berthelemy 2005; Moon et al. 2010). As there are essentially Eurocentric studies in the literature to aid, there is a need to consider the literature on African perspectives. Some reflections on how Africans perceive aid can of course be gleaned from the critical works of scholars such as Rodney (1972) who speaks in favour of Africa and denigrates northern aid which according to him underdevelops the latter. Fanon (1994) claims that empowerment is vital for Africans to be entirely free. More recent Africa scholars include Ake (1996) who argues that African development policies should be done from within and not from without. In the same vein in her dead aid study, Moyo (2009) explains why aid is not working in Africa, while putting forward some solutions.

two words are, "foreign aid." Taking a firm stand on either side of this topic

2009 Review of The Trouble with Aid: Why Less Could Mean More for Africa, and: The Trouble with Africa: Why Foreign Aid Isn’t Working. Africa Today 56(2): 97-101