In the Western media the dominant headlines out of Africa are as depressing as always: a terrifying disease on the rampage, brutal conflict and devastating famine.
But is aid what is needed for Africa’s nations?
“The idea that large donations can remedy poverty has dominated the theory of economic development — and the thinking in many international aid agencies and governments — since the 1950s.”
www.spectator.co.uk/features/9121361/why-aid-fails/ “And how have the results been? Not so good, actually.”
“More than a quarter of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorer now than in 1960 — with no sign that foreign aid, however substantive, will end poverty there. Last year, perhaps the most striking illustration came from Liberia, which has received massive amounts of aid for a decade. In 2011, according to the OECD, official development aid to Liberia totalled $765 million, and made up 73 per cent of its gross national income. The sum was even larger in 2010. But last year every one of the 25,000 students who took the exam to enter the University of Liberia failed. All of the aid is still failing to provide a decent education to Liberians.”
Huge amounts of aid seem to have made little impact. Is aid helping or hampering economic development? Is there any real ‘development’ in a developing country?
Who really benefits from international aid?
While large amounts of money are given by Western donors to poor countries every year, many argue that these funds are counterproductive; much of the funds making their way into the hands of corrupt officials. Some argue that the money that does make its way to those in needs disempowers those receiving it, undermining motivation to change.
But is it right to ignore the images of famine ravished children, living in worn-torn environments?
When the West has the ability to give aid should it?
What do you think?
Image:
www.adeliadenow.com.au It is proposed that International aid programmes to poor countries should continue