Should the State Department of the Obama Administration double foreign aid for Africa?
Introduction: During his inaugural address, President Obama briefly mentioned shedding light on less fortunate countries and helping them to develop and succeed. By visiting his newly re-designed Whitehouse.gov website, one can see that his exact intention is to double the amount of U.S. foreign aid given to Africa by the year 2015. Intrigued by this, I decided to investigate it further, thinking it would be a fairly straightforward issue. I was very, very wrong. There are essentially two sides to this debate; the first being that doubling foreign aid, while not necessarily having a huge impact on long-term developmental growth, will most definitely help developing African nations in positive ways. On the other end of the spectrum, some believe that foreign aid is actually making certain African nations dependent on U.S. aid, ultimately hurting more than helping. In between those two points it is whole lot of gray area and many, many tangentially related issues and concerns. There is one thing that both these sides and all the space in between have in common though, every single one of the sources I noted believe that the current foreign aid system is antiquated and extremely burdensome to the efficiency and effectiveness of the aid that is distributed.
Background and Context: Foreign aid has traditionally been a hot-bed for debate. We should give tons of it. We shouldn’t give any at all. It’s really just neo-colonialism. We should focus on the problems within our own borders before trying to solve those outside them. We’re just funding corrupt governments. The issues are endless where foreign aid is concerned, and they always have been. So lets just start from the beginning. In 1961 The Foreign Assistance Act was drafted and has yet to be overhauled. The U.S. is essentially using the same guidelines they were using in 1961 to distribute and handle foreign aid. The problem with this is that it’s extremely inefficient and there is no absolute certain way to keep track of how U.S. aid money is being spent, which is how it ends up in the hands of dictators. Dictators who have their own interests in mind before those of their people. And that’s only skimming the surface of the problems with foreign aid. In 2009, most of the problems are still the same. There’s the accountability issue, the transparency issue, the dependency issue, the NGO issue, and most relevant right now, the economics of the issue. Given that last point, foreign aid seems to have fallen to close to the bottom of the presidential priority list, which may be a good thing for the moment, it could give policymakers and entrepreneurs more of chance to develop and reform the system before the state department can jump right in and start dishing out cash.
Competing Ideas
In Favor:
Those in favor of doubling foreign aid for Africa seem to like focusing more on the short-term and immediate effects rather than any sort of long-term development. Steve Radelet (Center for Global Development) and Jeffrey Sachs (Director of the Millennium Development Goals Program) lead the way for doubling foreign aid, though both men readily agree that reform of the aid mechanism is desperately needed. These two tend to focus on previous success stories, with the intention of building on those and hopefully being able to pull some form of long-term success out of them. Sach’s Millennium Villages Program has been extremely successful, with a lot of growth and good coming out of it. However, that success has been limited to very discreet, individual villages and has yet to spill out into the general population.
In Opposition:
Leading the opposition bandwagon is William Easterly, formerly on the World Bank payroll, he’s now a professor of economics at NYU and is an acclaimed author on the subject of African foreign aid. He’s against foreign interference, and while he readily accepts that foreign aid can accomplish good things and save peoples’ lives, he doesn’t think foreign aid will ever be able to foster long-term economic growth and independence in the global market. There are also a lot of theories (backed by empirical data) stating that, when it comes to foreign aid, there is a law of diminishing returns. This means that essentially there is only so much foreign aid Africa can absorb and put to use before the aid starts actively hindering growth rather than fostering it. Too much, too fast just ultimately ends up drowning a county because it throw off its economic equilibrium too radically. There are also cases like Ethiopia where they’ve become dependent on foreign food aid, it throws off their farming/selling goods equilibrium and now they can’t survive without food that comes from outside their own country.
Answer:
No. As of right now, the State Department should not be attempting to double foreign aid by 2015. They should be more focused on reforming the foreign assistance program, and investing in long-term financial and micro-finance projects in order to facilitate more independent and sustainable growth that the African people themselves can be involved in and tailor to fit their own individual country’s needs. I’m not advocating the U.S. pulls all their funds out of the foreign aid market, that would most certainly be devastating to the African countries that rely on it. I’m arguing that doubling foreign aid shouldn’t be the number one priority.
Opposing Arguments: An article in the Scientific American, argues that the only way to accomplish the above-mentioned Millennium Development Goals by their due date is to give more money, which is probably true, but there is no saying if even that would work. Aid alone won’t accomplish those gaols, and even if they are accomplished sometime in the next decade, who is to say they would lead to anything more sustainable? Yeah, they would’ve accomplished those goals, which is great and means that a lot of progress would have been made, but that doesn’t automatically mean that Africa would be able to survive on its own after that.
- Academic Research 1
- Academic Research 2
- Academic Research 3-Multimedia and Blog
- Academic Research 4-Multimedia
- Academic Research 5
- Citizen 1-Expert Blog
- Citizen 2-Stakeholder blog
- Citizen 3-Commentator Image
- Citizen 4-Expert Interview
- Citizen 5-Stakeholder Interview
- Institutional 1-Government
- Institutional 2-NonProfit
- Institutional 3-Government Image
- Institutional 4-NonProfit Multimedia
- Institutional 5-NonProfit Multimedia
- Journalistic 1-Mainstream
- Journalistic 2-Mainstream
- Journalistic 3-Mainstream Photograph
- Journalistic 4-Mainstream
- Journalistic 5-Alternative
- Miscellaneous 1-Multimedia
- Miscellaneous 10-Journalistic Mainstream
- Miscellaneous 2-Image
- Miscellaneous 3-Multimedia (audio)
- Miscellaneous 4-Citizen stakeholder Interview
- Miscellaneous 5-Institutional Government
- Miscellaneous 6-Institutional
- Miscellaneous 7-Journalistic Alternative
- Miscellaneous 8-Journalistic Mainstream
- Miscellaneous 9-Journalistic Mainstream