Does Foreign Aid to Africans Work?

[Egemore]

It really depends on how you define "work". What are the success metrics for foreign aid to Africa?

Food aid from western countries has fed people. If I have corn, and I give it to somebody with nothing to eat, they are now fed. OP's example of malarial aid is good too. Donor governments and individuals have helped to reduce disease rates. Aid in the form of technology, such as the recent ebola vaccine, will help to further reduce disease. These things help ordinary people in Africa, so if that is our goal, then properly targeted aid is a success.

Aid won't create the kind of general welfare that real reforms in will in Africa. Corrupt governments, weak property rights, and unstable political situations have all contributed to lower development on the continent. If we want Africa to flourish in the 21st century, it needs to address these issues. Countries that have addressed these issues, even a little, perform much better than those that do not (see Ghana, which is relatively stable vs Liberia, which had significant political upheaval). Fixing these issues will create much better welfare for the citizens of Africa than aid ever will.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Does Foreign Aid to Africa work? Does it help African countries that need require help? Does it help people that are living below the poverty line, etc?

Article stating it doesn't work
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123758895999200083

Article stating that it works
http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... aves-lives

Opinion: Yeah, foreign aid has worked, in some areas that people need critical help. Nevertheless, we must be honest, and state that it hasn't worked due to numerous issues(corruption, misuse of funds, etc). There was a coup in Bukina Faso in the 1980s. The man that lead the coup, Thomas Sankara allowed Bukina Faso to reach self sufficiency in production of food a few years, and at that time, Bukina Faso was at that time one of the poorest nation in the world(it still is). Additionally, when he lead Bukina Faso, he didn't use a lot of foreign aid to accomplish the goal. That therefore shows that foreign aid doesn't work.

So what do you think NSG. Do you think Foreign Aid to Africa works?

Nope, not at all due to reasons cited above.

[CTALNH]

Its help a little but nowhere near enough to make the impact the african countries need.

[Grave_n_idle]

I agree imperialism is The root of many problems.

Not really.

The real problem is exploitation.

If you're an American company trading in goods that are an available resource in Africa, you'll pay the minimum you can to get those goods, and sell them at an enormous profit in the States.

Foreign Aid is helping to stop some people from literally dying of starvation and disease, but there is a global industry absolutely devoted to maintaining grinding poverty in Africa.

[Kaztropol]

I recall reading an article that said many of the companies operating in Africa, avoid paying taxes.

The example given, was an African owned sugar company, which, used subsidiaries based in S.Africa, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, to avoid paying corporation taxes to the country in which it operated. (iirc a W.African one, but not sure)


Article went on to say that tax avoidance by companies in this way, is slightly greater than the total amount spent on foreign aid in Africa.

[Shilya]

Doesn't work.

Anytime you ship goods to africa as part of an "aid" program, you undercut the local producers. Those no longer make profit and shut down. Now, there's even less of the product available, and the aid is needed even more. You can see where this is going, you don't even need to look at corruption.

What africa needs is honest governments and protectionism - giving it the chance to build itself up without having to compete with the global market undercutting its local industry every time. Further, likely a nationalization of resources (such as mines and oil wells), to avoid foreign corporations exploiting the continent for small change.

[Kaztropol]

Anytime you ship goods to africa as part of an "aid" program, you undercut the local producers. Those no longer make profit and shut down. Now, there's even less of the product available, and the aid is needed even more. You can see where this is going, you don't even need to look at corruption.

One of the worst examples, I thought, of local producers being undercut, was something I read.

It's cheaper to import cement and other building materials, than to buy them from the local producers.

And building materials are very low value/tonne, making transport costs very high.

If the building materials were locally bought, then that would provide employment, and stimulate infrastructure development.

[Kraslavia]

Aid. All this is about type of it. One thing - sending them money or goods, other build roads, schools farms and factories there. One thing is just give them aid, other is funding their own initiatives. Since first is big place for corruption and misuse, second is boost for their local economies. Africa needs education and workplaces. Of course - some direct help is necessary - but it's like feedeing someone fishes until he have enough strenght to hold fishing rod.

[New Reutlingen]

No, it's useless. Foreign aid spent on food and medical only breeds more starving Africans which are going to eventually die off without foreign support, so I suggest to just cut it off and end the cycle now instead of delaying it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Doesn't work.

Anytime you ship goods to africa as part of an "aid" program, you undercut the local producers.

When you ship food to an area where there's no food, you're not undercutting the local producers, because they don't have any food.

But you can look at things like infrastructure - which is why 'modern' infrastructure groups try to do things like build infrastructure out of locally sourced materials. I've even seen schools being built from sand in desert regions - because that's what's there.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, it's useless. Foreign aid spent on food and medical only breeds more starving Africans which are going to eventually die off without foreign support, so I suggest to just cut it off and end the cycle now instead of delaying it.

So, when you look at, say, West Africa - and you see three hundred and forty million people - many in dire need, your solution is 'just let them all die'?

[Dortmundia]

Aid to Africa does not work as the money usuall goes to corrupt politicians. They on other hand are exploiting european colonial guilt to ask for asking more money.

[New Reutlingen]

So, when you look at, say, West Africa - and you see three hundred and forty million people - many in dire need, your solution is 'just let them all die'?

Call it harsh, but yes.

With blacks having an average fertility rate at approximately 8 children per couple (I recall reading it, but I don't know where my source is- I can cite however that they are more fertile), after four generations that turns to over one-billion people. That's far more than the rich countries can care for, so it's better off to let them die off now and save more lives.

[Grave_n_idle]

Call it harsh, but yes.

I don't call it 'harsh'.

With blacks having an average fertility rate at approximately 8 children per couple (I recall reading it, but I don't know where my source is- I can cite however that they are more fertile), after four generations that turns to over one-billion people.

I suspect you're not really understanding the literature. Perhaps the reason why people in West Africa are having more children isn't because of magical fertility, but because they keep watching their kids dying.

Europe had the same phenomenon a few hundred years ago - the amount of children each couple has has tended markedly downwards as individual life-expectancy has increased.

Which makes sense.

Certainly more sense than magical pregnancy fairies.

That's far more than the rich countries can care for, so it's better off to let them die off now and save more lives.

Or we could find a way to sustain 340 million people so that we don't have to preside over a third of a billion needless deaths.

How can letting hundreds of millions of people die 'save more lives'?

[New Reutlingen]

I suspect you're not really understanding the literature. Perhaps the reason why people in West Africa are having more children isn't because of magical fertility, but because they keep watching their kids dying.

Europe had the same phenomenon a few hundred years ago - the amount of children each couple has has tended markedly downwards as individual life-expectancy has increased.

Which makes sense.

Certainly more sense than magical pregnancy fairies.

Which was a paper referring to blacks in general, not blacks of any specific country. I suspect biological differences.

Or we could find a way to sustain 340 million people so that we don't have to preside over a third of a billion needless deaths.

By the way, I did my math horridly wrong, I'm sorry about that.

If there are 340 million people in West Africa now, we know that they have an average reproduction rate of 8 children per couple. Within four generations of 8 children per couple, it's actually more-so over five-billion. But then again there's those who don't reproduce/are sterile, have one child, etc.

We can't sustain over a billion people alone for the idea of "because they're human". Human or not, if they can't give back what we're giving, or contribute to society, then there is no reason to continue to send foreign aid.

How can letting hundreds of millions of people die 'save more lives'?

Bad wording on my part, but, would you rather a group of 340 million die, or a group of over a billion? If anyone is going to die, you want less deaths not more.

[Grave_n_idle]

Which was a paper referring to blacks in general, not blacks of any specific country. I suspect biological differences.

I suspect you're misunderstanding the literature - if it even exists.

I have to admit, I've yet to meet a couple with 8 kids, black or white.

If there are 340 million people in West Africa now, we know that they have an average reproduction rate of 8 children per couple.

You've certainly claimed that.

Within four generations of 8 children per couple, it's actually more-so over five-billion.

Except, as I explained - we had the same kind of phenomenon in Europe before infant morality started reducing. If the population stabilised, I doubt West African families would automatically just keep producing the 8 kids you seem to think they have.

We can't sustain over a billion people alone for the idea of "because they're human".

I can't think if a better reason.

Human or not, if they can't give back what we're giving, or contribute to society, then there is no reason to continue to send foreign aid.

If they can't give back what we're giving?

I don't feel like you contribute what you cost to society. By your logic, I fully expect you to turn yourself in at the nearest euthanasia centre.

Bad wording on my part, but, would you rather a group of 340 million die, or a group of over a billion? If anyone is going to die, you want less deaths not more.

I'd rather save the 340 million and a billion. It's not a contest.

[New Reutlingen]

I suspect you're misunderstanding the literature - if it even exists.

Well there's no way it'd be right and the paper wrong, because race is just a social construct and we should defend that amirite

I have to admit, I've yet to meet a couple with 8 kids, black or white.

I have. It's still an anecdotal to reference it for arguments sake.

Except, as I explained - we had the same kind of phenomenon in Europe before infant morality started reducing. If the population stabilised, I doubt West African families would automatically just keep producing the 8 kids you seem to think they have.

Are you sure that simply because something similar happened in Europe, that the exact same thing is in Africa?

If they can't give back what we're giving?

Send us money back over the years that the country stabilizes, contribute technological advances to the world.

I don't feel like you contribute what you cost to society.

Big talk for a person of your type, no? Besides, I'm still underage- I have nothing to contribute to myself but an education.

By your logic, I fully expect you to turn yourself in at the nearest euthanasia centre.

Why thank you for that heart-warming comment.

I'd rather save the 340 million and a billion. It's not a contest.

You can't have both. Or, you could, and then almost every rich white country would go into poverty for the sake of people who are going to return nothing for what they've been given.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Doesn't work.

Anytime you ship goods to africa as part of an "aid" program, you undercut the local producers. Those no longer make profit and shut down. Now, there's even less of the product available, and the aid is needed even more. You can see where this is going, you don't even need to look at corruption.

What africa needs is honest governments and protectionism - giving it the chance to build itself up without having to compete with the global market undercutting its local industry every time. Further, likely a nationalization of resources (such as mines and oil wells), to avoid foreign corporations exploiting the continent for small change.

Nailed it.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

I'd rather save the 340 million and a billion. It's not a contest.

You can't have both. Or, you could, and then almost every rich white country would go into poverty for the sake of people who are going to return nothing for what they've been given.

Lifting the Africans out of poverty does not necessarily mean making Europe poor. Stop making a false dichotomy here.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You can't have both. Or, you could, and then almost every rich white country would go into poverty for the sake of people who are going to return nothing for what they've been given.

Lifting the Africans out of poverty does not necessarily mean making Europe poor. Stop making a false dichotomy here.

I dunno, if we can't lift all of our own people out of poverty how are we supposed to do it for them?

[New Reutlingen]

Lifting the Africans out of poverty does not necessarily mean making Europe poor. Stop making a false dichotomy here.

It's not a false dichotomy. If it was up to a select few rich countries to spend trillions of dollars to support all of these people, they're going to have some economic problems. It's not like more money will magically appear in front of them or something, if that's what you're thinking.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Lifting the Africans out of poverty does not necessarily mean making Europe poor. Stop making a false dichotomy here.

It's not a false dichotomy. If it was up to a select few rich countries to spend trillions of dollars to support all of these people, they're going to have some economic problems. It's not like more money will magically appear in front of them or something, if that's what you're thinking.

It's a false dichotomy. Why would a select few rich countries need to spend trillions of dollars to support the Africans? Is that the only way possible?

And that, money is actually an artificial construct.

[New Reutlingen]

It's a false dichotomy. Why would a select few rich countries need to spend trillions of dollars to support the Africans? Is that the only way possible?

Is that your argument? Should we completely drop the concept of money, which has worked for thousands of years, only to let more people be birthed that are going to die from starvation or disease?

And that, money is actually an artificial construct.

Well, X is just a Y construct because I don't like it, and therefore even the idea of it should not exist.

[The Cakitar Trade Conglomerate]

I'm pretty sure aid is only sent to Africa so countries can get a piece of their mineral rich land without actually invading.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well there's no way it'd be right and the paper wrong, because race is just a social construct and we should defend that amirite

I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean.

Did you intend to go back and edit it to make sense, and then you just forgot?

Are you sure that simply because something similar happened in Europe, that the exact same thing is in Africa?

Europe had high infant mortality and low longevity, and when those things stabilised the amount of children per family directly reduced.

West Africa has high infant mortality and low longevity, and still has a proportionally high number of children per family.

Do I think those things are similar. Of course.

Send us money back over the years that the country stabilizes,

Money isn't that important.

...contribute technological advances to the world.

Tools. Libraries. Bladed weapons. Art. Jewellery. Education. All of our main schools of technology, art and craft descend from Africa.

By your logic of repaying debts - we still owe them.

Big talk for a person of your type, no?

My type?

Besides, I'm still underage-

So you've contributed nothing.

By your logic, it's okay to let you die.

I want to reinforce at this point - these are the arguments YOU'VE made. You only object when they are about you.

Why thank you for that heart-warming comment.

Whether or not you find it 'heart warming' is irrelevant to me - it's based on your own logic in this thread.

You can't have both. Or, you could,

Well, glad we sorted that one out.

...and then almost every rich white country would go into poverty for the sake of people who are going to return nothing for what they've been given.

In other words, you justify billions dying, because it makes your standard of living a little better.