The Economic, Financial and Developmental Aid Africa Needs.

After the Second World War about thirteen billion US dollars worth of economic and financial aid was able to lift a broken and war ravaged Europe from levels of social devastation and economic deprivations into a virile society and an industrial power bloc. The value of thirteen billion dollars at that time is above one hundred billion dollars today. However just across the Mediterranean, Africa has received approximately over one trillion dollars worth of economic development aid since 1960 but incidentally she continues to grow in social despair and poverty.

The African story seems to be a sarcasm and reverse of the European experience with economic and financial aid. While Europe saw development aid as an opportunity to enhance growth, Africans considered developmental aid as an entitlement, a form of payback for the cost of colonialism and as such their prerogatives for a virile economy are been squandered deliberately. 

However it is pertinent to look at the scenarios and premise upon which developmental aid was received in Europe and Africa, because our supposition might be able to give donors and recipients of aid a better understanding of the workings of economic and financial hand-outs.

Firstly the post-world war two Marshal Plan’s economic and financial interventions in Europe had a diminutive tenure, it was intended to produce rapid results and turnarounds and it was targeted at definite results - The Marshal Plan Interventions were equivalent to business-grade loans. The developmental aid to Africa has been giving without a definite tenure in most cases, they often bear a striking resemblance to an endless obligation to humanity, the need for personal responsibility by the receiver is not adequately spelt out and the receiving countries don’t seem to bear the responsibility for her providence and collective fortune of majority of the disadvantaged in the hinterland – people who should be the major beneficiaries of the economic or financial intervention. Majority of Africans have been excluded from the benefits of developmental aid. 

Secondly post-war Europe was a tragedy of men that were keen on rebuilding a communal success to correct the pursuits of repugnance after their humanity had been broken to desolation. On the other hand an emergent Africa from colonial rule has been a playing field of tribal revulsions, ravenous self-indulgence and incessant corruption. There are important question both receiving and donor countries should be asking one another and one of such questions is why a country that operates  a sensible structure of governance  would seek  survival  from economic or financial aid from another country instead of a mutual form of trade agreement or a reasonable financing and exchange of  commodities and services. The basis of aid to countries that doesn’t demand extensive responsibility on the part of the receiver should be principally on the premise of the event of a humanitarian disaster.

Thirdly the intentions of both the donor and receiving parties need to be questioned extensively. Is economic and financial aid a noble and humane act or is it an instrument of further exploitation of a vulnerable society? It was in the interest of both American and European partners that the ignition of the industrial powerhouse in Europe be turned on. On the other hand donor countries to Africa don’t seem to have an interest of an industrially developed Africa. There is a surmise that an under-developed Africa will extend the frontiers of neo-colonialism. The intents of economic aid to Africa can be summarized by a scenario that was reported by Dambisa Moyo ‘In Zaire – known today as the republic of Congo – Irwin Blumenthal (whom the IMF had appointed to a post in the country’s central bank) warned in 1978 that the system was so corrupt that there was “No (repeat, no) prospect for Zaire’s creditors to get their money back.” Still the IMF soon gave the country the largest loan it had ever given an African nation.’

John Perkins in his book; Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, gave an analogy of his career life with a private consulting firm. He claimed that while working for this consulting company he was actually recruited by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States of America to generate reports that justified lucrative contracts for American companies which mostly made vulnerable countries to be plunged into irresponsible debt situations. Perkins claims cannot be verified but he claimed he convinced governments of vulnerable countries to adopt economic policies and take loans that put their countries in disadvantage while enriching a tiny local elite. According to his exposition if the leadership in the country refused such debilitating proposals, the jackals were called in to eliminate such leaders. Mr. Perkins wrote this book about twenty one years ago and he believes that there are more Economic Hit Men and Jackals today who undermine democratic institutions and push vulnerable countries into debt and despair for the benefit of corporations and the tiny elite.

Economic aid to Africa appears like a scheme to make an arbitrary extraction of African wealth possible. It has giving legitimacy to looting and environmental degradation by transnational companies in several instances. A lot of developmental aid comes to Africa on pre-conditions whose consequences amplify the impoverishment of the majority. And in most cases it is obvious to the donors that the financial aid they give would open up paths to looting by national elites. Corruption in Africa has been funded extensively by aid givers, and a major percentage of participators and collaborators in economic, financial and developmental aid to Africa cannot be exempted from guilt.

Africa is indeed a continent in dire need of support; however the focus of developmental aid to Africa should be based on the priorities of Africans. There is also an urgent need to metamorphose the leadership models on which African countries are administered. The major requirement for enduring development in Africa is positive leadership and until African countries are endowed with the right leadership, foreign aid would not have any tangible impact on the development and the teeming population of Africans who are impoverished and who in reality require aid and support. 

Withdrawal of foreign aid to Africa will not reduce exploitation and corruption I Africa and giving further developmental aid to Africa would not guarantee growth either. 

Africans have a responsibility to yearn for progressive leadership structures – not the progressives by nomenclature as we have in some African countries, where politicians branded themselves as progressives to plunder the commonwealth of their nations like it’s never been done previously and further gave tactical support to terrorist groups, in the form of ransoms, rehabilitation and freedom for active terrorists captured in the theatre of war and denying their military essential Intel and logistics – No – but progressives in ideology and positive actions, capable of transforming the rustic and unproductive compositions of the native African society into prolific urban communities that will participate as dependable partners in the global economy.

However in the interim, donors who are sincere to reach the real disadvantaged people in Africa should consider policies of reaching directly to the African people without the recourse of middle-men or governments as intermediaries. This policy direction is not a new archetype. It seems to be the only methodology employed that has actually been beneficial to underprivileged and deprived peoples in Africa. Take for instance early education in Africa owes an insurmountable debt to Christian missionary societies who pioneered schools in the African hinterland. A large percentage of educated elites are beneficiaries either directly or as a result of the legacy formed by the intervention of Christian missionary societies.

Olugbenga Ojo is a Senior Economist at Businessmail and Velocity Markets