Is Aid killing Africa

jayteecork

I think Bono should start sending a proportion of his wealth approximately similar to what he deems the working class should send over there.

waraf

Hagar wrote: »

I always thought that instead of giving say €10 million in aid to some country we should send them €10 million worth of aid goods, tents, foodstuffs etc, that have been made in Ireland. They get what they need, Ireland gets employment and all that money circulates in our economy not some warlords bank account.

Normally as much of this stuff is bought in the local country as possible. This means that the effect is two fold, the local economy is bolstered and the poorest people receive the goods they couldn't afford on their own.

waraf

Joey the lips wrote: »

Oh yes it is.... You post this article in the economics page and any economist will tell you all the evidence you want.

I however am of the opinion that we cannot do nothing. Although i do find it very funny sometimes that we allow aid to be siphoned off in verious countries that it goes to and the slightest hint of fraud in our own and we want the people deported.

I think aid is good but as to regulating aid we have our priorities all screwed up.

Tom's point is not an economic one. He represents a humanitarian organisation so his point is obviously based on his perspective.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that we allow aid to be "siphoned off". Do you think there is widest fraud happening in humanitarian organisations?

I don't agree that our priorities are "all screwed up". I think organisations like Concern are excellent at spotting their priorities but often they don;t have the money to deal with these priorities as they would like to due to the amount they have to spend on disaster refief. I would definitely concede that we need to look at how we are spending foreign aid in helping development projects in Africa and I am pointing my finger directly at the UN here.

Joey the lips

waraf wrote: »

Normally as much of this stuff is bought in the local country as possible. This means that the effect is two fold, the local economy is bolstered and the poorest people receive the goods they couldn't afford on their own.

This is not true. A large amount of this aid is given by various countries with various conditions that aid is bought in the country it comes from. This was a major problem for aid agencies in the 80's cause the money was not given as such a voucher was given the problem is that the voucher has a tied/tax applied to it so the govt were syphoning back some of the aid.

The tax system has long gone as far as i know but the system where by aid is still bought in the big world ecomomies still exist.

There is good and bad sides to this system. Generally the good side is that the goods come from a stable economy, the bad side is sometimes a lot of goods are seconds.

Joey the lips

waraf wrote: »

Tom's point is not an economic one. He represents a humanitarian organisation so his point is obviously based on his perspective.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that we allow aid to be "siphoned off". Do you think there is widest fraud happening in humanitarian organisations?

I don't agree that our priorities are "all screwed up". I think organisations like Concern are excellent at spotting their priorities but often they don;t have the money to deal with these priorities as they would like to due to the amount they have to spend on disaster refief. I would definitely concede that we need to look at how we are spending foreign aid in helping development projects in Africa and I am pointing my finger directly at the UN here.

No i dont think any aid charity is siphoning we have been supplying large amounts of aid knowing that only a percentage reaches the end. That is a fact unfortunitly

Our priorities are all screwed up. I dont need you to agree either i just need you to see that it is very hypocritical that we hand out large amounts of aid, large amounts dont make it to those who need it and yet when someone travels thousends of miles and trys to claim welfare we seem to see it as a big deal.

waraf

Joey the lips wrote: »

This is not true. A large amount of this aid is given by various countries with various conditions that aid is bought in the country it comes from. This was a major problem for aid agencies in the 80's cause the money was not given as such a voucher was given the problem is that the voucher has a tied/tax applied to it so the govt were syphoning back some of the aid.

The tax system has long gone as far as i know but the system where by aid is still bought in the big world ecomomies still exist.

There is good and bad sides to this system. Generally the good side is that the goods come from a stable economy, the bad side is sometimes a lot of goods are seconds.

Well the 80's was a long time ago and I know for a fact that it is Concern's policy to try to source as much as they ca locally for three reasons:

1. Goods can often be purchased locally cheaper.
2. The money spent on these goods goes into the local economy.
3. The logistical cost is massively reduced as shipping stuff from Europe to Africa is very expensive.

Obviously there are many things that can't be purchased locally but it makes sense to buy what you can on the ground. I would be VERY surprised if most NGO's didn't operate the same system as Concern.

Joey the lips

waraf wrote: »

Well the 80's was a long time ago and I know for a fact that it is Concern's policy to try to source as much as they ca locally for three reasons:

1. Goods can often be purchased locally cheaper.
2. The money spent on these goods goes into the local economy.
3. The logistical cost is massively reduced as shipping stuff from Europe to Africa is very expensive.

Obviously there are many things that can't be purchased locally but it makes sense to buy what you can on the ground. I would be VERY surprised if most NGO's didn't operate the same system as Concern.

Dont be so cheeky about the 80's surly you catch my drift. Concern etc is a private charity not a govt charity. I am incorrect basing this information of private charities but in development aid private charities only account for a small portion. Its the massive amounts given by govt to govt that really make a difference.

The most famous case was aid given by the US to chilie. There was so many conditions attached to it that chile ended up paying back 13 times the aid rec'd

waraf

Joey the lips wrote: »

No i dont think any aid charity is siphoning we have been supplying large amounts of aid knowing that only a percentage reaches the end. That is a fact unfortunitly

Our priorities are all screwed up. I dont need you to agree either i just need you to see that it is very hypocritical that we hand out large amounts of aid, large amounts dont make it to those who need it and yet when someone travels thousends of miles and trys to claim welfare we seem to see it as a big deal.

I agree that we give out a large amount of aid (still not enough in my opinion) and I'm sure there is a certain amount of waste. I don't think it's acceptable to just presume Irish NGO's are wasteful without seeing some actual figures. I have huge respect for people like Tom Arnold and pointig the finger at people like him and saying that you're wasting money is unfair without any readl data to back it up.

I don't see the correlation between the foreign aid budget and social welfare. We're part of the EU and as such other EU citizens are entitled to come here and seek work/claim social welfare benefit just as we are entitled to go elsewhere within the EU. Irish people have travelled all over Europe and further afar looking for work. There were plenty of Irish people claiming the dole in Britain during the 80's. I'm sure the Brits weren't delighted about if but when you're part of the EU you have to take the good with the bad. These people aren't criminals.

waraf

Joey the lips wrote: »

Dont be so cheeky about the 80's surly you catch my drift. Concern etc is a private charity not a govt charity. I am incorrect basing this information of private charities but in development aid private charities only account for a small portion. Its the massive amounts given by govt to govt that really make a difference.

The most famous case was aid given by the US to chilie. There was so many conditions attached to it that chile ended up paying back 13 times the aid rec'd

:D I honestly wasn't being cheeky. Live Aid was 24 years ago!! (God I feel old)

Yeah the US aid to central and south america is fraught with conditions. The US is constantly worried about everything south of the border from cocaine production to commuism. The US have been trying to install stable governments in Central & South America for a long time and basically trying to mould them into another North America. I think they've a complete lack of understanding of different cultures and they don't realise that they can't just impose their system in every country and expect fantasic results. Anyway, I'm getting way off topic here. That's a whole other conversation for another day....

revell

Heard an idea from an American professor in Politics. He thinks the financial aid provided to African countries is actually used to prevent leaders from doing bad things to their people. That is to say, we pay you good money to put your hands off your people and leave them alone. Otherwise, without this money, or bribe, corruption what ever you call it, something more evil may happen to African people.

It sounds disappointing but perhaps this is the truth?

Quint

Long Onion wrote: »

Read an article yesterday in which a number of African economists were arguing that a constant stream of foreign aid is actually destroying the continent and that the best way to help is to withdraw financial support completely.

Found it interesting to be honest, what do you reckon?


P.S. (I didn't forget to add an 's' after 'Aid' - smartass:))

Aren't people advised not to give to beggers in the street because it causes more harm than good? Africa is the same, but on a much bigger scale.

waraf

revell wrote: »

Heard an idea from an American professor in Politics. He thinks the financial aid provided to African countries is actually used to prevent leaders from doing bad things to their people. That is to say, we pay you good money to put your hands off your people and leave them alone. Otherwise, without this money, or bribe, corruption what ever you call it, something more evil may happen to African people.

It sounds disappointing but perhaps this is the truth?

I think that's a classic case of oversimplification to be honest. There are many many reasons why aid is given and it varies greatly from region to region.

waraf

Quint wrote: »

Aren't people advised not to give to beggers in the street because it causes more harm than good? Africa is the same, but on a much bigger scale.

People are advised not to give money to homeless people on the street to encourage these people to seek out help via Focus Ireland or some such agency that is in place to help these people. Not giving to African people in need is just letting people die unncessarily. You can't really compare first world homeless people with third world starvation.

prinz

revell wrote: »

Heard an idea from an American professor in Politics. He thinks the financial aid provided to African countries is actually used to prevent leaders from doing bad things to their people. That is to say, we pay you good money to put your hands off your people and leave them alone. Otherwise, without this money, or bribe, corruption what ever you call it, something more evil may happen to African people.

It sounds disappointing but perhaps this is the truth?

I wonder what mail-order university he lectures in? In a way he is right. Much of the aid goes to the regime and allows them to strengthen their position of power, so it is in their own interests to keep the people down and keep the aid flowing in. It's far easier to have a river of cash guaranteed to flow into your bank and spend money on tanks and fighter jets, than to actually invest some cash into your own economy, because then people's lives will improve, education will improve and sooner or later they will question the right of some mucksavage to rule through fear and terror. As for aid being a ransom to keep people safe - eh, either he doesn't understand economics or the rest of the world is not getting value for money!!

prinz

waraf wrote: »

People are advised not to give money to homeless people on the street to encourage these people to seek out help via Focus Ireland or some such agency that is in place to help these people. Not giving to African people in need is just letting people die unncessarily. You can't really compare first world homeless people with third world starvation.

I would compare countries such as Zimbabwe with your agency etc. The resources are there for them to help themselves without trillions of dollars in aid. Lots of African countries are the beggars who couldn't be arsed utilising the resources available and instead sit with the begging bowl.

waraf

prinz wrote: »

I would compare countries such as Zimbabwe with your agency etc. The resources are there for them to help themselves without trillions of dollars in aid. Lots of African countries are the beggars who couldn't be arsed utilising the resources available and instead sit with the begging bowl.

That's a bit of a generalisation don't you think? We already established in this thread that we can't lump all of the African countries in together. Some of the countries are massive and each one has it's own set of resources and it's own set of problems.
I also can't agree that African countries are not "arsed" to utilise their own resources. In some cases they don't have the money or expertise to extract the raw material from the ground. The other cases there are foreign companies extracting it for them (crude oil extraction in Sudan comes to mind), paying corrupt governements vast sums of money and perpetuating corrupt regimes.

prinz

waraf wrote: »

That's a bit of a generalisation don't you think?

Er no, not really. I said lots, not all. Unless you're going to tell me there aren't a lot of messed up countries in Africa?

waraf wrote: »

We already established in this thread that we can't lump all of the African countries in together. Some of the countries are massive and each one has it's own set of resources and it's own set of problems.

I didn't. Some countries have managed fairly decently, in establishing trade, tourism, stable governance etc. Mostly in the extreme north and the extreme south of the continent. You may notice that the countries that have done better are the ones with less natural resources.

waraf wrote: »

I also can't agree that African countries are not "arsed" to utilise their own resources. In some cases they don't have the money or expertise to extract the raw material from the ground.

$2 trillion dollars. Ethiopia spending $1,000,0000 per day on arms, at the same time as we see starving kids on tv, and droughts etc. Do you think the NGO's are giving $1 Mil a day to those in need? Don't say they haven't got the money they do. Don't tell me they haven't got the resources to generate the cash they do. They don't spend the money on things to improve their own countries. They're two busy buying in the best of arms to start a high tech war that quickly becomes a machetefest.

waraf wrote: »

The other cases there are foreign companies extracting it for them (crude oil extraction in Sudan comes to mind), paying corrupt governements vast sums of money and perpetuating corrupt regimes.

Granted that's true it does happen, but it's a bit like NGO's paying corrupt governments for the rights to throw out a couple of packets of plumpy-nut or whatever that peanut butter is. Yes you keep the starving kids alive in the short term, but it does nothing to improve the situation medium to long term. In fact it guarantees that tomorrow, the month after, next year, more and more starving babies will need help.

waraf

prinz wrote: »

$2 trillion dollars. Ethiopia spending $1,000,0000 per day on arms, at the same time as we see starving kids on tv, and droughts etc. Do you think the NGO's are giving $1 Mil a day to those in need? Don't say they haven't got the money they do. Don't tell me they haven't got the resources to generate the cash they do. They don't spend the money on things to improve their own countries. They're two busy buying in the best of arms to start a high tech war that quickly becomes a machetefest.

I'm not sure where you got that statistic but just for the sake of argument let's say it's correct. The Chinese are heavily involved in funding wars around the horn of Africa and along the east African coast. The majority of that cash is Chinese money and it's being used to purchase Chinese made weapons. It's not like the UN are giving them a million dollars a day to buy weapons. When I mentioned that people don't have the money to expolit the natural resources of the country I'm not just talking about large scale gold or diamond mines I'm also talking about a person who doesn't own a plough or an ox to pull that plough so that they can tend their land and feed their family. The governments maybe spending obnoxious sums of money to fight pointless wars but it's the people on the ground who suffer and need our help.

Granted that's true it does happen, but it's a bit like NGO's paying corrupt governments for the rights to throw out a couple of packets of plumpy-nut or whatever that peanut butter is. Yes you keep the starving kids alive in the short term, but it does nothing to improve the situation medium to long term. In fact it guarantees that tomorrow, the month after, next year, more and more starving babies will need help.

Starvation in many cases is caused by disasters and many of the NGO's focus purely on disaster refief. People may be starving due to a brutal war or a bad drought. Supplying food and shelter to displaced people or to people who can't grow crops due to water shortage is absolutely necessary. Once the rain comes again or the war ends and people can go back to their villages or land then they can start to fend for themselves again. This is how feeding people in the short term helps.

.

prinz

waraf wrote: »

I'm not sure where you got that statistic but just for the sake of argument let's say it's correct.
.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=7sBdAYXOrgAC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=history+of+military+expenditure+by+ethiopia&source=bl&ots=JZ7CYbt4aS&sig=fHDV4WZ_ZiMUCmy_RA0qU88ON_c&hl=en&ei=U8WCSsXWMMns-Aatt5GqCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false


My mistake in 1999 it was just under $2,000,000 per day on military expenditure. But sure they have the rest of us to keep the population fed don't they. It's not like they have anything else to spend it on.

$2 Trillion figure came from the Sunday Business Post article.

Another interesting thing I came across on the CIA Factbook site, re Zimbabwe, at one stage 400,000 were employed in the commercial farming sector, and the country was a net food exporter. But sure things are much better now right?

waraf

prinz wrote: »

My mistake in 1999 it was just under $2,000,000 per day on military expenditure. But sure they have the rest of us to keep the population fed don't they. It's not like they have anything else to spend it on.

Yeah I was wondering if Ethiopia was involved in some new conflict that I wasn't aware of

$2 Trillion figure came from the Sunday Business Post article.

Sorry I wasn't questioning that figure just the one million per day figure

Another interesting thing I came across on the CIA Factbook site, re Zimbabwe, at one stage 400,000 were employed in the commercial farming sector, and the country was a net food exporter. But sure things are much better now right?

400,000 out of a population of about 15 million. Well as long as those 400,000 were ok it's fine for the rest of the population to be deprived of the right to own a piece of land and have to rely solely on on the WFP for food. Things aren't better now but if we actually want the poorest people of Zimbabwe to ever become self reliant then they have to have a chance and the way they get that chance is by having a piece of land to work with and some support from outside to train them how to work the land and maybe supply them with some basic tools.

this is fun

prinz

waraf wrote: »

this is fun

Ethiopia is currently involved in military action in Somalia now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#cite_note-48

http://allafrica.com/stories/200806120368.html

$400,000,000 over $1 Mil a day 2008/2009

waraf

prinz wrote: »

Ethiopia is currently involved in military action in Somalia now.

$400,000,000 over $1 Mil a day 2008/2009

I stand corrected. I wasn't aware of that. I did notic in one of the links this little piece of info:

Ethiopia plans to increase budget spending in 2008/09 (July/June) by 21 percent to 54.3 billion birr ($5.64 billion), Finance Minister Sufian Ahmed told parliament on Tuesday. Sufian said the money would be raised through taxes, loans and grants, debt cancellation and bilateral assistance.
"The birr 54.3 billion budget for 2008/09, which exceeds the current 2007/08 budget by 21 percent, is geared at eradicating poverty, enhancing food security and curbing inflation," Sufian said.


Seems that foreign is being used to help eradicate poverty. Who'd a thunk it?

Cookie_Monster

waraf wrote: »

Seems that foreign is being used to help eradicate poverty. Who'd a thunk it?

Who really believes it though?

prinz

waraf wrote: »

Seems that foreign is being used to help eradicate poverty. Who'd a thunk it?

It's also geared at splashing more money on the military than the year before

waraf

prinz wrote: »

It's also geared at splashing more money on the military than the year before

Well if they're at war I'm not surprised. Didn't George Bush massively increase the defence budget whilst slashing the social welfare and mideicare programs during the wars he waged. Increasing the defence budget is par for the course for a country at war.
The fact that they are increasing the spend on good projects (like trying to eradicate poverty) by 21% is what we should be happy about.

waraf

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Who really believes it though?

Granted it is the politicians making this claim and if they're anything like politicians in the first world I don't blame you for being sceptical. All I would say is that many of these programs are carried out in conjunction with foreign NGOs so hopefully they will be able to ensure that the programs are carried out properly.

prinz

waraf wrote: »

Well if they're at war I'm not surprised. Didn't George Bush massively increase the defence budget whilst slashing the social welfare and mideicare programs during the wars he waged.

:eek: You simply cannot compare a first world country with the situation in Africa!! Have I not pointed that out repeatedly

waraf wrote: »

Increasing the defence budget is par for the course for a country at war.
The fact that they are increasing the spend on good projects (like trying to eradicate poverty) by 21% is what we should be happy about.

Do I think debt cancellation and foreign aid should be used on military spending hmmmm no. Do I think nation-states bordering on failure should spend their time and the world's money battering each other over a stretch of useless desert, hmmm no. Do I think we should encourage this behaviour hmmmm no. Do I think we should take care of the population of countries with the money, ability and resources to do it themselves if they wanted to, hmmm no.

waraf

prinz wrote: »

:eek: You simply cannot compare a first world country with the situation in Africa!! Have I not pointed that out repeatedly

Touche

Do I think debt cancellation and foreign aid should be used on military spending hmmmm no.

Can't argue with that

Do I think nation-states bordering on failure should spend their time and the world's money battering each other over a stretch of useless desert, hmmm no.

Nationalism is a very strong force second only to religion IMO. Governments will defend their country if they feel threatened. You might consider it a piece of useless desert but the people who live there consider it home.

Do I think we should encourage this behaviour hmmmm no.

Of course not. We should encourage peace but it's hard to enforce?

Do I think we should take care of the population of countries with the money, ability and resources to do it themselves if they wanted to, hmmm no.

We can't force governments to completely dispense with their military budget especially when they live in a particularly unstable part of the world where war is rife. If people are starving because of poor leadership or drought we should help them. The government of Sudan is funding a militia group that is terrorising their own people. Should we not help these internally displaced people because their government has spent it's money elsewhere?

.

random.stranger

walshb wrote: »

Proud of what exactly? It's been goin' on for decades and nothing has changed, so what exactly is there to be proud of? Are you an NGO member?

The people of Ireland should be proud the contribution the Irish Government has made on their behalf to third world countries. Things have changed, here's an example of one project funded by Irish Aid:

"A project funded by Irish Aid aims to reduce the number of people suffering from avoidable blindness in Mozambique. The project, run by Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) Optometry Department, University of Ulster, International Centre for Eyecare Education (ICEE) and Universidade Lūrio Mozambique will establish the first optometry course in Mozambique at UniLúrio. The result of this initiative will be the training of Mozambique’s first professional optometrists and optometry technicians who will provide a sustainable and comprehensive eye-care system as an integral part of the national health system. Over the five years of the project, almost half a million people will benefit from comprehensive eye examinations and the provision of glasses which until now are simply not available to them."

I am not a member of an NGO. I went to Africa as a volunteer. I was helping build a community centre in a small village.

walshb wrote: »

Proud of Geldof and Bono for promoting population increase in countries that cannot feed the current population. Yeah, that's somethin' to be proud of, NOT!

It has been established that in countries with high infant mortality, it is not unusual for parents to have large families, to ensure that there is somebody to look after them in their old age. So eliminating poverty leads to reduced populations. The capability of countries to feed their population has been addressed elsewhere in this thread, it is a matter of using the natural resources to their full potential and not soley depending on subsistance farming.

walshb wrote: »

So, what exactly have the likes of Bothar and GOAL done in Africa, accept stick their beaks in and interfere and take over. Money making rackets, the whole damn lot of them

Bothar and GOAL have tried to help. I think it's a cop out to say they are money making rackets.

walshb wrote: »

While we continue shipping close to a Billion Euro a year out of this country, yet many of our own vital services are being closed due to 'a lack of funding':rolleyes: Yeah, I am so proud, if only our eagerness to help
Africans was here in Ireland

Ireland has committed to give 70c out of every €100 GNP to help developing countries by the year 2012. It seems very likely that we are not going to honour hour promise to the world's poorest people. I would be concerned about what's happening with the €99.30 (if we were honouring our word). How much per year will we be giving to banks for the next decade?

random.stranger

prinz wrote: »

You're point being? Have you even read my posts?



You realise that some of the best known NGO's have to pay their way into certain countries and areas So they end up paying protection money to the very people who have put the refugees into camps in the first place, which results in a vicious circle and nothing changes.

Edit: Just a quick comparison, after the second world war in Europe, much on the continent was in ruins, milions dead, economies non-existant etc. Yet within a decade the place was booming again. The Marshall Aid was accepted, put to good use,and the populations of Europe worked themselves to the bone to get things working, efficient and moving. There has been no comparative leap forward in any sub Saharan African country despite billions in development aid, machinery, food, technical advice etc etc etc. Why not?

I read your posts up to the point you made that remark prinz.