Aid agencies typically assault our emotions in commercial breaks by showing African children crying and emaciated people wandering around hopelessly to the sound of a mournful classical soundtrack. And why not? I suppose the considerable public relations machines that foundations possess these days overexert themselves to provoke feelings of collective guilt, that citizens of richer western countries should have so much when others have so precious little. It's a similar psychological tactic to the one used in tabloid newspapers; basically shock tactics equals sales. Create a reaction by getting someone to think in a certain way and you've got them hooked.
Anyway that's the subject of another discussion. Africa is a continent shrouded in myth and stereotype. Ask people for three words associated with Africa and they will probably say something like famine, genocide and AIDS. How has this come about? Without doubt Africa has experienced a litany of woes since the years of Independence. But here I wish to make the point that Aid donors and Aid Agencies have, although well meaning, created more problems than solutions.
The problems arise when agencies begin campaigns by painting too simplistic and bleak a picture in order to secure funding from the public. The message sent out is that bombarding a particular crisis with money will lead to relief. The media finds itself working on behalf of agencies, seeking out the worst most horrifying stories on the ground.
Bonanzas of aid have been shown to undermine developing countries' self-reliance, encourage dependency and perpetuate damaging regimes and failing economic policies. When a country is flooded by cheap foodstuffs local producers' prices will inevitably be driven down. There is the danger of food aid being pilfered and sold on the black market as happened in Somalia in the 1990s, or even used as a weapon, withheld from certain parts of the population for political motives. It may even be sold to buy weapons.
Among other perverse incentives governments may learn how easily obtainable aid is and therefore make no effort to institutionalise tools leading to self-reliance and reform. Any strong economy must create an environment where people are free to be productive and what produces this is sound domestic policy.
Doug Banlow* points out that few programs have consumed as many resources with as few positive results as foreign aid to economically less-developed countries. With little evidence to suggest long-term aid promotes stability and growth, in many cases it has perpetuated the regimes of brutal dictatorships (see France's steadfast support of the Hutu regime during the genocide of 1994). In truth aid, in many instances, has amounted to little more than bribery to ensure hegemony in political and geographical spheres of influence.
Instead of dwelling on the disaster scenarios the media should be encouraged to take a more balanced view of individual crises and move away from the quick-fix aid solution. Contrary to what we may think, a quick donation may ease our conscience but will not solve a long-term problem. Aid needs to be targeted in crisis scenarios as much as possible and needs to be delivered in a measured way. Most importantly trade barriers to developing nations should be lowered and nations encouraged to learn to feed themselves rather than becoming accustomed to an aid-dependent economy.
Acknowledgements
''Can Aid Do more harm Than Good?'' Henri Astier
''The Selfish Altruist'' Tony Vaux
*''Help or Hindrance: Can Foreign Aid Prevent International Crises?'' Doug Banlow
''The State of Africa'' Martin Meredith
