More money = more development?
Guest post by Volker Seitz on the controversy surrounding the USAID
President Donald Trump has ordered a 90-day pause in development aid - with the exception of humanitarian aid - until its efficiency and consistency with US foreign policy have been assessed. Germany should take this as an example, says guest author.
By Volker Seitz
Deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller justifies the dissolution of USAID:
“There is probably no entity in the government that is more of an entrenched power center of unelected bureaucrats with less accountability and less oversight than USAID. They funnel money to their cronies all over the world to a swampy network of NGOs, non-governmental organizations, and cut outs including potentially some very troubling elements focusing on things like regime change and destabilizing foreign countries.”
Donald Trump is not destroying democracy: he is restoring it, Miller says.
The agency will be dissolved as an independent institution and parts will be incorporated into the State Department to bring it into line with US foreign policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called USAID completely uncooperative and accused employees of being “unwilling to answer simple questions” about programs.
USAID has also been suspected for decades of supporting CIA operations under the guise of development aid (for example, arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the fight against the then communist government or USAID's role during the coronavirus pandemic). The agency had an annual budget of 42.8 billion dollars at its disposal.
Germany also lacks control instruments
Why is this measure being condemned in Germany? Would it be so bad if the newly elected German government were to critically review the years-long policy of flooding our charity industry with money (currently 33.9 billion euros, of which over 11.5 billion euros is bilateral alone1)? And not just in Africa, which is still the largest recipient of so-called development aid?
Based on my experiences in Africa and Armenia, I have been calling for years for the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) to be integrated into the Federal Foreign Office. All activities of the German government abroad must be integrated into our overall relations with the country concerned. We are the only country that still has a development ministry. Integrating the BMZ into the Federal Foreign Office could save a lot of friction and taxpayers' money.
The core of the problem
The roots of persistent poverty in Africa lie in the demographic development that is thwarting prosperity gains. What is needed is reliable governance that is not corrupt, keeps its promises, acts transparently in the raw materials sector and prevents illegal financial flows. Africans such as Themba Sono, Wole Soyinka, Andrew Mwenda and George Ayittey are convinced that prosperity does not come from charitable gifts, but from entrepreneurial creativity, work and innovation - and from good government framework conditions.
Simply put, the problem with so-called development aid is that we do not help people so that they will soon no longer need help. People stand by and watch as they are served, at best, development results that they have nothing to do with, that they have not worked for themselves - and which they therefore often do not want to accept and maintain.
The “helper industry”
As we know, “well-intentioned” is often the opposite of well done. The affected people themselves are not asked how they feel about development aid and what they think could help them. Viewing Africans as wards is the unspoken business basis of the vast majority of “projects”. The list of critics of traditional development aid has grown steadily in recent years. Individual aid projects may make sense, but projects are no substitute for structures.
There is still a vast network of state and private aid agencies that all want to “help”. Countless “projects” or “programs” have been implemented as foreign bodies in the countries. As I have observed time and again in my 17 years in various African countries, these projects have left no lasting traces shortly after their end. They made people dependent, accustomed them to a state of constant aid and thus hindered their own initiative. During their lifetime, they were successful because there was never a shortage of money for operating resources, vehicles and high salaries.
If there were independent effectiveness checks, countless implementing organizations would have to stop their work. But without development projects and the activities of so-called non-governmental organizations, unemployment among aid workers would be particularly worrying. I do not have the impression that those involved in “development aid” ever ask themselves whether their “product” is being received, needed or understood by those in need in Africa. Aid must not undermine motivation. But the aid industry seems immune to setbacks - the money must be spent at all costs.
The aid industry has more money at its disposal than can be spent wisely. Demanding more and more funding without sanctions for breaches of human rights clauses or transparency rules harms people in developing countries. The ritual invocation of the 0.7 percent target - i.e. the proportion of gross national income (GNI) that should be made available for development aid - can hardly be surpassed in its lack of ideas. It falsely suggests that “more money = more development”. With less money, targeted at countries worthy of support and governed by the rule of law, we could finally free the recipient countries from degrading aid.
Personal responsibility to create prosperity
Charity does not eradicate poverty. Spontaneous solidarity after devastating natural disasters and donations for emergency aid are indisputable. But in development aid, we must have the courage to admit mistakes and abandon paths that do not work. For many countries in Africa, the path of traditional development aid was wrong. Perhaps not in every case, but it has not achieved the desired results. In my opinion, encouragement and empowerment are the best recipes for creating prosperity. However, those affected must also want it.
Africa will only become a continent of hope when serious economic reforms are implemented, intra-African markets are opened up, investment laws are improved, the education and health systems are strengthened and corrupt elites are held to account. Much of the development aid we have given to Africa over the last 60 years has not had the desired effect because it has reinforced people's lack of self-reliance. The system groans, but is sealed off from criticism. The care industry has a tendency to dictate to Africans how they should live. This paternalism disempowers people. Why are they constantly being told that they cannot solve their own problems?
The question of whether aid can do harm is rarely asked. Which aid organization has ever formulated the goal of making itself superfluous? The image of Africa is shaped by aid organizations and helpers who see development aid as their life's work.
Development aid often cements existing power structures, promotes corruption and environmental destruction. Africa's development can only come from Africa itself - through education, investment in agriculture and small businesses, more local value creation and free trade.
This text is a mix of two articles that first appeared in German in the Mittelrhein-Deutsches Tagblatt and on Achgut. I have added links and footnotes.
Volker Seitz was ambassador to Africa for the German Foreign Office for seventeen years and is the author of the bestseller Afrika wird armregiert (Africa is being governed into poverty), dtv, 11th edition 2021.
Guest posts do not automatically reflect the opinion of the blog owner.
Note: During my own time as a consultant in a bilateral development project in Egypt, run by the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ, now GIZ), the equivalent of USAID, I repeatedly heard from both local and foreign experts that the well-paid jobs at USAID were highly sought after and that generous aid funds were distributed, but that the projects implemented proved to be neither very effective nor sustainable.
Germany is considered the international front runner and spends more money on development aid as a percentage than the USA.