I have taken sometime to understand the depth of the arguments that Dr Moyo has put forward in her book to put an end to aid to Africa. In my understanding of her reasons, I would like to comment from the perspective of the ‘end does not justify the means.’ To start with, when you receive, you have no reason to work extra hard because you are sure there will be a meal on your table. From this standpoint, aid kills innovation and creativity, breeds laziness, corruption and other social vices spelt out in the book. At this point, it would be important to realise that the problem does not, therefore come from the aid per se, but from the recipients of this aid. In my opinion, this is where the flaw of all her arguments against aid lie. In her book she did not look at the contribution of recipients to the stagnation of Africa’s development. True as it maybe that aid comes with strings attached, but at the end of the day, the final decision lies in the hands of recipients. What makes aid look bad are the attitudes of all who receive it. Aid in itself has nothing to do with bad attitudes. Additionally, no donor actually asks aid recipients to sit down to wait for second round donation.

In my opinion, she is right when she says you can not have sustainable development that is based on gifts. At the sametime, it would be narrow mindedness to explain and define corruption, bureacracy and stagnation in development in Africa in terms of foreign aid. If I give you a piece of cake, and you decide to go and sleep instead of taking a hole to go and now cultivate (because you have been energised), then you are not intelligent. In the final analysis, so that aid becomes meaninful and eventually contribute to economic sustainability based on Africa’s resources, poor governance should be tackled. African countries are poorly governed. Period. Politicians (most of whom are not intelligent) have just too much power. Once governance is tackled, Africa will shine again because we have all it takes for the Sun to shine!

Owen replies: With respect, I do live in Africa; and I have lived in many African countries. But I don’t think that matters. As far as I know, Dambisa Moyo does not live in Africa but that does not disqualify her from having something valid to say. I disagree with Ms Moyo not because of where she lives but because the poor quality of her evidence and her argument, and her willingness deliberately to misrepresent the evidence to make her point.

I agree with you, of course, that many private companies are more efficient and customer-oriented than many government-run organisations. But it does not follow that aid is harmful, nor that, in the absence of aid, there would be more of the private sector investment that you and I would both like to see.

In case you missed it…

I think the book actually does a great job of raising the profile of this debate (previously raised by Easterley and Bauer) through the simple fact of it being written by an African.
The book’s not perfect but it’s clearly not the debate that the aid community wants to have. They’re happy with the “doubling dollar aid” mantra. Evidence-based aid will be a critical part of the future.

Your review (here & pdf) reveals many biases and whilst it may seem sanctimonious of me, you cannot debate from an entrenched position:

Ad Hominem:

“Moyo has the front to accuse people working in the aid industry of promoting their own interests, and then – as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs – to advocate instead that the poorest countries should be encouraged to borrow more in private capital markets.”

Entrenched position:

“There are reasonable people who think…” i.e. she’s unreasonable

You argue badly about corruption, slating Moyo and then saying “now it may well be true that some aid is lost to corruption…” – therein hangs a tale.

Your overarching healthcare argument is a non-sequiteur. Period. Money does not reverse ageing and death. You jumped on the word ‘cursory’ without seeing the words “Even the most cursory”. This doesn’t mean she only looked at it this way.

The simple fact is that her argument is a threat to the hegemony of the business-class travelling, landcruiser driving, ex-pat aid-skimming cultural uber-colonialists who believe they are saving Africa. This is not a criticism of their sincerity (although bounded rationality/integrity clearly applies).

Other critics state that why not have both – aid and private sector growth, without recognising the crowding out both physically & psychologically. Aid is a subsidy for bad government!

The mosquito net story is the one to read and think about. If true it is a complete and succinct metaphor for the failure of aid.