quote:

Originally posted by Aortik Do you think it's possible that charity does more harm than good?

I do, but not for the reasons you list. I'm not of the opinion that the problem is lack of competition. In fact, I'm a pretty close follower of development critiques that show that greater competition actually breeds inequality (if you think about it, the capitalist economy is inherently based on inequality as a basis of compensation, and all too often we like to think that competition is free and fair when it is anything but).

There's a growing group of Africans who are opposed to aid as a form of neo-colonial dependency, arguing that instead of freeing Africans from the constraints of poverty, aid has simply distorted income distribution and made the poor reliant upon the largesse of the West. In fact, this recent interview with Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian economist educated in the States, is quite interesting:

quote:

Your verdict about development aid is pretty harsh. Moyo: "I'm really not saying anything new. In fact, I'm plagiarising. I quote other people's research. As early as the sixties, Peter Bauer, the development economist, was describing development aid as 'a tax on poor people in rich countries that benefits rich people in poor countries'. He was ignored. In the world of development aid it is not a secret that it just doesn't work. But aid organisations and celebrities like Bob Geldof are keeping the myth alive. My own family suffers the consequences of development aid every day." What are those consequences then? Moyo: "First and foremost the widespread corruption. The people in power plunder the treasury and the treasury is filled with development aid money. The corruption has contaminated the whole of society. Aid leads to bureaucracy and inflation, to laziness and inertia. Aid hurts exports. Thanks to foreign aid the people in power can afford not to care about their people. But the worst part of it is: aid undermines growth. The economies of those countries that are the most dependent on foreign aid have shrunk by an average of 0.2 percent per year ever since the seventies." But surely donor countries have checks and balances. They demand good governance. Moyo: "But at the end of the day they let the African countries get away with it. World Bank research has shown that 85 percent of development aid was used for other than the intended purpose. Donor countries are propping up the most corrupt regimes. From 1980 until 1996, 72 percent of World Bank aid went to countries that did not abide by the rules. The need for donor countries to just keep on giving appears to be insatiable."

http://www.nrc.nl/international/art...ust_not_working

Pretty damning. I think she goes to far and is way too optimistic about the ability of Africa to stand on its own, but she actually advocates for the unconditional end of aid in all forms - education, health care, food assistance, everything.

All that said, I don't think technical assistance in the form of tax advice really constitutes "charity" in the same form that monetized aid does - re-orienting the development industry to focus on good governance through taxation would actually decrease the aid burden over the long haul and help African states regain independence in service provision and development projects.

___________________

I don't know WTF Africa needs exactly but I'm sure more taxation isn't the answer. They need the same thing all countries need to prosper..stability...a stable government and a stable currency (no more zimbabwe-style devaluations) Get a widely recognized currency in place that isn't being devalued at a ridiculous level and you can worry about taxation later. Sound money is the key to a stable society.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I do, but not for the reasons you list. I'm not of the opinion that the problem is lack of competition. In fact, I'm a pretty close follower of development critiques that show that greater competition actually breeds inequality (if you think about it, the capitalist economy is inherently based on inequality as a basis of compensation, and all too often we like to think that competition is free and fair when it is anything but).

I do not disagree with you one bit. And just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that capitalism is the answer, even though I came off as such.

When I speak of competition, I do not necessarily mean it within a contained, economic sense. I mean it in a global, socioeconomic sense. With the need to update Africa to a stable, modern, economic level comes the flux of cultural identity - exactly what you were speaking of before. Africa appears caught in its inexorable history with western domination and culture as well as the geographical and even cultural influence of more eastern nations. This doesn't leave a great deal of room for any given country to forge its own identity. As sticky as that sounds, it is a significant factor in the economy of a nation, as every individual in the work force must be expected to not only support their selves and families, but also uphold the stability and will of their given society and economy for their own benefit; with the satisfaction of success comes the conceit of pride - an identity is formed.

Of course this is a gross simplification of a process that is not always reproducible, but my point was that competition - state-endorsed or not - is indeed a factor of shifting inequality, but is conducive to a country's prosperity and identity, if not only for its ability to wrest sovereignty from the back of the welfare queue.

The danger of this being that, as discussed before, it may require a massive overhead to actually implement any lasting infrastructure, and as such, you risk blowback or failure - both of which could possibly lead to even further conflict or even severe religious fanaticism. See Iran.

In Salammbo is a great example of what desperation brings about in a nation... but you haven't read that yet!

quote:

There's a growing group of Africans who are opposed to aid as a form of neo-colonial dependency, arguing that instead of freeing Africans from the constraints of poverty, aid has simply distorted income distribution and made the poor reliant upon the largesse of the West. In fact, this recent interview with Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian economist educated in the States, is quite interesting: http://www.nrc.nl/international/art...ust_not_working Pretty damning. I think she goes to far and is way too optimistic about the ability of Africa to stand on its own, but she actually advocates for the unconditional end of aid in all forms - education, health care, food assistance, everything.

Very interesting. I think you're right, it is a bit extreme, as it seems to me that a lot of people may die merely to serve some economic idealism. Despite our species' propensity towards bringing that about anyways, I couldn't possibly bring myself to approve of that in any idealistic sense.

quote:

All that said, I don't think technical assistance in the form of tax advice really constitutes "charity" in the same form that monetized aid does - re-orienting the development industry to focus on good governance through taxation would actually decrease the aid burden over the long haul and help African states regain independence in service provision and development projects.

You've definitely got a point there. But even the best intentions of sincere aid in the form of assistance in institutionalizing autonomy could be interpreted as pity or parenting, and unfortunately, interpretation is almost all that counts.

Though I am operating under the presumption that the strength of a nation's identity lies merely in its viciousness - it's ability to influence and assimilate for its own means just another form of violence, economic or territorial.

___________________

Sorry it took so long to reply in this thread - somehow I missed this post.

quote:

Originally posted by Aortik When I speak of competition, I do not necessarily mean it within a contained, economic sense. I mean it in a global, socioeconomic sense. With the need to update Africa to a stable, modern, economic level comes the flux of cultural identity - exactly what you were speaking of before. Africa appears caught in its inexorable history with western domination and culture as well as the geographical and even cultural influence of more eastern nations. This doesn't leave a great deal of room for any given country to forge its own identity.

This is a really good point - even "African nationalists" at independence assumed the modern nation-state as created by European colonialism - self-determination has never existed in Africa, and therefore not a single state is built upon a common identity.

quote:

As sticky as that sounds, it is a significant factor in the economy of a nation, as every individual in the work force must be expected to not only support their selves and families, but also uphold the stability and will of their given society and economy for their own benefit; with the satisfaction of success comes the conceit of pride - an identity is formed.

I would argue that this is not how identity is primarily formed - if you remember our earlier discussion of Kundera, I would put forth the suggestion that identity is not formed by success but rather through collective failure. Sure, some identity hinges upon the celebration of significant collective achievement (i.e. academic research that suggests national soccer teams are "creating" a common identity for many African states), an even stronger identity is more often rooted in the collective failure or tragedy of a group (i.e. the defeat at Kosovo Fields for Serbs, the Battle of Britain for England, 9/11 for Americans).

Part of Africa's problem is perhaps that other than colonialism, which was less a symbolic event than a systemic method of oppression, there is no unifying tragedy for any one African state - the most tragic moments in African history have wrent states apart, rather than unified them in common grief (i.e. Rwanda, Sierra Leone).

This gets back to my original point that the lack of security threats to the cohesive existence of African states has led not only to the failure of any real national identity formation, but also the failure of state institutions to evolve to incorporate the notion of public service.

quote:

Of course this is a gross simplification of a process that is not always reproducible, but my point was that competition - state-endorsed or not - is indeed a factor of shifting inequality, but is conducive to a country's prosperity and identity, if not only for its ability to wrest sovereignty from the back of the welfare queue. The danger of this being that, as discussed before, it may require a massive overhead to actually implement any lasting infrastructure, and as such, you risk blowback or failure - both of which could possibly lead to even further conflict or even severe religious fanaticism. See Iran.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the point being made here - it seems to me that growing inequality leads directly to more widespread instability, no?

quote:

In Salammbois a great example of what desperation brings about in a nation... but you haven't read that yet!

I really do need to get on that.

quote:

You've definitely got a point there. But even the best intentions of sincere aid in the form of assistance in institutionalizing autonomy could be interpreted as pity or parenting, and unfortunately, interpretation is almost all that counts.

This is far too true. Many dependenistas view Western benevolence with such skepticism that even the best of intentions could be mistaken by many as exploitation.

___________________