|
WTF is up with Africa? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
There is a very legitimate argument to be made that in some cases aid can create problems even while solving others. In fact, there's a growing movement that spurns the conventional wisdom that aid is the best method of reaching marginalized populations. To a great degree, even the World Bank acknowledges this, which is why the past ten years has seen a complete shift in both the objectives and disbursement of aid and grants for projects in the developing world. I would consider myself a pretty skeptical critic of aid (I'm especially critical of the Washington Consensus and those that would continue conditionality under the auspices of securitizing development), but I don't think blanket statements like "Africa (the entire continent, or just the examples you know about?) is messed up" or "all aid is evil" really capture the complexity of the situation.
When you ask, "what is wrong with Africa?" there are a whole host of answers depending on what you identify as "wrong." Are you dismayed by poverty? Conflict? Corruption? By and large these things don't always come in threes - many countries struggle with one particular trap or another; others have managed to largely escape all three. Africa is the only region of the world without a history of statehood; prior to 1885, political control of Africa was highly decentralized - there were one or two kingdoms (the Bakongo, Zulu, Songhai) based around ethno-linguistic similarities and trade networks, and then a million localized communities centered around individual villages. There was no state. Unlike Europe or Asia, political control was a completely foreign concept.
Independence in the 60's and 70's marked the first time Africans ever had control of their destiny writ large. One of the biggest mistakes that can be made is to assume that because there are examples of effective functioning states, Africa's state creation would be easy. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana gained fame for claiming that Africans should "seek first the political kingdom, after which all else shall follow." Well, as Europe should have been able to tell Africans, it's not so simple. Of course they've made mistakes - who here is going to claim that in the first thirty years of European statehood there were no mistakes made? Remember the Dark Ages? The 100 Years' War? That war alone lasted longer than the entire history of African statehood. When you're dealing with a truncated history like that, it's not fair to compare African states to Denmark or Ireland.
These are countries that also have no history of national identity. European Kings and Queens created African borders in 1885 without the participation of actual Africans. Take Sudan for example - how is that a state? What logic was used to draw its borders? Are we really to expect that groups with long histories of competition and even conflict were to coexist peacefully in democratic societies? Right.
I'd love to have an actual discussion on this topic since this is what I earned my degree in (today as a matter of fact! just got back from graduation), but the thread is a bit disjointed, and responding to vague blanket statements not based in empirical examples or evidence is difficult and not the most efficient use of time.
Do you want to talk about the DRC? Conflict? Aid? Education? Social Development? Economic Development? Pick a topic, I'm game. |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I'd love to have an actual discussion on this topic since this is what I earned my degree in (today as a matter of fact! just got back from graduation), |
Congrats, did the same as well about a week ago. What's the degree in?
My knowledge of Africa doesn't go too deep beyond geography. People say the continent is a hole, when really, the potential is wonderful, and it's the forced organization under western ideals (like you mentioned) that has caused this massive social and physical destruction. Plus, placing the entire continent under the same label is far underselling places like South Africa. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000
Congrats, did the same as well about a week ago. What's the degree in? |
M.A. International Affairs and Development, with a regional concentration in Africa and a functional concentration in conflict and conflict resolution. :)
| quote: | | My knowledge of Africa doesn't go too deep beyond geography. People say the continent is a hole, when really, the potential is wonderful, and it's the forced organization under western ideals (like you mentioned) that has caused this massive social and physical destruction. Plus, placing the entire continent under the same label is far underselling places like South Africa. |
I wholeheartedly agree. The biggest fallacy is that Africa is all the same and that one solution applies to the whole continent. It's ironic, since that's basically what critics of aid criticize - they're claiming that aid is a one-size fits all solution, and that we should stop it universally (another one-size fits all solution).
The continent has enormous potential, though some countries have much better odds at success than others. There are some real African success stories, but those aren't nearly as sexy as movies about blood diamonds and CNN reports about rape and genocide.
To the average Westerner, Africa isn't a place, it's a caricature. |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I wholeheartedly agree. The biggest fallacy is that Africa is all the same and that one solution applies to the whole continent. It's ironic, since that's basically what critics of aid criticize - they're claiming that aid is a one-size fits all solution, and that we should stop it universally (another one-size fits all solution).
The continent has enormous potential, though some countries have much better odds at success than others. There are some real African success stories, but those aren't nearly as sexy as movies about blood diamonds and CNN reports about rape and genocide.
To the average Westerner, Africa isn't a place, it's a caricature. |
Well congrats on the M.A., with your concentration what it is, this kind of stuff is second-nature to you I'm sure.
To me, America, being a primary source of aid to African nations, is also home to an entertainment-based media that is more so in favor of spinning a story for the sake of selling more newspapers. Obviously, we both know this. Unfortunately, this perspective of telling global stories bleeds into other sectors of how U.S. citizens perceive world events, especially those that take place in Africa.
Africa is home to several countries that possess an unbelievable abundance of natural resources, many of which could propel local economies into the stratosphere if they were utilized in an efficient manner. On that note, Africa is also home to what many call the only fourth-world country in existence (Chad). With such drastic contrast within a single continent, people will tend to alter their view as to what constitutes a ty place vs. a place that would be an excellent contribution to the world market would there be a few minor (or major) adjustments made to various economic muscles present. We see Africa as '' because the media talks of nothing but starvation, AIDS and tribal warfare. These issues are definitely prevalent in some nations, but certainly not all. Not even close.
We have to remember that European colonialism transformed many of African's countries from the inside out. Back in the 1940's, places like Angola were among the wealthiest of locations on the planet, with local and national market strength at a high that would put their competitiveness on par with the U.S. and Western Europe. Once these countries started achieving independence, the colonials took off, and with them their wealth. Did we honestly expect a seamless transition from one era to the next?
I feel this post is unbelievably vague and isn't striking anything in terms of new ground...I'm a little out of my league here considering where your education stems from regarding this subject matter. :p |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
You're not out of your league at all. I think you're absolutely right.
It's very important to view the contours of Africa properly, especially given the disparate geographical situations experienced by individual states. Even under a healthy regime capable of good governance, Chad (which has neither a healthy regime nor good governance) would probably be screwed. Lack of access to markets coupled by bad neighbors and scarce resources make it difficult to even keep its citizens alive, much less try to improve their standard of living to something approaching acceptable standards.
On the other hand, your other example is something of a success story. Angola experienced a very violent conflict after independence that lasted for decades. At the end of the conflict, Angola's development indicators were indeed among the world's worst. The conflict was horrible, and may have been the second-most deadly since Vietnam (after the DRC). However, be careful where you attribute the blame. It's easy to blame Angolans for not having their together, but very little of the fighting was done by Angolans. Troops from the U.S., the Soviet Union, South Africa, Zaire, and even China and Cuba participated in that conflict. In other words, the government was screwed from the start, given a successful demagogue stoking the flames of ethnic animosity (Jonas Savimbi) and his penchant for securing the favor of a whole host of international donors sympathetic to whatever cause he claimed to promote. Hell, Reagan called Savimbi "Africa's future" or something like that.
Since Savimbi's death, Angola has enjoyed growth rates of up to 21% per annum - a truly incredible number if you think about it - especially given the fact that the U.S. grows by about 3-4% in a good year.
That said, governance is still a problem in Angola, and development there has definitely helped the rich to a far greater degree than the poor. Chinese involvement has only encouraged this unequal distribution of wealth, since pro-poor development strategies are no longer even encouraged within government. But some will inevitably trickle down.
What remains to be seen is whether this growth can continue unabated - especially given the recent financial downturn and fall in oil prices. Vast resource wealth may seem like a blessing, but I challenge you to name a single petro-state that is "successful" in terms of democratic governance. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
I think this was paid for by the government of Angola, but their statistics aren't incorrect - check out this report on the state of Angola's economy in 2009:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/Angola_24.pdf
21% real growth in GDP and an increase by $20 billion in cash reserves over the past five years is nothing short of amazing, and shows that there are African states capable of achieving enormous development success.
That said, I'm still waiting to see the education and health indicators, because at last estimate by the World Bank, Angola was still only spending 5% of its public budget on public education and healthcare provision combined. Considering that they have the money (as opposed to other African states that can claim they don't), that's pretty shameful. |
|
|
| bigjimslade002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
Boris the bear has spoken. |
and you do NOT wanna make boris the bear angry
 |
|
|
| Krypton |
| I'm not going to advocate complete cut off of all aide to Africa. All I'm saying is, we need to help them, help themselves. I see a lot of Africa stuck in one massive welfare trap. |
|
|
| spitty |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Indeed, I'm being compassionate.;) |
hardly:rolleyes: |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day
Teach an african man to fish, he turns the fishing rod into a weapon and becomes a pirate hehe
Lebez, I ordered that book "States and Power in Africa" by jeffrey herbst, the one you reccomended in the PDD-does it go into detail about aid, or is it predominantly about his taxation theory? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Damerchi
Lebez, I ordered that book "States and Power in Africa" by jeffrey herbst, the one you reccomended in the PDD-does it go into detail about aid, or is it predominantly about his taxation theory? |
It's primarily about state formation in general - it compares the African experience to the European one, and then lays out some challenges and opportunities for successful power consolidation in the African state. It's a very interesting premise though, and jives well with those that would say that colonialism has been very disadvantageous for the success of cohesive states. What I found most interesting about it was Herbst's discussion of the evolution of European sovereignty as opposed to the simple assumption that African sovereignty exists. In Europe, sovereignty is largely the result of self-determination. In Africa, sovereignty is largely the result of determinations made by Europe nearly 100 years before independence. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| I recommend that people watch Darwin's Nightmare. |
|
|
|
|
