Have you been moved by the pictures of the starving children in famine-stricken Somalia? Have you sent your widow's mite to World Vision or Oxfam? Do you think your contribution is going to improve the lives of those poor (but somehow attractive) kids you see on TV? Before you reach for your credit card, think again.
Back in November 2009, in "Foreign aid: hurts us, hurts them", Walt talked about the bureaucratic mess that is USAID and its Canadian counterpart, CIDA. I've forgotten which impoverished hellhole was the "victim of the month" at that time. That was before Haiti, wasn't it? So perhaps it was Rwanda or Somalia, or some other African hellhole.
The same countries keep appearing in the Top Ten Aid Recipients. The droughts and famines recur again and again. And guilt-ridden white westerners -- the Volvo liberals, I call them -- keep raising money to throw at the problems of the Third World, money which is for the most part wasted, misappropriated or stolen by the corrupt and venal dictators and warlords who rule the world's poorest places.
Today's case in point is Somalia, where famine is officially widespread. The United Nations implores the rich countries to forget about their own problems and send billions of dollars to feed the hungry in the Horn of Africa. Just as we did about 20 years ago, the last time Somalia was the biggest basket case.
Michael Maren writes of his experiences in Somalia (and other sandpits) in The Road to Hell (The Free Press, 1997). The subtitle says it all: The ravaging effects of foreign aid and international charity. Here are a couple of pertinent paragraphs.
Aid distribution is just another big, private business that relies on government contracts. [Aid organizations] are paid by the U.S. government to give away surprlus food produced by subsidized U.S. farmers. The more food [they] give away, the more money they receive from the government to administer the handouts.
Food aid attracts people to refugee camps, where they die from dysentery or measles or other diseases they wouldn't have contracted in the bush. Is there really a food shortage when anyone with money can find all the food he wants, when the aid workers themselves enjoy meals that the locals could never get even in the best of times? And why does it always seem that a group of local elites finds a way to get rich from the disaster? Are we contributing to the problem by dealing with the businessmen-politicians who lease Land Cruisers and homes to the aid agencies and who provide trucks to transport food?
Maren goes on to make the connection between famine and dictatorship.
No country was ever transformed from being famine-prone to food self-sufficiency by international charity. As Harvard economist Amartya Sen has shown, famines always occur in authoritarian states, when the government mismanages the economy. Famines disappear when those countries become market-sufficient. India, for example -- the epitome of the famine-afflicted land when I was a child -- no longer suffers famines despite its huge populations.
And some targets of charity get worse. Today, after huge infusions of international aid, Somalia and all its formerly self-sufficient neighbors are chronically hungry and dependent on foreign food. It becomes increasingly difficult for aid workers to ignore the compelling correlation between massive international food aid and increasing vulnerability to famine. "Our charity does not overcome famine, and may help to prolong it", someone will always lament. Those who spend the time to study the local economies see that the people have now geared their own activities not to returning to their old lives but to getting their hands on aid.
The emphasis above is mine. Please keep in mind, dear reader, that Maren wrote those words in the mid-90s. Has anything changed in Somalia as the result of the billions of dollars of our money -- yours and mine -- poured down that rathole in the 15-20 years since the last "crisis"? Evidently not.
No comments:
Post a Comment