This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Can donor funding really fix African challenges, or should we empower African communities to address their own challenges?
Charity gives but does not really transform. For a very long time, donor assistance has been chanelled through to Africa and that really hasnt changed much. Could it be possible to birth a generation of people who are willing to be empowered with means of generating income that eventually get channeled back into communities for purposes of delivering renewal and transformation? How do we get communities to participate in the engineering of a promising future both for the continent and individual nations?
Yvanna Saint-Fort
Keddy Moise
Jim Smithson 10+
As difficult as this is the hear, Africa suffers from a deadly combination of immorality, greed, laziness and corruption.
There is not enough money in the world to fix this. In fact, money only makes the problem worse.
Nandi Chendori Love
I agree say that we need to empower African communities to address their own challenges. This has been my goal since moving to Memphis,TN. I was raised in predominantly Caucasian social environments; Church, school, community events and so on. When I attempted to educate African American communities in Memphis on the fact that we need to better understand ourselves to better understand others socially, i became an outcast. I was told that I had the "White woman mentality and needed to move on out!"
Yes, what you want is very possible, but the learners got to catch on and take the initiative to know, grow and succeed at committing to the cause. If its hard where you are, it got to be easy here. but people do not get it.
God bless and thank you
Nandi
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
The problem is not the aid; it is the lack of ideas and intellectual bankrupcy of the African elite.
Salim Solaiman 50+
Innocent Ukomba
Patience Kankeh
However, while most are discussing the government, I'm of the notion that it will take educated Africans carrying out a project in their village or town and demonstrating how to successful eliminate a local challenge and then move on to the next challenge. funding can help make this possible.
We have to "think globally but act locally."
As ex-pats we can choose to be part of the solution and not part of the problem (ex-pats who are western educated and are part of corrupt and suppressing governments).
Casey Kitchel
Rather than relying solely on one approach to fixing challenges of Africa, I think it could be better to utilize both approaches because I believe using both could potentially reach more people and have a greater impact, whereas if using only one, fewer people might get assistance. The way I see these approaches is like this: the donor funding is a top down solution, and the empowering of African community members is a bottom up solution. Communities that need donations could have access to available funding/resources to get what they need, communities that want to empower themselves could do so, or, communities could use both together to accomplish more than if they had just used one or the other. And that's why I think it could be best to use both funding from donors and the empowerment of communities in Africa to fix the challenges of Africa.
But, I think how local government and community leaders go about instituting policies and distributing aid plays a role in determining how effective either donor funding and community empowerment can be.
Ruth-Ellen Henry
Jesus Zuazo
Bongani Sibeko
Tify Ndanoboi 30+
1) Politicians dont use the money for what it's intended.
2) It's too often given, not as charity, but as you get this if you comply. Thats not freedom, thats slavery.
emilio gaviria
Yvanna Saint-Fort
In reference to 1, I sort of agree. A lot of politicians all around the world are corrupt. But assuming that every single politician is corrupt and won't use money where it needs to be used is exactly what allows these corrupt politicians to get away with everything. It's assumed that there is no such thing as an "un-corrupt" politician when in fact there is. It takes the same effort for someone that is corrupt to come to power as it takes for someone who isn't corrupt to come to power.
Munyah Makoni
Innocent Ukomba
Write to us if you can
info@gatherinchrist.com, zimbabwe@gatherinchrist.com, +263(0)733 363 161
John Moonstroller 20+
As a growing population stresses the world's food and water supplies, corporations and investors in wealthy countries are buying up foreign farmland and the freshwater perks that come with it"
By Brian Bienkowski and Environmental Health News
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=corporations-grabbing-land-and-water-overseas
Aftica being purchased by foriegn corporations:
"The land rush, which is still accelerating, has been triggered by the worldwide food shortages which followed the sharp oil price rises in 2008, growing water shortages and the European Union's insistence that 10% of all transport fuel must come from plant-based biofuels by 2015.
In many areas the deals have led to evictions, civil unrest and complaints of "land grabbing".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/07/food-water-africa-land-grab
"The wealthy countries repeatedly find new ways to screw Africa. They’re purchasing the fishing rights and denying locals the rights to fish the sea or selling more guns or owning profitable enterprises that ought to be owned locally."
"...This is another example of the new wave of colonialism that is blocking Africa from making progress. Even worse, part of what is driving the effort is fuel." http://americablog.com/2010/03/rich-buying-farm-land-and-water-rights-in-africa-while-locals-go-hungry.html
Africa will soon be owned lock stock and barrel by foreign corporations. There is no hope for the people there. Their fate is sealed by modern countries need for more food, water and fuel.
Halli Sturm
I watched Ernesto Sirolli's TED talk on this same subject, mentioned elsewhere in this discussion. Quite poignant! A friend of my father's used to say about the transfer of money in business situations, one has to have an "inside person" knowing the scope and real story and caring about success, to make a proposition and followthrough from an "outside organization", fly. I believe that is true and have observed it in my family's owned business as well. The same applies to aid. I will submit a practical example below Brandon's post, where I was involved in an "aid to Africa" project. But here let me also mention about my mother's friend, Susan Andresen, who was that "inside person" from Mesa with friends she made in what her family called "her beloved Africa". Susan went personally to serve the area receiving the aid and to establish lifelong ties of friendship. Her goals were reached and her efforts became a successful project as well as forming lasting friendships between American families and African families.
Brandon Hirneise
Halli Sturm
Calvin Davis
Timothy Bradshaw
There are a couple of TEDtalks about donors and aid workers learning to listen to the recipients of aid.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jacqueline_novogratz_invests_in_ending_poverty.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_damberger_what_happens_when_an_ngo_admits_failure.html
and Ernesto Sirolli's talk mentioned elsewhere in this discussion. These are important concepts for 'westerners' to appreciate.
In the time I spent in Africa, I noted that the radio was almost universally present, and could reach people where no other means could arrive. That is why I thought your idea of dissemination via radio an excellent proposal.
Using music or comedy to attract and hold interest, or even as the means of instruction would certainly be very effective. I think the main problem would be getting airtime on state radio, and getting the script passed by the authority. With star-power (from popular entertainers) behind and an engaging script, one may be able to get some airtime.These are full-time jobs for producers, writers and psychologists. Donor money would help, but everything else is homegrown.
ZX Style 10+
Please learn from China. In the eighties they were in a similar position as many African countries are now in.
They had an overcrowded country, hardly no minerals, no economy, no technology etc. And the most important is that china had no charity. THEY DID IT ALL THEMSELVES.
The fun thing of China is, that they made an advantage of their poverty.
BY USING CHEAP LABOUR.
Allthough it may looked unfair, it improved China's overall wealth.
African countries do not exploit their cheap labor forces.
So what is the advantage of Africa then? NONE, That 's why it hasn't changed since charity arrived.
My advise to Africa is:
Learn from China how to build a economy from nothing.
And fire corrupt politicians etc.
Edward Hartwig
Many African countries (and their leaders) have been focusing on education for quite some time. There have been sincere movements to direct students into necessary fields for nation-building, from structural engineering to ethics and economics, and there have been conscious decisions to fast-track vital services, using central european style programs to spit out 18 year old engineers and 14 year old tradesmen. The greatest allure for those newly minted graduates, or the affluent college bound youngster is to continue with school in the west, or to work there in a market that is both challenging and financially rewarding. For their part, most western societies depend on such elements of educated diversity--whether it is a tech-/science-driven demand from the US or points-based immigration schemes in central Europe. To meet demand, western policies have made it easy for the well educated to leave developing nations and heir markets have supplied the demand. NGOs and multilateral organizations gobble up talent, both globally and locally, and many individuals move abroad or are displaced. They often shift to a global, not local, focus on growth and development.
I think the question to be asked is not about educating African leaders, rather about luring Africa's native talent back to Africa. To do that is a combination of demand and reward, and it requires a promise of safety and stability. "Africa" doesn't need to be educated, rather re-invigorated with its own passionate leadership.
See talks by Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala.
Desiree M. Mondesir
Paul Disu-Lord
"Africans don't need to be given a fish. They don't even need to be "taught how to fish"" by Desiree M. Mondesir is my meaning. However, Owen Barder´s Complexity and Development is an excellent reference.
John Moonstroller 20+
Of course they will never pay off the interest on the loans, even though they have long ago paid the principle sum they originally borrowed. It's just a viciouos circle.
The solution is simple:
If the principle sum is paid off, forgive the loan, forgo the interest payments and start putting the money the people make to uplift their lot by building schools, hospitals, etc.
But of course, the monetary fund will not forgive the loan, even though the principle sum was long ago paid off.
This is the normal way of modern societies dealing with developing countries. They don't want them to become a developed country because they would compete for the goods that make the lives of the rich pleasant. The bottom line is there is not enough resources to make 8 billion people all happy at the same time, so the system is built to depress the lives of the many so that the few can enjoy the profits of progress.
Until the world embraces socialize, for the sake of mutual progress for everyone, then the world will not change and the fruits of progress and technology will continue to erode the earth and imprison 2/3 of the worlds population to give a few the pleasant life.
emilio gaviria
Fritzie Reisner 100+
I have read only part and therefore don't feel comfortable summarizing yet, but there is also a website by that name and, I am sure, book reviews online.
John Moonstroller 20+
Science has show that if you take all the worlds resources and divide them equally into the number of people on the earth, we would have 8 billion poor people living together in poverty.
Look at the truth...... 75 percent of all the wealth in a world of 8 billion people is in the hands of 20 % or 1.8 billion people. If we divide that number by the number of well to do societies, it means in each country, on average that 9 million in each country have all the assets and money. The money that the other 75% (in the us that would be 225 million out of 300 million) only have money that they borrowed and owe interest on.
Using our current technology, we can only supply the good life to a planet with 1.8 billion people. This means we either have to decrease the number of people or get use to this way of life.
By 2050 we won't be having this discussion. After robots take over all the jobs, we will be doing something, desperately, to reduce the world population to around 1 billion or less. It's not going to be a pretty sight. I'm glad I won't be around. My grandchildren, will.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
I know many people believe economics is a set of rules for concentrating wealth, but the only support I have seen for this belief is a misinterpretation many people derive from the zeitgeist movie, which many people take for a documentary when even its director claims it was meant only as art.
The study of economics does not suggest it is meant as a tool for concentrating wealth.
I do notice that many people hold to their views on this subject with religious zeal.
John Moonstroller 20+
I haven't seen Zeitgeist.
It's not the study of economics that concentrates the wealth Fritzie.... it's the practice of it.
Yes we do have enough food, if you include the insects, etc that many people eat. With the current decline in seafood populations, you can remove fish from the diet. If you enjoy corn and wheat, you'll be ok. Also if you like soy products. While we have some natural gas for production of artificial fertilizer, when that runs out it's game over.
Robots don't eat food so why grow it for 8 or 9 billion people?
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Economics and financial management are not the same discipline.
I don't think when those working in the area of hunger talk about food that they are including insects.
John Moonstroller 20+
continued: "...A policy paper on the eating of insects is being formally considered by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. The FAO held a meeting on the theme in Thailand in 2008 and there are plans for a world congress in 2013.
Professor Arnold van Huis, an entomologist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands and the author of the UN paper, says eating insects has advantages.
"There is a meat crisis," he said. "The world population will grow from six billion now to nine billion by 2050 and we know people are consuming more meat. Twenty years ago the average was 20kg, it is now 50kg, and will be 80kg in 20 years. If we continue like this we will need another Earth."
Yes Fritzie, Those who rule the planet have plans for the kind of food you will be eating by 2050, just 37 years from now. I read the reports from WHO and the really good organizations in France : http://www.actionagainsthunger.org/about/acf-international
The demand for Beef is growing in developing countries, for those who can afford it. The rest will have to get used to bugs. That is the way the world turns in the financial spheres. Earth worms are a big product and, apparently, in the UK, so is horse meat.
Feeding 9 billion people and keeping them healthy is beyond our planets capacity.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
This is not to say that someone might not be thinking about the potential benefits of eating insects.
I know protein and micronutrients, along with distribution, are enormous issues.
John Moonstroller 20+
"The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving" http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm
In my opinion, I think the current way we administrate the planet is a complete failure. We need to start anew. I believe it is safe to say, those currently in management positions are really imbeciles, cowards and/or completely self-serving.
I'm a coward for not reacting more strongly in my demands to fix this problem. I am a failure.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
We just have to keep doing what we can do and not give up until we're over, I think.
Calvin Davis
1) Culturally engrained corruption; meaning the Western definition of corruption does not apply in these parts of the world. Mainly because the culture fosters this type of behavior in order to get ahead, which is in-turn both socially acceptable/unacceptable at the same time. Hence the vicious cycle of rebels overthrowing governments, and the new government being overthrown by new rebels with the same inherent corruption. Thus, placing the finances directly in the hands of the community seems like the simple solution, but could aid the problem as well.
2) Any donation plan, as you say have to foster a new generation of people and ideas; mainly the idea that corruption is not a socially acceptable concept. Meaning, for any donation plan, it must be esoteric to the end-users, with deliberate planning over at least a 10 year period to make any significant impact. My theory on international assistance is that it can never be quick, with hopes for quick results. True assistance is done over generations, resulting in those people you refer to in the question that will renew and transform the community in the long run.
Inas Saif
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Bill Gates talks about this in this article: "
When Ethiopia signed on to the Millennium goals in 2000, the country put hard numbers to its ambition to bring primary health care to all of its citizens. The concrete goal of reducing child mortality by two-thirds created a clear target by which to measure success or failure. Ethiopia's commitment attracted a surge of donor money toward improving the country's primary health-care services.
With help from the Indian state of Kerala, which had built a successful network of community health-care posts, Ethiopia launched its own program in 2004 and today has more than 15,000 health posts staffed by 34,000 workers. (This is one of the greatest benefits of measurement—the ability it gives government leaders to make comparisons across countries and then learn from the best.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578261780648285770.html
Juliette Zahn 50+
Your question is brilliant!!
"Could it be possible to BIRTH a generation of people who are willing to be empowered with means of generating income that eventually get channeled back into communities for purposes of delivering renewal and transformation? How do we get communities to participate in the engineering of a promising future both for the continent and individual nations?"
What is needed above all is transformation. This means a shift in the mindset. A new mindset is needed for the people who make up that community. The only hope for creating new solutions that work, is to look at the problem with a new mindset......The most effective way of creating this change (shift in mindset) is through education. What is needed is "a radical shift in education".
Here are two great Talks, which I hope you find helpful:
http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_hardy_my_green_school_dream.html