The book, “Dead Aid” review

The book, “Dead Aid” review

The book, “Dead Aid”, by Dambisa Moyo is supposed to be exciting as well as challenging considering her education and experience as a worker in World Bank. Unfortunately, it is disappointing since the book is about some essential questions, but it is making no useful contribution to the debate. I can say that her argument and application of evidence are at best lazy and at worst untrue.  The book has failed in its trial to offer a radical critique of aid since the author’s unwillingness to conduct it within the framework of political economy. Moyo argues that aid has demonstrably failed, it has contributed to poverty and that there are other, more efficient means of accelerating development in Africa.

My main criticism of her is that Moy applies statistics that reveal a correlation between a high level of aid receipts and poor economic development and then tries to show causality, aid leading to reduced development, by applying hypothetical, anecdotal, highly selective and even emotive evidence to back up her case. I mention “show causality” since Moyo never applies the word “cause”; however, the reader is left with an impression that this is what she is implying. The outcome for the less well-informed reader is that they are stuck with several “easy to familiarize memorable case studies” which show that aid leads to poverty although she never says as much.

She says that aid has not efficiently enhanced economic development in Africa. According to Moyo, Aid is malignant, and the problem in African economy since over 1 trillion has been pumped in the continent, and there is little to show for it. Moyo explains her critic using a hypothetical critique. She backs up this by stating that even the most cursory looked at the data state that aid has increased over time. Still, development in the continent has declined with an accompanying higher incidence of poverty.  She further states that a direct result of aid-driven interventions has been a dramatic descent into poverty. Her problem here is failing to present enough evidence to make her case precise. It is known that the later section of the time she has cited was a time of world economic slowdown compared to the previous two decades, which could contribute to poverty in Africa as the case with the debt crisis. In her hypothetical example, Moyo cites Zambia, but someone could also use Ghana and Botswana as case studies of aid-recipient nations that have developed to counter this example.

Moyo also says that aid encourages corruption, consequently retarding development.  Here she uses a reasonable amount of statistics and case study evidence.  She states that if the globe has one picture of African statesmen, it is one of the rank corruptions on a breathtaking scale. Here, Moyo uses the example of Mobutu in Zaire and statement made by British envoy to Kenya complaining about corruption in the country. She also cites Uganda as an example to argue that at least 25 per cent of World Bank aid is misused.  Moyo also states that aid is also among the significant aides to corruption.  I could say that it is more accurate to say asserting provided the lack of evidence in this critique of aid that with aid’s assistance, corruption fosters corruption, countries quickly descend into a vicious cycle of aid.

According to Moyo, aid corrupts civil society. However, in this critique, she lacks concrete evidence or example to support this point. Here she argues that Africa requires a middle class which trust each other to grow to happen. The problem is seen here is that an aided environment, governments are more interested in lining their pockets and not encouraging entrepreneurs, indicating that middle-class cant extends until it reaches that crucial mass leading to sustained development.

Generally, I can say that Moyo is overlooking the fact that aid has supported significant success, most notably since the beginning of the 21^st century. Foreign assistance to cut school fees has led to more than 30 million more kids in school. UNICEF and Red Cross collaborated and helped in reducing measles deaths by 90% in the first six years of the 21^st century, saving more than a thousand lives every day. Aid focused, result-driven programs have been increasing recently. Africa economies have also enjoyed a boost in macroeconomics performance. Unfortunately, Moyo fails to address the question concerning aid. It is better to ask what makes some programs successful while others are less successful.

I can also see that Moyo has written this book in the same style World Bank reports. She tends to be speaking to only her peers at the World Bank.  Moyo is giving a lot of credence to a long list of experts from the World Bank whose works are by, and large inconsequential her critique can carry out only within the framework of political economy.  I thin Moyo is missing the fact that the problem is concerning the capitalist market and not markets per se. I think she also thinks strongly in ideological flights of fancy where capital-driven development benefits all people.

I think the book is not enough for credit.  Moyo has does nothing to advance the debate on growth help. This is partly due to the fact that she is bent on tilting at windmills. She is also criticizing without substantial evidence or any statistical analysis. I think she should be trying to figure out how to increase aid effectiveness.  Aid would work best if the government in place puts in place sensible economic policies and effective strategies for poverty reduction, budget transparency and measure for dealing with corruption.  Various African governments fail these tests with impunity, partly due to lack of accountability to their citizens. I think she is a victim of bad timing. Several African governments had begun raising money on international bond markets. In critique to Moyo critique on aid to Africa, I think the future of Africa relies on its government. However, aid can make a difference. I don’t mean the book lacks some good in it, but the argument made by Moyo is based on evidence and analysis that cant is used in future.