It’s a lazy Sunday afternoon and you are relaxing on your couch. You turn on the television and an advertisement for an aid organization begins to play.  Images of starving African children flash across the screen as emotional music plays in the background. You see several images of people facing very difficult life circumstances. Your heart feels heavy as you witness the effect poverty has had on the people of Africa. Then, the advertisement shows you how you can make a donation online. Overcome with empathy, you make a financial contribution in an attempt to ease your conscience and improve the lives of the impoverished. You feel confident that you have made someone else’s life better and go back to your relaxing Sunday afternoon.

While you may have never had this exact experience, every American citizen has contributed to providing aid to Africa at some point in his or her life. In America, taxes paid by citizens are invested in providing foreign aid to Africa, and there are thousands of humanitarian aid organizations attempting to decrease the amount of poverty in Africa. These organizations provide different forms of aid each in their own unique way, and while all of these organizations provide services to Africa they do not all decrease the amount of poverty in Africa. As a world leader, it is up to the United States to provide aid that saves people from poverty in an area that needs it most, Africa. 

While poverty affects people all over the world, a large quantity of the world’s poverty is found in sub Saharan Africa. In his article, More Than One in Five Worldwide Living in Extreme Poverty, Glenn Phelps defines poverty as living off of less than $1.25 a day (Phelps 1). According to Phelps, “The 10 countries with the highest proportion of residents living on $1.25 per day or less are all in sub Saharan Africa. In each of them, more than two-thirds of residents are living in extreme poverty; in Burundi and Liberia, that proportion nears 90%.” (Phelps 1). Phelps’s research also shows us that 52% of the people living in sub Saharan Africa live off of $1.25 a day. When we compare this to the 1% of Americans that are living off of the same amount, you realize how serious the issue of poverty is in sub Saharan Africa. 

The large amount of poverty found in Africa has made it the recipient of foreign aid for decades. From research collected in the journal, World Development you can see America has been flowing aid to African countries since the 1970’s. (Awudu 1869.) In 2013, the United States spent billions of dollars on providing aid to countries all over Africa. Countries such as Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Botswana have received aid from America at some point in time since the 1970’s. (Awudu 1869.) America’s involvement in the distribution of food aid to Africa makes the effectiveness of the aid a concern for United States citizens. It is important that the aid America distributes to Africa decreases the number of people living in poverty. We have to focus on what it takes for our aid to accomplish this.  In order to decrease the amount poverty in Africa, foreign aid must be fueled by a desire help others, must be sustainable by locals, and must be focused on long term relief.

According to oxfamamerica.org The United States ties more of its aid than any other donor. (Oxfamamerica.org 1). Tied aid is referred to as aid that must use goods and services from the donor country. In other words, Tied aid is aid that benefits the donor. oxfamamerica.org says that tied aid  has two disadvantages. It is ineffective, and it is bad politics. (Oxfamamerica.org 1). The website says, “Aid should be first about poverty alleviation, but tying development aid sows doubt about US motives. Tied aid makes our well-intentioned foreign aid system appear self-serving, and it sends the message that foreign aid is designed to invest in the US, not the recipient.” (Oxfamamerica.org 2). In order for humanitarian aid to be effective and good political practice, donors must have bettering the lives of its recipients as their main purpose. Aid cannot be effective if the donor is concerned with getting something in return for providing aid.  

As someone who lived in Gabarone, Botswana for three years, I have personally seen the damage aid causes when the main goal is not to improve the lives of others. For example, while living in Botswana I met a girl who was a foreign exchange student from America at the University of Botswana. For one of her classes she was offered extra credit on her final exam for participating in a service project. She decided to volunteer at the orphan care center I was working at in a village called Lobatse. She was responsible with helping an orphaned child with his homework. The assistance she would provide would be the only support this child would receive from an adult and was crucial to helping him succeed in school. However, the American student complained the entire time she was working at the orphan care center and was unable to focus on getting the child’s schoolwork done. Instead of mentoring the child and helping him through his academic struggles, time was spent playing games and taking pictures to post to social media. Because her main concern was getting extra credit for a college class, the American student did not pay attention to the child’s homework and it was not completed. Because the American student was more concerned about the extra credit and photographs she was getting the, and needs of the child receiving her aid were not being met. This aid does not decrease the amount of poverty in Africa because the donors are more concerned about what they get out of the giving experience. In order for humanitarian aid to decrease the amount of poverty in Africa, foreign aid must be fueled by a desire to help others. 

There are times where the desire to help others is not enough to make aid effective. During my time in Botswana, I was given the opportunity to assist with numerous humanitarian aid projects. On one specific occasion, I was able to work with several local and foreign government and religious organizations that had the goal of building an orphan care center in a small village located in the capital city of Gabarone. This village was called, “Old Naledi” which translates to old star. I worked on this project alongside volunteers from churches and aid organizations from all over the world for almost a year until the center was complete. The people of the village were elated. Finally, the orphaned and underprivileged children of their village would have somewhere safe to eat, play, and study. The only problem was the orphan care center was not sustainable. 

When the organizations running the orphan care center left the center in the care of the locals, the program fell apart. The individuals in charge of running the center were never trained how to run the center and the doors were shut mere months after it was opened. After the center closed, thieves cleaned out the center of anything with value, including the tin roof. I contacted the American churches and organizations that funded and built the orphan care center. I informed them of the failure of their project but they were not interested in repairing the center or training locals to run the center by themselves. Their job was to build the center and nothing more. Because these organizations were not concerned with the sustainability of their aid, the Old Naledi Orphan Care Center failed to care for the children of Old Naledi. In order for humanitarian aid to alleviate poverty in Africa, aid must be sustainable by the recipients of the aid. 

The International Institute for Sustainable Development defines sustainable development as, “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Awokuse 496) Locals were not trained to operate the Old Naledi Orphan Care Center on their own, and this prevented the needs of future orphans from being met. In his article Food AID Impacts on Recipient Developing Countries: A Review of Empirical Methods and Evidence, Titus Awokuse judges various forms of food aid based on how economically sustainable they are and how effective they are at decreasing poverty. Awokuse, explains that a form of food aid called “programme” food aid will effect the recipients negatively even though the impoverished are receiving cheap meals. (Awokuse 543) While the needs of the current generation are being met, the Africans of tomorrow will still struggle with poverty.

Sustainable aid that is focused on benefiting the recipient will decrease the amount of poverty in Africa. However, in order for humanitarian aid to completely alleviate poverty in Africa, aid must be focused on providing long-term relief to the people of Africa living in poverty. While living in Botswana, I saw organizations distribute clothing, shoes, school supplies, toys, etc. to villages on an almost weekly basis. Organizations have been attempting to meet the needs of the impoverished in Africa like this for decades. These organizations see the immediate needs of the villagers and provide the people with relief for these needs in the form of handouts. While the impoverished are grateful for gifts, receiving these handouts do nothing to equip these individuals to overcome poverty. This is aid does not decrease poverty because the long-term needs of the people are not being met. 

In some cases, focusing on the immediate needs of the impoverished has even created more challenges for them to overcome. In his article, Does food aid Really have disincentive effects? New evidence from sub-Saharan Africa, Awudu Abdulai gives graphical evidence showing that when food aid began flowing to Ethopia in 1970, the country immediately began to decrease the amount of food they produced. (Abdulai 1695) The food needs of the people were being met by the aid they were receiving. This meant Ethiopian farmers did not have to produce as much food. These farmers also now had to try to compete with the price of the food donated to the people, which was difficult to do. Eventually, the amount of food aid flowing to Ethopia decreased. However, the quantity of food being produced by locals remained low. Because of the aid Ethopia received in the past, they no longer produce enough food to meet the needs of their of people. The countries providing aid to Ethiopia in the 1980’s and 1990’s were concerned with meeting the immediate food needs the people had. At that time, these donors did not consider the long-term effects of this aid. Aid that focuses on the long term needs of the recipients would alleviate poverty more effectively.

There are already some existing organizations that focus on providing aid that is sustainable, untied, and focused on meeting the long-term needs of the impoverished. The Millennium Challenge Cooperation is American humanitarian aid organization that was created by the U.S. Congress in 2004 in order to fight global poverty. The Millennium Challenge Cooperation provides grants to foreign countries that are investing in their citizens. (Millennium Challenge Cooperation 1) This allows these countries to reduce poverty in their country in a manner that they can sustain to meet the needs of current and future generations. According to their website, “The MCC’s mission is to reduce poverty through economic growth.” (Millennium Challenge Cooperation 1) In his article, Foreign Aid: The Good And Bad, James K. Glassman evaluates how various humanitarian aid organizations help and hurt the recipients of their aid. Glassman is an American investor and journalist who has does research to make sure the United States government spend its money on aid that decreases poverty in foreign countries. He claims that because of grants provided by the Millennium Challenge Cooperation, Tanzania was able make an economic gain of over a billion dollars. (Glassman 1). The MCC is focused on providing aid that benefits the receiving country more than anyone else, is sustainable, and meets the long-term needs of the people. Because the Millennium Challenge Cooperation does this, there is evidence that shows how much of a positive impact their aid makes.

In, Post-Compact Monitoring And Evaluation Plan For The Lesotho Compact, the MCC evaluates the success of a 326.6 million dollar contract they made with the government of the African country Lesotho. The goal of the contract was to fund health, water, and development projects to reduce poverty in Lesotho. According to the report, the outcome of the health project was positive because the program “Increased access to essential health services by providing a sustainable delivery platform.” (Millenium Challenge Cooperation 9)  The report says, “The health project improved health service delivery, increased utilization and improved quality of health service delivery.” (Millenium Challenge Cooperation 8) The report claims that the water project “improved the water supply for industrial and domestic needs, and enhanced rural livelihoods through improved watershed management.” (Millenium Challenge Cooperation 9)   Finally, The report claimed that the development project “stimulated investment by improving access to credit and increasing the participation of women in the economy.” (Millenium Challenge Cooperation 9)

In his speech, Aid for Africa? No Thanks. Andrew Mwenda claims that countries cannot alleviate poverty without first generating economic wealth. (Mwenda 1) Because the MCC is fueled by a desire help others, provides aid sustainable by locals, and is focused on long term relief; it is able to provide aid that generates economic wealth for the countries receiving it. With this economic wealth, African countries are able to decrease the amount of people that are living in poverty.

In order to decrease the amount poverty in Africa, foreign aid must be fueled by a desire help others, must be sustainable by locals, and must be focused on long term relief. As you can see from the shortcomings of aid we have provided in the past and from the successes of organizations such as the Millennium Challenge Cooperation, these three elements are essential to providing aid that generates economic wealth that African countries can use to alleviate poverty. When aid is focused on benefiting the donor, the aid will be ineffective and bad political practice. When aid is not sustainable, the future generation is not able to receive the benefits of the aid. When aid is not focused on meeting the long-term needs of the people, the people of Africa will never escape poverty. It is the responsibility of aid organizations to make sure that the aid they provide to Africa meets all of these criteria. Likewise, It is the responsibility of those who contribute to aid organizations to make sure that the aid provided by the organizations they volunteer for and donate to meets these criteria. If we are going to invest in aid aiming to decrease the amount of poverty in Africa, let us make sure that our aid is achieving this goal.
