Discussion about this post

User's avatar
__browsing's avatar

With all due respect to Mr. Balogun, 1.2 trillion dollars over 65 years only amounts to about 1-2% of Africa's GDP, and this sum is exceeded by the effects of debt repayments and capital flight, so I'm skeptical western intervention is creating vast dependency here.

One should also bear in mind that Africa is by many indicators far wealthier and less prone to disease and mortality than it was, say, a century ago. It's true Africa lags behind most of the world in terms of economic growth, but since I'm broadly a hereditarian on the race/IQ question I don't see this as a necessary indicator of failed social policy. If genetics is a major factor in human development, then aid isn't going to turn Africa into an OECD-level economic powerhouse, but neither will free markets.

With that said, I'm glad Mr. Balogun agrees that stabilising Africa's population would probably be in the continent's long-term best interests. Bringing family sizes down to more modest levels would reduce the risk of environmental degradation from overfarming and soil erosion, and allow more investment in childrens' education and job training.

However, I'm not convinced that western aid has broadly frustrated that goal. Advancing, e.g, LGBT 'rights', although of dubious benefit, has been a relatively small component of NGOs' focus compared with broader family planning and women's rights initiatives (and I'm not going to say the latter are inappropriate in regions with widespread FGM.) There's also pretty good empirical evidence that western expertise and technology has been indispensible in curbing endemic tropical diseases such malaria, guinea worm and schistosomiasis, and that basic income initiatives have alleviated poverty without reduction in workforce participation.

Africa might never reach Europe's level, but this doesn't make progress impossible.

Expand full comment

No posts