The evidence against aid is so strong and so compelling that even the IMF – a leading provider of aid – has warned aid supporters about placing more hope in aid as an instrument of development than it is capable of delivering. The IMF has also cautioned governments, donors and campaigners to be more modest in their claims that increased aid will solve Africa’s problems. If only these acknowledgements were a catalyst for real change.
What is perhaps most amazing is that there is no other sector, whether it be business or politics, where such proven failures are allowed to persist in the face of such stark and unassailable evidence.
So there we have it: sixty years, over US$1 trillion dollars of African aid, and not much good to show for it. Were aid simply innocuous – just not doing what it claimed it would do – this book would not have been written. The problem is that aid is not benign – it’s malignant. No longer part of the potential solution, it’s part of the problem – in fact aid is the problem.
4. The Silent Killer of Growth
In 2004, the British envoy to Kenya, Sir Edward Clay, complained about rampant corruption in the country, commenting that Kenya’s corrupt ministers were ‘eating like gluttons’ and vomiting on the shoes of the foreign donors. In February 2005 (prodded to make a public apology for his statements given the political maelstrom his earlier comments had made), he apologized – saying he was sorry for the ‘moderation’ of his language, for underestimating the scale of the looting and for failing to speak out earlier.1
If the world has one picture of African statesmen, it is one of rank corruption on a stupendous scale. There hardly seem any leaders who haven’t crowned themselves in gold, seized land, handed over state businesses to relatives and friends, diverted billions to foreign bank accounts, and generally treated their countries as giant personalized cash dispensers. According to Transparency International, Mobutu is estimated to have looted Zaire to the tune of US$5 billion; roughly the same amount was stolen from Nigeria by President Sani Abacha and placed in Swiss private banks (later US$700 million of the loot was returned to Nigeria).2 It’s not, of course, just one person who has taken the money. There are many people, at many different levels of the bureaucracy, who have funnelled away billions of dollars over the years. Corruption is a way of life.
The list of corrupt practices in Africa is almost endless. But the point about corruption in Africa is not that it exists: the point is that aid is one of its greatest aides. This is not to say that there are not other facilitators of corruption. In Africa, natural-resource windfalls, such as oil, have tended to be more of a curse than a blessing. Like aid, they are susceptible to theft and have provided practically unlimited opportunities for personal wealth accumulation and self-aggrandizement.
The crucial difference between foreign aid and natural-resource endowments is, of course, that aid is an active and deliberate policy aimed at development. Countries don’t have much of a choice as to whether or not they end up with an oil endowment; although of course they do have a choice on how windfalls are dealt with. With mounting pressure for greater transparency in the oil, gas and mining sectors, from organizations like the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI),3 the days of blatant looting and corruption in these sectors are surely numbered. But donors continue to sit in comfortable air-conditioned rooms in the West and pen the tragic fate of countries they ostensibly seek to help.
The vicious cycle of aid
With aid’s help, corruption fosters corruption, nations quickly descend into a vicious cycle of aid. Foreign aid props up corrupt governments – providing them with freely usable cash. These corrupt governments interfere with the rule of law, the establishment of transparent civil institutions and the protection of civil liberties, making both domestic and foreign investment in poor countries unattractive. Greater opacity and fewer investments reduce economic growth, which leads to fewer job opportunities and increasing poverty levels. In response to growing poverty, donors give more aid, which continues the downward spiral of poverty.
This is the vicious cycle of aid. The cycle that chokes off desperately needed investment, instils a culture of dependency, and facilitates rampant and systematic corruption, all with deleterious consequences for growth. The cycle that, in fact, perpetuates underdevelopment, and guarantees economic failure in the poorest aid-dependent countries.
Corruption and growth
Ultimately, Africa’s goal is long-term, sustainable economic growth, and the alleviation of poverty. This cannot occur in an environment where corruption is rife. There are, of course, any number of ways in which corruption retards growth.
In a context of high degrees of corruption and uncertainty, fewer entrepreneurs (domestic or foreign) will risk their money in business ventures where corrupt officials can lay claim to its proceeds, so investment stagnates, and falling investment kills off growth.
Development agencies would have us believe that aid helps build a lasting, credible and strong civil service. Indeed, the World Bank recommends that by providing more aid rich countries actually assist in the fight against corruption. Thanks to aid, poor governments can afford to support ethics training, increase the salaries of their public-sector employees (police, judges, medical staff, tax collectors), thereby limiting the need for corruption. Moreover, higher salaries will attract competent and higher-quality employees to the civil service.
Unfortunately, unfettered money (the prospect of sizeable ill-gotten gains) is exceptionally corrosive, and misallocates talent. In an aid-dependent environment, the talented – the better-educated and more-principled, who should be building the foundations of economic prosperity – become unprincipled and are drawn from productive work towards nefarious activities that undermine the country’s growth prospects. Those who remain principled are driven away, either to the private sector or abroad, leaving the posts that remain to be filled by the relatively less-educated, and potentially more vulnerable to graft.
Endemic corruption also targets public contracts. In these environments, contracts which should be awarded to those who can deliver on the best terms, in the best time, are given to those whose principal aim is to divert as much as possible to their own pockets. What ensue are lower-quality infrastructure projects, and enfeebled public services, to the detriment of growth.
Similarly, the allocation of government spending suffers as corrupt officials are likely to choose projects less on the basis of public welfare and more on the opportunities for extorting bribes and diverting funds. The bigger the project, the greater the opportunity. Projects whose exact value is difficult to monitor present lucrative opportunities for corruption – it is easier to siphon money from large infrastructure projects than from textbooks or teachers’ salaries.
So how badly does corruption actually affect growth?
Every year, since 1995, Transparency International has published a Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). Using surveys reflecting the perceptions of business people and country analysts, the CPI ranks over 100 countries, from 0 to 10, the most corrupt to the least.
Using the Transparency International CPI, Graf Lambsdorff found that a one-point improvement in a country’s corruption score was correlated with an increase in productivity of 4 per cent of GDP. This implies that were Tanzania (placed at 3.2 out of 10 on the 2007 Transparency International index) to improve its corruption score to the level of the UK (ranked 8.4 out of 10), its GDP could be more than 20 per cent higher, and net annual per capita inflows would increase by 3 per cent of GDP.
Joel Kurtzman found that every one-point increase in a country’s opacity index (the degree to which a country lacks clear, accurate and easily discernible practices governing business, investment and government) correlated to a lower per capita income by US$986 and a 1 per cent decrease in net foreign direct investment as a share of GDP.4 Moreover, corruption was also related to a 0.5 per cent increase in the country’s average borrowing rate, and a 0.5 per cent increase in its rate of inflation.
The donor community is publicly airing concerns that development assistance earmarked for critical social and economic sectors is being used directly or indirectly to fund unproductive and corrupt expenditures (UNDP’s Human Development Report, 1994). At a hearing before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in May 2004, experts argued that the World Bank has participated (mostly passively) in the corruption of roughly US$100 billion of its loan funds intended for development.5 When the corruption associated with loans from other multilateral-development banks is included, the figure roughly doubles to US$200 billion. Others estimate that of the US$525 billion that the World Bank has lent to developing countries since 1946, at least 25 per cent (US$130 billion) has been misused. Vast sums of aid not only foster corruption – they breed it.
Aid supports rent-seeking – that is, the use of governmental authority to take and make money without trade or production of wealth. At a very basic level, an example of this is where a government official with access to aid money set aside for public welfare takes the money for his own personal use. Obviously, there cannot be rent-seeking without a rent. And because foreign aid (the rent) is fungible – easily stolen, redirected or extracted – it facilitates corruption. Were donor conditionalities remotely effective, this would not be the case. But, as described previously, conditionalities carry little punch.
In ‘Do Corrupt Governments Receive Less Foreign Aid?’, Alesina and Weder conclude that aid tends to increase corruption. Svensson shows how aid fosters corruption by reducing public spending; that by increasing government revenues, aid lowers the provision of public goods (things that everyone benefits from, but no one wants to pay for – for instance, a lamppost). In a similar vein, foreign aid programmes, which tend to lack accountability and checks and balances, act as substitutes for tax revenues. The tax receipts this releases are then diverted to unproductive and often wasteful purposes rather than productive public expenditure (education, health infrastructure) for which they were ostensibly intended. In Uganda, for example, aid-fuelled corruption in the 1990s was thought to be so rampant that only 20 cents of every US$1 dollar of government spending on education reached the targeted local primary school.6
Aid goes to corrupt countries
If it is so obvious, as it must be to everyone involved, that aid is vulnerable to such blatant manipulation, why is it that donors continue to donate?
Witness the occurrences in 1978 after the IMF appointed Irwin Blumenthal to a post in the central bank of what was then Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo. Blumenthal resigned in less than a year, writing a memo which said that ‘the corruptive system in Zaire with all its wicked manifestations’ is so serious that there is ‘no (repeat no) prospect for Zaire’s creditors to get their money back’. Shortly after the Blumenthal memo, the IMF gave Zaire the largest loan it had ever given to an African country and over the next ten years President Mobutu’s kleptocracy had received an additional US$700 million from the Fund.
More recently, referring to Zambia’s former President Chiluba (who was in power between 1991 and 2002) in a parliamentary address in 2002, Zambia’s current President, Levy Mwanawasa, alleged embezzlement and theft of up to US$80 million. Yet during the period when the thefts occurred Zambia had received upwards of US$1.5 billion from the World Bank. Much of the money was given under the auspices of the Heavily Indebted Poorest Country (HIPC) debt relief programme, a programme that required its beneficiaries to be corruption-free.
More generally, the academic Larry Diamond observes that development agencies continue to give aid to the most corrupt and unaccountable African states, with known authoritarian and corrupt governments. His list includes Cameroon, Angola, Eritrea, Guinea and Mauritania, each receiving aid equalling or even exceeding the African average of US$20 per capita. There is no end to it.
Why give aid if it leads to corruption?
Given what we know about foreign aid, and how it encourages and sustains corruption, why do Western governments insist on parcelling out aid to poor countries? Beyond the motivations for aid-giving discussed earlier – economic, political and moral – there are two other practical explanations why.
First, there is simply a pressure to lend. The World Bank employs 10,000 people, the IMF over 2,500; add another 5,000 for the other UN agencies; add to that the employees of at least 25,000 registered NGOs, private charities and the army of government aid agencies: taken together around 500,000 people, the population of Swaziland. Sometimes they make loans, sometimes they give grants, but they are all in the business of aid (the total of concessional loans – those which carry a small interest rate – and grants – effectively free money), seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, and decade after decade.
Their livelihoods depend on aid, just as those of the officials who take it. For most developmental organizations, successful lending is measured almost entirely by the size of the donor’s lending portfolio, and not by how much of the aid is actually used for its intended purpose. As a consequence, the incentives built into the development organizations perpetuate the cycle of lending to even the most corrupt countries. Donors are subject to ‘fiscal year’ concerns: ‘they feared the consequences within their agencies of not releasing the funds in the fiscal year for which they were slated’ (Ravi Kanbur). Any non-disbursed amounts increase the likelihood that their subsequent aid programmes will be slashed. With the added corollary, of course, that their own organizational standing is placed in jeopardy.
For many donor agencies the decision to lend to less than reputable governments is couched in the view that if they didn’t, the poor would suffer, health and education budgets wouldn’t be met, and countries would falter. The reality is, the poor aren’t getting the money and, besides, even under the aid regime, African countries are faltering anyway.
Donors have the added fear that were they not to pump money in, poor countries would not be able to pay back what they already owe, and this would affect the donors’ financing themselves. This circular logic is exactly what keeps the aid merry-go-round humming.
The insatiable need to lend is yet another reminder of why the conditionalities imposed on poor countries are worth no more than the paper they are written on. A 1992 study conducted by the World Bank’s Operations Evaluation Department concluded that the release of aid tranches was close to 100 per cent, even when country compliance rates on conditions were below 50 per cent. Another World Bank study, in 1997, shows that between 1980 and 1996 72 per cent of the aid the World Bank allocated to adjustment lending went to countries with poor track records on compliance with conditionality. In the donor’s desperate quest to lend, and maintain the lender–borrower see-saw, the aid relationship tips in favour of the corrupt government. Almost to the absurd point where the donor has a greater need for giving the aid than the recipient has for taking it.
Second, donors are apparently unable to agree on which countries are corrupt and which are not. A classic example of this occurred on 26 November 2002, when the New York Times published an article entitled ‘Bush Plan Ties Foreign Aid to Free Market and Civic Rule’. The article trumpeted Washington’s aid initiative and went on to outline the details of a White House proposal to set up a competition among the poorest world economies, where the ‘winners’ would be apportioned a slice of the US$5 billion foreign aid fund.
Curiously, among the list of possible qualifying countries was Malawi. Only weeks prior to the Bush announcement, Malawi’s Ministry of Agriculture had been embroiled in a very public altercation with the IMF. Grain consignments had gone missing, and a sizeable percentage of Malawi’s population was facing starvation. To make matters worse, a top Malawian official at the state-run grain marketing board who was to be a key witness in the two corruption cases ‘mysteriously disappeared’.7 Yet even with these allegations of corruption the US government did not see fit to remove Malawi from the qualifying Millennium Challenge Account list.
On the other hand, Tanzania was omitted from the same US Millennium Challenge Account list (apparently for reasons of corruption). But bizarrely it had been hailed as a model of good governance in November 2001 by the British government’s Secretary of Development at the time, Clare Short, who promptly announced that Tanzania would benefit from a new pilot aid programme.
Who was right?
Thus, it would appear that regardless of who you are, and what you’ve done (or haven’t for that matter), you’ll get the cash from somewhere. In the Malawi maize scandal, the IMF resumed its lending programme to the government with no clear resolution of the case.
Corruption: positive or negative?
Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if African leaders, like some of their Asian counterparts, reinvested stolen money domestically, instead of squirrelling it away in foreign bank accounts.
This notion of ‘positive’ corruption goes a long way to explaining why many Asian countries, perceived to have high levels of corruption (in some cases, such as Indonesia, exceeding those of Africa), nevertheless post enviable levels of economic growth. For example, despite ranking just 3.5 out of 10 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (2007), China continues to attract the greatest amount of foreign direct investment (US$78 billion in 2006, according to the IMF’s International Financial Statistics), which undoubtedly has contributed to its stellar growth. Similarly, although in the 1980s Thailand registered a strong economic performance, in the same decade it was ranked the most corrupt country in the world.
Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa Page 7
