to read the first few lines of roy's intervention and then those of felix is to see an interesting difference in rhetoric. even though roy quietly undercuts the image of aid as a purely benevolent action ("subsidize industry in their own backyards"), and doesn't make the case that this aid has a positive component to it, he leaves us informed with statistics, and the understanding that there is no new newsworthy point to be made in a minor story about policy bribery
felix turns to polemic in his second sentence ("so why are foreign donors still extending aid to corruption prone countries like nigeria?")
as roy implies, the very donor countries whose integrity is being appealed to are themselves practicing a form of corruption, though described simply as a form of subtle deception by not really making visible the reality of their economic practice. felix wants to shock us with something everyone knows by attacking the very principle of aid and of its consequences. he makes a similar point: aid is intended to assist the economy of the country making the aid donations, it has conditions attached and policies intended to serve those countries' national interest. but his argument is intended to outrage the reader and to lead to action.
which is more convincing? i suspect, though i don't know it, that in 1970 felix's would have had a greater impact; today, in a global economy that privileges multinational corporations and neoliberal logics, roy would be more in tune with his times.
but that logic might not obtain in all locations. only you, the reader, can answer that questions
ken
felix turns to polemic in his second sentence ("so why are foreign donors still extending aid to corruption prone countries like nigeria?")
as roy implies, the very donor countries whose integrity is being appealed to are themselves practicing a form of corruption, though described simply as a form of subtle deception by not really making visible the reality of their economic practice. felix wants to shock us with something everyone knows by attacking the very principle of aid and of its consequences. he makes a similar point: aid is intended to assist the economy of the country making the aid donations, it has conditions attached and policies intended to serve those countries' national interest. but his argument is intended to outrage the reader and to lead to action.
which is more convincing? i suspect, though i don't know it, that in 1970 felix's would have had a greater impact; today, in a global economy that privileges multinational corporations and neoliberal logics, roy would be more in tune with his times.
but that logic might not obtain in all locations. only you, the reader, can answer that questions
ken
On 8/13/13 8:45 PM, Roy Doron wrote:
One of the stipulations of most foreign aid to countries is that recipient countries must use up to 80% of the aid received on programs, products and services from the donor country. Thus, in many cases, foreign aid is not much more than a subsidy for large corporations based in the donor country.--
According to the World Bank, in 2008 in Uganda only 18% of the contract value of World Bank-funded projects went to local firms. For contracts valued at over $1m, that share dropped to 11%. Firms from China and the UK won the bulk of large World Bank-funded contracts in Uganda, 32% and 19% respectively. (source: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2011/sep/07/aid-benefits-donor-countries-companies) Donor countries thus have little incentive to lower or change the conditions of aid because those conditions might harm the political future of politicians who are using international aid to subsidize industry in their own backyards.
The larger point of this article comes on the heels of the policeman in Nigeria that was sacked for doing what every other policeman in the country has been doing for decades: extorting civilians for dash or other imagined penalties. This article attempts to put the policeman's crime in the context for people unfamiliar with Nigeria's climate of corruption, which is not unique by any means.
On Monday, August 12, 2013 8:49:17 AM UTC-4, Felix Kayman wrote:That corruption at very high levels of government is endemic in Nigeria is not news. So why are foreign donor countries still extending aid to corruption prone countries like Nigeria? Certainly not because they wish to promote development in such countries. After all, it is a trite notion that no nation has ever left the space of underdevelopment by receiving aid. In fact, there is consistent evidence that foreign aid tends to further impoverish the developing countries that receive them because of the unpublicized conditions that are associated with such grants. Therefore, one reason that may accounts for the continued donation of aid to countries like Nigeria by developed countries like the UK could be that it is in the best interest of the donor country. So when this writer claims that it is better to burn the aid money rather than award it to Nigeria, he overlooks the fact that the aid grants is a strategy by which the UK government supports local manufacturers and organisations, because part of the associated clause of such grants is that Nigeria would continue to patronise UK manufacturers. It is not an accident that most foreign grants for education are directed towards funding Nigerians studying in UK universities, rather than to strengthening research capacity of the local universities. Then the donors will then turn around and report that donation is not reaching the 'ordinary Nigerians'.
On Saturday, August 10, 2013 11:19:30 PM UTC+1, Roy Doron wrote:It is estimated that since 1960, about $380 billion (£245 billion) of government money has been stolen — almost the total sum Nigeria has received in foreign aid.
And that even when successive governments attempt to recover the stolen money, much of this is looted again.
President Sani Abacha, a military dictator who ruled in the Nineties, had accrued a staggering $4billion (£2.58billion) fortune by the time he died
In essence, 80 per cent of the country's substantial oil revenues go to the government, which disburses cash to individual governors and hundreds of their cronies, so effectively these huge sums remain in the hands of a mere 1 per cent of the Nigerian population.
--
Thanks,
Roy
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
-- kenneth w. harrow faculty excellence advocate distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu