Comments
Gnonthgol t1_je9izns wrote
You are talking of Africa as one large entity. Instead it is a huge diverse continent with lots of countries facing different challenges. You have various different natural and social disasters happening at different places on the continent at different times. You have the same thing in for example the US where there are various different aid programs happening all the time, both by FEMA and even foreign aid programs. You have Canadian firefighters working in California fighting forest fires one month and the next month there are Canadian linemen working in Florida cleaning up after a hurricane. A similar thing is going on in Africa where you have drought in a part of one country one year and then the next year IS is trying to take over another country by force.
Princess_Crunchy t1_je9jmwf wrote
Because receiving foreign aid doesn't solve the problem of outside countries setting up shop there, buying land and workers for very cheap and having them use space that would normally be used to farm food or create their own exports to better other countries instead of themselves .
Imagine being a farmer that makes food for your whole town. Then, imagine an abusive partner forcing you to quit your job and use your own house, land, and money to cook, clean, and build a shoelace factory for your abuser and their friends 24/7. At the end of the day, there's no time or resources left over for yourself, your town no longer gets food, but your govt and abuser are living fat on shoelace money and you get to help yourself to their scraps.
tyler1128 t1_je9l5lb wrote
Also African infrastructure outside of cities is very bad, making general distribution quite hard, while in many places with conflict, trying to do so might be dangerous.
[deleted] t1_je9lpa5 wrote
[removed]
Gnonthgol t1_je9mgyo wrote
This actually varies a lot depending on the area you are talking about. Some countries have great infrastructure even outside of cities. Others however are lacking a lot of infrastructure. A lot of this can be traced back to how colonizing nations were running their colonies, and then how the US/USSR were using infrastructure aid to help their warlords conduct their operations in the different African countries and then now how China, Russia and the EU is investing in infrastructure that favors their interests. All this foreign efforts are quite disruptive for the local infrasturcture construction. But again it varies a lot between the different countries and you can not say much general about the entire continent as a whole.
[deleted] t1_je9miuo wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je9nx7w wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je9o2mr wrote
[removed]
dragonhold24 t1_je9pebr wrote
Unremittent aid kills the entrepreneurial engine by enabling big government and undercutting prices.
>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.
—Dambisa Moyo, Dead Aid
J_Zephyr t1_je9per7 wrote
Ukraine produces a phenomenal amount of food that's sent to these countries. Considering what's going on there, they have their hands full and can't produce at their usual levels.
Edit: the world's largest grain exporter is attacking the world's 5th largest grain exporter. Russia is now experiencing embargoes, limiting their sale, while Ukraine is being assaulted by Russia, reducing their output. This is having an effect on supply and prices.
Adding explanation since someone was having trouble understanding the whole picture.
[deleted] t1_je9psa3 wrote
[removed]
TheDunk67 t1_je9qbeh wrote
Welfare makes people dependent and eliminates competition. The local farmers have no reason to grow food they can't sell for a reasonable price (livable wage) since they are competing with "free" food from the foreign aid. All sorts of industry and manufacturing is harmed as the foreign aid reduces local production of food and all the other local business that would support farming, tools, vehicles, etc. needed. Can'tcompete with "free".
[deleted] t1_je9qrdg wrote
[removed]
N0bb1 t1_je9r2ll wrote
First point is corruption, but we are not talking about the small scale everywhere corruption, but the large scale corruption of foreign aid. US pays foreign (development) aid to build a hospital. Now, the US doesn't contract the builder, they contract a US company that takes half of the allocated money and contracts e.g. a south african company which takes half of the remaining half and contracts an ethiopian company, which now has 1/4 of what was initially allocated to build this hospital. Now they take their share, have to pay some brides to get building permits etc and finally, they hire a builder company in ethiopia which now has 1/20th of a share and not enough to build the hospital. Hospital isn't build, although there was more than enough money to begin with.
Second point is companies like Nestlé, which simply take all of the water, so not a lot of crops can grow and to grow anything you would additionally need pesticides and fertilicer which are not just expensive, but also destroy the soil unless they are used continuously. So you get not that much food.
Third point: Climate change is real and already happening, so what used to be fertile land is now a desert. So less soil to grow things on.
Fourth point: Foreign Aid as US and EU did it was not really aid but just setting up ressource excavation points. We all heard about the Cobalt mines in congo for electric motors for example. Well, why aren't factories right next to them? Because we enabled better ressource extraction, now take those resources but do not leave any knowledge. Another example is chocolate. Ghana is the second largest cocoa producer in the world, but its share of the 100bn chocolate industry is 2bn. As the second largest producer it is 2% of the total and you rarely see chocolate from Ghana in stores, because we take the resource and the manufacturing happens elsewhere. There is also a huge brain drain, so the smartest people are convinced to come to US, Canada China and Europe.
Fifth point: Global market and global market agreements. Ghana produces a lot of tomatoes but you cannot make a living as a tomato farmer in Ghana. You used to be able, but now your tomatoes are bought in bulk from western countries and the market in Ghana is provided with subsidiced tomate paste or puree from e.g. the EU. Because Farmers in europe wouldn't be able to compete with the prices from farmers in Ghana, when both produce is on the european market. So they get money, and so much money, that it is not worth it to sell their own tomatoes in europe, because you would need more quality checks and had waste if a customer had to look at it. Therefore you sell your subsidiced tomato to a tomato puree manufacturer who now has so many tomatoes and product that he sells his product not just in europe but ships it to the whole world ans also back to Ghana. For cooking and storing puree is the easier option, so people buy the puree. The tomato farmer in Ghana cannot sell their tomatoes in Ghana, because it is so much more expensive compared to the cheap puree. So they have to sell in bulk, which means lower prices per tomato. They can never compete with the subsidiced tomato puree, they do not see anything from the large margin of profit which leads to our prices in the stores and they therefore cannot build their own self sustaining economy.
So you have: less and less fertile land/soil to grow things on, less and less water because corporation like Nestlé (Quote of Peter Brabeck-Letmathe CEO of nestle 1997-2008: "[...] The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right.That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That's an extreme solution.") buy the rights to water and simply do not leave for the people. Inside this also falls stuff like Palmoil, where the trees suck up all the water around so you cannot grow anything there and often for years destroy the soil. Corruption Climate-change And not actual development or foreign aid but just colonialism with a new color
And the thing I haven't mentioned is wars, which also lead to famines.
MELAVIN t1_je9rism wrote
It's because the foreign aid is actually very little money. The famine issue can only be addressed by the government. Let's say you are sleeping hungry every night. A stranger gives you 100 USD. That's guaranteed to solve your hunger issues for a week or two. However, it cannot solve your problem permanently. You will steel need another 100 USD in a week or so.
If you got a job then you wouldn't need the 100 USD every two weeks.
The famine issue then, can only be solved by the government of that nation. There's no amount of foreign aid can solve it.
The foreign aid helps because we have some stupid governments in Africa. We have very corrupt leaders who use
I'm Kenyan.
SuedbyHogs t1_je9rk0v wrote
Is there a specific country you are talking about? It's so weird when speaking if Africa as one giant collective.
[deleted] t1_je9rxoq wrote
[removed]
BigDebt2022 t1_je9soh2 wrote
Insert Sam Kinnison "You live in a desert!" here.
Bart_Bandy t1_je9t6cz wrote
"This is sand!"
DWS223 t1_je9taie wrote
Give a man a fish...
Aid addresses the symptoms but not the underlying cause which is weak ineffectual authoritarian governments. Economic development occurs when governments are beholden to their citizens productivity and prosperity for tax revenue. Many African nations have exploitable natural resources that create vast wealth with relatively few workers required. This environment is ripe for abuse. Basically, the dictator doesn't care if 90% of his population starves as long as the military and people exploiting the resource wealth on his behalf are kept fed at a subsistence level.
tyler1128 t1_je9tv6s wrote
Yeah, it does and there are a lot of reasons. There's also the fact a lot of Africa is mostly small communities in sparsely populated but vast regions. Just "giving everyone all the food and water they need" from foreign aid really isn't a feasible strategy at least currently. Ideally, we'd help communities themselves get more self-sufficient than just send things constantly.
SiCon6 t1_je9vvv6 wrote
Could be because all their kings and queens are in America?
[deleted] t1_je9vxk0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je9wy05 wrote
[removed]
teraza95 t1_je9y6s6 wrote
The problem with food isn't the amount of it it's distribution. We can provide all the food you want but without the infrastructure to distribute it it's pretty useless. Also over consumption in rich countries creates a higher demand and drives up prices pushing poorer countries out of the market
Greenarchist028 t1_je9ybze wrote
A hilarious bit but a prime example of why you shouldn't take your opinions from a comedian. It's hyperbole that plays on people's misconceptions.
The song he refers raised money to send charity to Sudan and Ethiopia primarily, two of the highest farming land using countries in the world at 12 and 20 currently.
pickles55 t1_je9ydjg wrote
Global capitalism. Asia and the West are buying all their natural resources in an unbalanced trade relationship where the African countries have no bargaining power and the powerful countries can threaten to withhold food from the poor.
[deleted] t1_je9yt22 wrote
[removed]
rimshot101 t1_jea3e6l wrote
People don't realize how damn big Africa is. Thanks to the Mercator projection, a lot of people think it's smaller than Greenland.
explainlikeimfive-ModTeam t1_jea3pe7 wrote
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.
Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.
Gnonthgol t1_jea3vs8 wrote
As if the US does not have deserts and as if Afracia does not have jungles.
transeuntem t1_jea40kh wrote
Because aid doesn't work.
It's a scam.
People too weak to face the harshness of reality try to throw money at the problem to make it go away and stop hurting their fee-fees.
If it hasn't worked in the last 20 years - try something else.
rimshot101 t1_jea4lwy wrote
For a landmass of it's size, Africa has unusually linear coastlines with very few (compared to other continents) suitable seaports.
rimshot101 t1_jea5ae0 wrote
Foreign aid is a mixed bag when it comes to endemic corruption. I'm not picking on African countries, there are nations with this problem all over the world. That money gets heavily raided before being turned into food. Foreign Aid isn't really intended as a gift or charity, in theory it's an investment.
[deleted] t1_jea6ewb wrote
[removed]
Supermichael777 t1_jea9q4d wrote
Because foreign aid doesn't build resilience, it builds in a dependence. And the primary purpose of goods based aid is to stabilize the prices of certain goods by destroying surplus. Foreign aid just looks better than piling it up and dumping kerosene on it.
It's important to understand that every field, which we can call farming capacity, will on average produce a similar amount as any similar field. However, this realized production varies year to year, and in a given region this variation tends to trend the same direction. It's also not entirely predictable. Bad weather, new pests, etc. can cause low production.
It's also important to understand that this is a marketed set of goods. Everyone wants grain, especially people who can turn 1.5 tons of grain (price 450$/metric ton) into 1 ton of chicken (price 1500 per ton). Chicken producers(general corporations, not small farmers) remain grossly profitable even at high grain prices. People in a developing economy struggle to afford market rate grain in good years.
Dumping a pile of random stuff on people kills the local market for that stuff. To a non industrialized economy, being used as the dumping ground for grain surpluses and clothing surpluses kills two pillars of the local economy, farming and fashion. So when short years come you don't have the farming capacity to cover the sudden shortfall or the economy to outbid richer nations with a production shortfall. You don't have the local economy to properly signal demand, because no one has anything to exchange of any value or rarity.
It doesn't help that most of them are export driven national economies that have had large losses of arable land to climate change, destruction from mining and drilling, or usage for cash crops. Those cash industries feed the nations in fat years, but in short years they can't afford it.
And even with local production, it's a market good. Without a local government that wants to trap local production of grain it will be brought to market, bought, and shipped to the highest bidder. If the chicken corporations can still get a good price for chicken they can still outbid the locals on grain. It's sadly often in the best interests of everyone in control of African nations farming to export all produced goods, even in time's of famine, to enrich themselves with foreign exchange.
The purpose of food aid has always been to stabilize grain prices without destroying capacity, so in short years the capacity fills the host nations needs. Africa is simply being used as a spring, crushed when times are rough so no one else feels the bumps as bad.
Pocok5 t1_jeacz6y wrote
You joke but one of the biggest problems of actually delivering aid to the hands of the people who go hungry is that along the way it passes through the hands of a local warlord and magically turns into AK-47s. Trying to skip the warlord also has drawbacks, in the form of said AK-47s being used to convince aid workers to hand over the rest of the goods. It mostly boils down to a catch 22 of "effective delivery of aid needs a stable and competent government to support it" and "people mostly experience famines because they don't have a stable and competent government".
MELAVIN t1_jeagwum wrote
Actually in Kenya most foreign aid is used very well. That's because countries that forward donations have strong systems to ensure the money is utilised. The government funds set aside to fight famine are all used up by corrupt individuals.
its-a-throw-away_ t1_jealsuz wrote
Your question is painfully ethnocentric, as I will illustrate:
Let's reverse your question. I presume the country in which you reside does not receive "foreign aid." If so, why then is famine not rampant where you live?
Whatever conditions prevent famine in your country (fertile land, water and irrigation, reliable and efficient transport infrastructure, political stability, etc.) do not exist where famine prevails, regardless of the measure of foreign aid provided.
DiscussionGrouchy322 t1_jealyxp wrote
one time two times (no apostrophe) otherwise well said thanks.
[deleted] t1_jeannpv wrote
[removed]
sibelius_eighth t1_jeap1o2 wrote
The thread title bothers me so much. Africa is huge, made up of more than 50 countries. It's like if someone read about the Flint water crisis in Michigan and then made a topic with the title 'Why does America suffer from lead poisoning when it's so rich?'
Gnonthgol t1_jeapull wrote
A lot of aid is aimed at supporting these stupid governments or to destroy the local economy to benefit governments and companies in post-developed nations. When you look into the details it becomes harder to argue that these countries are better with foregn aid.
BigDebt2022 t1_jeaqc64 wrote
>As if the US does not have deserts
He addresses that, too. We have deserts, but we don't live in them. Compare this map if the North American deserts
with this map of population density
...well, actually, we do, sometimes. Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Salt Lake City, etc. Thing is, the people who live there have the technology and money to.. well, live there.
>and as if Afracia does not have jungles.
He specifically mentions areas with 'sand', and where food can't grow. Sheesh.
Gnonthgol t1_jeawa75 wrote
Forgive me for not looking up the full quote. But I strongly object to your suggestion that Africans live in the deserts. Of course there are human population where drinking water is an issue, you mentioned a few places in the US and there are similar locations for cities in Africa. But the idea that Africans live in deserts comes from images from farmlands during severe drought periods or refugee camps from people who have to flee into the barren deserts to avoid racial, religious or political persecution. Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya is some of the most fertile lands on the planet and some of the greatest food exporters in the world, not unlike the US Midwest or California. And similar to these areas there are occasional droughts when the food harvests fails which can create terrifying images of people living in what looks like a desert.
[deleted] t1_jeb0ru3 wrote
[removed]
tyler1128 t1_jeb189r wrote
Yeah, that's where I was trying to go with it. Better than just giving "Africa" as a gigantic place aid, especially the various corrupt leaders who'll probably take much of it for them and their friends, help smaller communities get what they need to provide better for themselves. That's my belief anyway. I don't live in Africa but I do support a refugee group there, directly.
BigDebt2022 t1_jeb509z wrote
> Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya is some of the most fertile lands on the planet and some of the greatest food exporters in the world, not unlike the US Midwest or California.
Great. Then we can stop sending them food.
Gnonthgol t1_jebsbpp wrote
But we want cheap Ethiopian coffee, if we stop giving the Ethiopians our food production surplus then they might cut down the coffee plantations and grow their own food. You would then end up with expensive coffee and angry local farmers who can not sell their food to the aid programs.
BigDebt2022 t1_jebx2mx wrote
Maybe we should look into buying local products, instead of shipping them halfway around the world. Just sayin'.
wjbc t1_je9ieho wrote
It's human-made famine, often as a form of war or a byproduct of war.
Also, much of that aid has been syphoned off by dictators and corrupt officials, which in turn makes charitable organizations hesitate to give.
That said, the dictators and corrupt officials are only following the example of non-African corporations, who for more than a century have exploited Africa for its natural resource, and before that exploited Africa for its human slaves.