In Dambisa Moyo’s book, “Dead Aid,” she makes reference in the second chapter about the rise of ‘glamour aid’. She is using this term in reference to the increasing trend of the rich and famous donating to causes during the early 2000s. Moyo describes them as the “army of moral campaigners” — individuals who used their fame to head fundraising campaigns, and then donated the proceeds to a cause of their choosing.
The late 80s and 90s saw a tremendous cutback in foreign aid donations for a multitude of reasons, some of which include donor fatigue and the exasperation of donor nations at seeing little to no progress achieved. While the celebrity effect has been effective at amassing large funds and at raising awareness for certain issues, Moyo argues that the excess of aid has detracted from the rationale of giving aid in itself.
The stakes at hand can be illustrated in a single example: the refugee camps in Goma following the genocide in Rwanda. While thousands upon thousands of people were displaced and unable to fend for themselves, the majority of the camp refugees were the ones that acted out and were complicit with the genocide. So why was the world paying for the accommodation of murderers and rapists? That is the question indeed, and the question which Moyo addresses in her book.
The quote, ” my voice can’t compete with an electric guitar,” speaks volumes of the situation. Although the talents and abilities of celebrities and musicians allows them to garner the funds for aid, there is not much else it allows them to do. Their talents in fundraising do not necessarily (and oftentimes do not) translate to actual advocacy or educational work.
In addition, there has been much debate about the sincerity of foreign aid distributed by nation states. Rwandan president Paul Kagame describes it best: “The primary reason [that there is little to show for the billions of dollars of aid sent to Africa] is that in the context of post-Second World War rivalries…much of this aid was spent on creating and sustaining [puppet] regimes…with minimal regard to developmental outcomes [in Africa].” The Cold War is a shining example of this, as the US and Russia were competing for influence in developing Africa by seeing who could donate the most money. In fact, during this era, most of the money donated ended up being spent on weapons and supplies use during civil war-time.
Despite such forms of aid disbursement, there has been an abundance of legitimate support given. So why is it not working? One reason Moyo gives is that Africa’s geographical environment is not conducive to stimulating SSA development, regardless of how resource-rich or -poor a nation is. Although many African nations contain valuable natural resources, the majority of the continent is landlocked and the transportation of resources seems to have severely hamstrung the region’s ability to build upon their resource market. Even if international institutions/corporations fund large resource enterprises, they eventually flounder as the logistics sector cannot compete.
Another reason that Moyo gives for the lack of evident progress (as a result of aid), is for the long-lasting predicaments that colonialism left upon Africa. Many of the current national boundaries in Africa came about as a result of the 1885 Berlin Conference, composed of strictly European and American members, which divided the region with no regard as to how competing/rival ethnic and religious groups would be able to develop with one another. With multiple, extremely polarized opinions to where the country should go, there is a small chance at compromise and progress occurring. As can be seen with the apartheid era of South Africa and the Rwandan genocide, it is extremely difficult for a country to ‘stand on their own two feet’, both politically and economically.
Richard Dowden’s discussion on the effect of colonialism and its effect on Africa:
The Future of the MDGs 