Dambisa is "Dead Wrong"
Last Updated on Thursday, 23 April 2009 19:08 Thursday, 23 April 2009 18:41
Dr. Kaela Mulenga
Dr. Kaela Mulenga, a well known political commentator and blogger said “Here is my personal opinion on it.To begin with, Dambisa Moyo is probably right by encouraging us, Africans, to start questioning the significance of economic aid delivered to us from the West. Especially as she points out - that billions and billions of dollars we received have done little to curb down corruption”. "However" Dr. Mulenga continued in his article “ We shouldn’t underrate or shun down its small (emphasis on small) impact on the poor segments of our people. In other words, judging the success of this economic aid (litmus test) must be based on whether the impact it makes has the greatest good to the largest number of Africans”.
Below is the full article by Dr. Mulenga.
THE POSITION OF A DEVIL’S ADVOCATE ON MOYO’S “DEAD AID” BOOK ANALYSIS
I must admit that I have not yet read Dambisa Moyo’s book “Dead Aid” in which she sharply criticizes Western countries’ ‘economic aid’. But in spite of that limitation, I believe there is already enough buzz about it from the many reviews and her interviews on several media for one to make an intelligent comment.
Young Dambisa Moyo
Here is my personal opinion on it. To begin with, Dambisa Moyo (DM) is probably right by encouraging us (Africans) to start questioning the significance of economic aid delivered to us from the West. Especially as she points out - that billions and billions of dollars we received have done little to curb down corruption.
But at the same time, we shouldn’t underrate or shun down its small (emphasis on small) impact on the poor segments of our people. In other words, judging the success of this economic aid (litmus test) must be based on whether the impact it makes has the greatest good to the largest number of Africans.
Which means that, the tough choice we’ve to make now - will have to be whether we should dump Western development aid now because we think it is not building the middle class groups fast enough even though, I am sure, those in villages appreciate its availability. Morally it is indefensible to help few at the expense of the larger lot. If so, shouldn’t we then simply be looking for ways to improve the effective delivery of this aid we get rather than considering everything conducted in the name of aid as toxic?
But I am also glad that she has written this book at this point in time, so as to provoke a debate on, on one hand - regarding the validity of some of classical economic theories. On the other, as she has done, to examine the legitimacy and usefulness of government to government donor economic aid.
My concern however, is probably not so much about her analysis and her condemnation of Western economic aid. We are probably in agreement on major points. That for example, it is true that aid coming on a silver plate has to some extent, helped to fuel corruption and propped up African dictators like Mobutu Sese Seko of DRCongo (formerly Zaire) and others. And that a great portion of the aid is being wasted or filtered back to the original source countries.
What worries me most is that - her prescription is based on driving Africa to rely more on private sector players such as Banks and Investment Companies. This recommendation of channeling most of the resources through the private sector (if that is what in fact she proposes) will not alleviate poverty of our masses. Primarily because this ignores the fact that rich people tend to be selfish. Whenever they get money, they put it in their own pockets.
Even if we are to look at the present nature of economic aid disbursements - if aid was to be cut off completely, many poor African counties would be worse off – if the money to build schools, hospitals, water purification plants and other rural and NGO projects dried up. Moreover, in the eyes of poor people, the efforts of notable personalities like BONO & Bob Geldoff and others are heroes. It is because these people heavily campaigned for debt cancellation or appealed for yet even more economic aid for Africans. After all why shouldn’t they get it, when development in Western countries has been possible because of cheap raw materials from Africa and other Third World countries?
And let’s face it, it is indeed quite plausible that the one-dollar-per day lives of millions of Africans would be worse off if Western economic aid was not available.
Further more, if we examine more closely what Moyo is saying - one of her solutions would be to get those African countries open up for larger private business, as if these countries have been closed. Moyo argues that - given a scenario where economic aid would not be available to them (starved so to speak) - Africans would be forced to be innovative and start employing all kinds of business regimes and techniques to survive. Such methods they would resort to may include issuing of Bonds and/or interest rates instruments. In other words, she believes that unless African countries start being run like corporations, economic progress will elude them. And that any African country desiring to make economic progress, must first of all develop its private sector, promote investment conditions which are conducive, or lose out. I am not sure about that.
Zambians employed by Chinese - suffer poor work conditions
Apart from the naked exploitation concerns I have, in a situation where business sector becomes dominant - this approach of relying on bonds and interest rates, for instance, would just create ripe fodder for big banks, multinationals, pure profit hunters and speculators - all of whom would not be acting in the interests of poor people and might even put a country’s sovereignty in jeopardy. Is that the alternative we are looking for?
If that happened, the consequences would be worse off for Africans - creating yet a fresh dilemma. If the main goal was to develop Africa for Africans, then relying on foreign investors would not be the best solution. Therefore, in my view, Moyo needs to be challenged on these points.
Ideally, if we were to do away with development aid entirely, relying on our own people should be the engine of growth.
Moreover, in spite of the availability of modern technologies - most African countries are not yet ready to compete successfully with other international or global business houses. We simply do not have the necessary infrastructure in place yet. We are slowly getting there.
But as a matter of fact, based on IMF/World Bank recommendations, most African countries have already been subjected to high dosages of privatization. In other words, they have gone through the experiments of using private sector, yet poverty levels have persisted. Zambia’s ex President Frederick T Chiluba (FTJ) implemented Structure Adjustment Program (SAP) religiously. At a stroke of a pen, he de-nationalized over 200 Zambia’s ZIMCO & Indeco parastatal companies overnight. In fact some of these companies were closed, given away or sold for a song.
I also believe that, Moyo’s prognosis contains a contradiction in the sense that it recommends looking at China as an alternative partner. This is partly because she considers China as a fairer player, whose development aid has fewer strings. Probably! On the face value that might appear so. But when China was building Zambia-Tazara railway, for those who care to remember, it was not permissible to buy materials or spare parts anywhere else unless those items concerned could not be supplied by China itself. Is that not a form of strings? This point too needs to be closely examined.
As we go through this debate, we must also not forget that the current US Wall St economic meltdown, admittedly, suggests that pure tenets of capitalism have been weakened some. It is also important to take note of the fact that - although Moyo is encouraging getting of aid from China, by and large, she herself still remains a fan of capitalism. Yet we need to remind her again that - although capitalism is not going to die anytime soon, its reputation of “free-for-all”, ‘self-regulatory’ model has at least been damaged.
It is not hard to see that today, many people are convinced that this world economic crisis upon us has been caused precisely because of Reaganomics/ Bush-Dick Cheney’s failure to regulate the operations of Wall St greedy stock brokers, Banks, Insurance Companies, Real Estate & Investment and other speculators. Allowing them to ‘self-regulate’, has generated the current world economic catastrophe. So if anything, this occurrence suggests a stronger need for more public involvement in the global system.
We have seen that given modern telecommunication, internet, transport technologies, and use of all kinds of financial instruments, such as derivatives, these Wall St people can go profit-crazy even though their careless actions (considered by them as legitimate money making initiatives) would be risking the survivability of the entire World economic system. That is why from now onwards, (thanks to the new Obama administration) nobody is going to have a hundred- percent trust in Banks and Investment Companies any more. The confidence in them has been lowered.
Thus, since faith in Banks - on which Moyo builds her case has been shaken, her position therefore, is disputable. I therefore submit that, to conclude that Western aid donors must close shop within five years because China and other Asian countries can act to fill the vacuum, is very simplistic to say the least. This proposal is in itself a contradiction – coming from a well groomed student of capitalism [as a Harvard/Oxford product ought to be].
All in all, Africa cannot and should not bank on that fast-tract and risky paradigm shift. Even if the Western development aid has little to show for it’s over 50 year’s contribution - we’ve to make a very careful evaluation of our choices.
First of all, the elimination of Western development assistance within five years time frame work does not take into consideration the residual effect. That is, the deep rooted contacts Africa has established with the West, is not going to be easily shaken off. Only one who is naive can imagine so. Moreover, it is practically not possible to replace Western aid with alternative packages from some where else within that short span of time. Short-term ideas cannot solve long-term dilemmas.
And even if we were to look to China’s model - then Moyo’s emphasis on using private capital does not hold since every aid package coming out of China has some links with authorities. It is a recorded fact, that even with the impressive over ten percent (10%) annual economic growth, in China government plays a central role. It plays a role in ALL economic activities.
How will then Africans deal with a society where authoritarian central government and restricted media coverage, is the norm? Will the African leaders have a leeway, like they do now of being allowed to tell Western government off? Further more, since China is not yet a democratic society, authorities are notorious for suppressing their masses down. They for instance, pay pittance wages to laborers along with very poor work conditions.
Again we simply have to witness what is happening in Zambia, for example. Due to poor conditions and low pay, workers often times stage strikes and/or demonstrate against Chinese-run mining companies. And strangely, apart from those Zambians in administration - Chinese mining companies prefer employing people only as casuals (perpetual part-timers or temporary ones). That way, the companies escape being obligated to pay benefits. Already many human rights groups and other activists across Africa lament the lack of action on the part of China concerning Darfur genocide, for instance.
Also having terrible memories of say, discrimination and exploitation many African countries went through during colonialism and imperialism period, I am not sure if many of them would be prepared to go through the same agony once more under a new Master. Because of that, switching of economic-aid guards won’t happen easily.
It can only happen in my view, if Africans allowed themselves to be manipulated by whoever comes there looking for resources, or if we have, over time evolved into a subservient people.
Thus, to a careful observer, the poor human rights record - the Tiananmen Square fiasco, Tibet file, Malaysia, Darfur, DRC (Zaire), Zimbabwe, Cameroon and in other places where Chinese are present, suggests that human rights and promotion of democratic principles are of low priority to the Chinese. A little human suffering is okay for the sake of obtaining raw materials, crude oil et cetera. Look, in spite of their strong position of influence in both Sudan and Zimbabwe, they have allowed the suffering of poor people to continue.
Finally, when Moyo speaks in favor of Chinese projects in Africa, she completely ignores the dynamics behind the Chinese’s attitude. With the little scramble for Africa going on, the ultimate reason, it must be obvious, for this undoubtedly Chinese generosity is to compete against Western countries for resources and raw materials. Thus, China goes out of its way to assist Africans in order to win favors from them, so that they can get good concessions on things like land and minerals (gold, diamonds, uranium, chromium, platinum etc).
China’s interest in Africa is the acquisition of raw materials and will remain part of their long-term strategy to feed their robust economic growth. Africa’s resource is a must have, especially that it is on a path of one day becoming the largest economy in the world. I wouldn’t even be surprised if it turns out that – along side the development aid, they have a hidden military agenda. History is full of wars sparked or necessitated by resource scarcity.
In fact had the Africans being clever, they could have exploited this situation to the max – using it as a bargaining power. But I dare to say that the opportunity will be squandered, just as we did during the cold war era, when Soviet Union and US-led Western countries were competing for control of Africa continent.
It is against this background, therefore, that I think we can and should critically evaluate all what Dambisa Moyo is saying. Certainly a full rebuttal from someone is in order.
Toronto, April 21, 2009
Kaela B Mulenga
Development Policy Researcher/Consultant
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 3852
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (33)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Jan Van Der Merwe , July 14, 2009
Mulenga totally missed the point.. .....Pity!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by David Wilson , July 10, 2009
the problem with this reviewer, Kaela Mulenga (Doctor of what exactly?) - is that he has not read the book - QED.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Kaela , May 21, 2009
The problem with us Africans and our leaders is that, we do not want to accept our own failures. We always want to lump the blame on others – usually Westerners. When shall we start taking responsibility for our own mistakes?
Also, it seems that we always let the Westerners take the lead. Through messengers like Dambisa Moyo, the West is craftily preparing our African youth to accommodate them in a re-configured manner. Unless we wake up and smarten up, we’ll always remain the followers, with no chance to ever lead. Succumbing to a new form of slavery is terrible!
Also, it seems that we always let the Westerners take the lead. Through messengers like Dambisa Moyo, the West is craftily preparing our African youth to accommodate them in a re-configured manner. Unless we wake up and smarten up, we’ll always remain the followers, with no chance to ever lead. Succumbing to a new form of slavery is terrible!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Dzed , May 11, 2009
Africa has to find its own road to prosperity
By Paul Kagame
Published: May 7 2009 19:35 | Last updated: May 7 2009 19:35
At recent meetings of the Group of 20 and the International Monetary Fund, world leaders have gathered to discuss the global economic crisis. Unfortunately, it seems that many still believe they can solve the problems of the poor with sentimentality and promises of massive infusions of aid, which often do not materialise. We who live in, and lead, the world’s poorest nations are convinced that the leaders of the rich world and multilateral institutions have a heart for the poor. But they also need to have a mind for the poor.
Dambisa Moyo’s controversial book, Dead Aid, has given us an accurate evaluation of the aid culture today. The cycle of aid and poverty is durable: as long as poor nations are focused on receiving aid they will not work to improve their economies. Some of Ms Moyo’s prescriptions, such as ending all aid within five years, are aggressive. But I always thought this was the discussion we should be having: when to end aid and how best to end it.
Aid has not only often failed to meet its objectives; it has also rarely dealt with the underlying issues of poverty and weak societies. We see this with our neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There, 17,000 United Nations peacekeepers – the largest and most expensive presence of its kind in history – treat the symptoms rather than addressing the issues of capacity, self-determination and dignity.
Often, aid has left recipient populations unstable, distracted and more dependent; as Ashraf Ghani, the former finance minister of Afghanistan, has pointed out, it can even sever the relationship between democratically elected leadership and the populace.
Do not get me wrong. We appreciate support from the outside, but it should be support for what we intend to achieve ourselves. No one should pretend that they care about our nations more than we do; or assume that they know what is good for us better than we do ourselves. They should, in fact, respect us for wanting to decide our own fate.
At the same time, as I tell our people, nobody owes Rwandans anything. Why should anyone in Rwanda feel comfortable that taxpayers in other countries are contributing money for our wellbeing or development? Rwanda is a nation with high goals and a sense of purpose. We are attempting to increase our gross domestic product by seven times over a generation, which increases per capita incomes fourfold. This will create the basis for further innovation and foster trust, civic-mindedness and tolerance, strengthening our society.
Entrepreneurship is the surest way for a nation to meet these goals. Michael Fairbanks’ book, In The River They Swim, which uses Rwanda as one of its examples, highlights the need to respect local wisdom, build a culture of innovation and create investment opportunities in product development, new distribution systems and innovative branding.
Government activities should focus on supporting entrepreneurship not just to meet these new goals, but because it unlocks people’s minds, fosters innovation and enables people to exercise their talents. If people are shielded from the forces of competition, it is like saying they are disabled.
Entrepreneurship gives people the feeling that they are valued and have meaning, that they are as capable, as competent and as gifted as anyone else. Asking our citizens to compete is the same as asking them to go out into the world on behalf of Rwanda and play their part.
We know this is a tremendous challenge given our status as a land-locked nation emerging from conflict, with few natural resources, little specialised infrastructure and low historical investment in education. But, in fact, we have reasons to be optimistic: we have a clear strategy to export based on sustainable competitive advantages. We sell coffee now for high prices to the world’s most demanding purchasers; our tourism experience attracts the best customers in the world and market research reveals that perceptions of Rwandan tea are improving.
This has resulted in wages in key sectors rising at more than 20 per cent on an annual basis. We have cut our aid as a percentage of total GDP by half over the past decade, and last year we grew at more than 11 per cent even as the world entered a recession.
While this is encouraging, we know the road to prosperity is a long one. We will travel it with the help of a new school of development thinkers and entrepreneurs, with those who demonstrate they have not just a heart, but also a mind for the poor.
The writer is president of Rwanda
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
By Paul Kagame
Published: May 7 2009 19:35 | Last updated: May 7 2009 19:35
At recent meetings of the Group of 20 and the International Monetary Fund, world leaders have gathered to discuss the global economic crisis. Unfortunately, it seems that many still believe they can solve the problems of the poor with sentimentality and promises of massive infusions of aid, which often do not materialise. We who live in, and lead, the world’s poorest nations are convinced that the leaders of the rich world and multilateral institutions have a heart for the poor. But they also need to have a mind for the poor.
Dambisa Moyo’s controversial book, Dead Aid, has given us an accurate evaluation of the aid culture today. The cycle of aid and poverty is durable: as long as poor nations are focused on receiving aid they will not work to improve their economies. Some of Ms Moyo’s prescriptions, such as ending all aid within five years, are aggressive. But I always thought this was the discussion we should be having: when to end aid and how best to end it.
Aid has not only often failed to meet its objectives; it has also rarely dealt with the underlying issues of poverty and weak societies. We see this with our neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There, 17,000 United Nations peacekeepers – the largest and most expensive presence of its kind in history – treat the symptoms rather than addressing the issues of capacity, self-determination and dignity.
Often, aid has left recipient populations unstable, distracted and more dependent; as Ashraf Ghani, the former finance minister of Afghanistan, has pointed out, it can even sever the relationship between democratically elected leadership and the populace.
Do not get me wrong. We appreciate support from the outside, but it should be support for what we intend to achieve ourselves. No one should pretend that they care about our nations more than we do; or assume that they know what is good for us better than we do ourselves. They should, in fact, respect us for wanting to decide our own fate.
At the same time, as I tell our people, nobody owes Rwandans anything. Why should anyone in Rwanda feel comfortable that taxpayers in other countries are contributing money for our wellbeing or development? Rwanda is a nation with high goals and a sense of purpose. We are attempting to increase our gross domestic product by seven times over a generation, which increases per capita incomes fourfold. This will create the basis for further innovation and foster trust, civic-mindedness and tolerance, strengthening our society.
Entrepreneurship is the surest way for a nation to meet these goals. Michael Fairbanks’ book, In The River They Swim, which uses Rwanda as one of its examples, highlights the need to respect local wisdom, build a culture of innovation and create investment opportunities in product development, new distribution systems and innovative branding.
Government activities should focus on supporting entrepreneurship not just to meet these new goals, but because it unlocks people’s minds, fosters innovation and enables people to exercise their talents. If people are shielded from the forces of competition, it is like saying they are disabled.
Entrepreneurship gives people the feeling that they are valued and have meaning, that they are as capable, as competent and as gifted as anyone else. Asking our citizens to compete is the same as asking them to go out into the world on behalf of Rwanda and play their part.
We know this is a tremendous challenge given our status as a land-locked nation emerging from conflict, with few natural resources, little specialised infrastructure and low historical investment in education. But, in fact, we have reasons to be optimistic: we have a clear strategy to export based on sustainable competitive advantages. We sell coffee now for high prices to the world’s most demanding purchasers; our tourism experience attracts the best customers in the world and market research reveals that perceptions of Rwandan tea are improving.
This has resulted in wages in key sectors rising at more than 20 per cent on an annual basis. We have cut our aid as a percentage of total GDP by half over the past decade, and last year we grew at more than 11 per cent even as the world entered a recession.
While this is encouraging, we know the road to prosperity is a long one. We will travel it with the help of a new school of development thinkers and entrepreneurs, with those who demonstrate they have not just a heart, but also a mind for the poor.
The writer is president of Rwanda
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by mwine lukanga, lusaka, zambia , May 06, 2009
if vice president kunda were as presented in the profile then many of us zambians in zambia don’t know him. how is mr kunda, a former laz president, one of the best lawyers in zambian legal history without any mention of best cases or any cases he won or lost, precedents put on the law books? it’s like a top scorer without goals!
second, how and why is the second highest policy maker cited for being “a founder member of the mpatamatu secondary school old students association” and not for contribution to the national education policy, when unza, cbu etc regularly close for falling standards and underfunding thus the brain drain.
third, mwanawasa and kunda’s attempt to improve the constitution has been a wasteful, now 6 year, national disaster of the national constitutional conference (ncc). mwanawasa appointed kunda to two contradictory legal offices plus the third, mwanawasa & co. lawyer because the two were friends and not on merit.
fourth, dr chiluba’s corruption cases have taken about 7 years because they are fought on laws dr kaunda and dr chiluba left! mwanawasa’s and kunda’s contribution to law reform on corruption was the task force.
fifth, mr kunda blocked the electoral reforms as well as the media reforms. for one final thing, most zambians know how ineffective the vice presidency is because of constitutional deception. mr kunda’s friend and fellow “learned counsel” mwanawasa cited that in his resignation in 1994, but didn’t change it when he had an opportunity to. today, “hard working” kunda is being praised for an appointment to such a lazy job. rupiah banda appointed mr kunda at a press conference after he admittedly “mistakenly” shuffled and lost some paper! was it george kunda or george mpombo?
i think to eulogize mr kunda without balance and mention of his defects like ncc etc is inaccurate! just recently, mr kunda defended former transport minister dora siliya who was “convicted” by a tribunal for abuse of the constitution. how this scandal ends may determine if mr kunda is one zambia’s best legal brains!
mwine lukanga
lusaka, zambia
second, how and why is the second highest policy maker cited for being “a founder member of the mpatamatu secondary school old students association” and not for contribution to the national education policy, when unza, cbu etc regularly close for falling standards and underfunding thus the brain drain.
third, mwanawasa and kunda’s attempt to improve the constitution has been a wasteful, now 6 year, national disaster of the national constitutional conference (ncc). mwanawasa appointed kunda to two contradictory legal offices plus the third, mwanawasa & co. lawyer because the two were friends and not on merit.
fourth, dr chiluba’s corruption cases have taken about 7 years because they are fought on laws dr kaunda and dr chiluba left! mwanawasa’s and kunda’s contribution to law reform on corruption was the task force.
fifth, mr kunda blocked the electoral reforms as well as the media reforms. for one final thing, most zambians know how ineffective the vice presidency is because of constitutional deception. mr kunda’s friend and fellow “learned counsel” mwanawasa cited that in his resignation in 1994, but didn’t change it when he had an opportunity to. today, “hard working” kunda is being praised for an appointment to such a lazy job. rupiah banda appointed mr kunda at a press conference after he admittedly “mistakenly” shuffled and lost some paper! was it george kunda or george mpombo?
i think to eulogize mr kunda without balance and mention of his defects like ncc etc is inaccurate! just recently, mr kunda defended former transport minister dora siliya who was “convicted” by a tribunal for abuse of the constitution. how this scandal ends may determine if mr kunda is one zambia’s best legal brains!
mwine lukanga
lusaka, zambia
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Pat , April 27, 2009
It takes very long to build self esteem but once its there, three quarters of the goals are achieved. Short sightedness begs for quick fixes. Zambia now requires aid aid for bare survival now because of political mistakes done by our governments. Its not all hope lost, unless we choose leaders who plan short sightedly. We need to see our nation 5 years from now and 10 years from then and indeed 50 years and to a century. We will then see the opportunities and these communities we think are better than us will be doing business with us on an equal partnership and not just aid and poverty. Aid corrupts the mind and robs a nation of much confidence needed in decision making and self esteem. We need leaders who can see Zambias potential and not Aid, making us a nation of beggars.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Combinedsun , April 27, 2009
If you borrow money to invest in order to make a profit and invest the money wisely,then there is nothing wrong with that idea.But if you borrow money and consume your loans by buying off Rupiah Banda's relative debts off Zambian Airways, or buy our useless Ministers luxury cars then you are the biggest loser. You will have to come up loans when they are due and the big interest.In other words, to borrow or not to borrow isn't the issue but for what purpose!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Slumdog shalapungu , April 27, 2009
No more neocolonialism I think you misunderstood my point. No country on this planet is an island we all need the help of others to prosper. Saying zambia has everything to prosper maybe true but it needs to sell it's national resources to outsiders to prosper. Saying that Zambia can stand on it's on two feet is like a trader saying he has goods and needs no customers.Even the biggest nations on this planet need outside help America and china for instance. The chinese offer a way better package in comparison with the former colonial masters. As far as I know theres no colonial mentality with the chinese just shady business mentality that can easily be ironed out.
Let me give you an allegory between trade with the colonial masters and chinese
A chinese trader wants to buy from you but at any given oppurtinity will steal if you turn your eye away from him. If you stand firm he will still buy from you honestly and walk away
A colonial western trader will want to buy from you at reduced prices and will want a share in your business to the point where he controls that business. He will donate 100 kwacha to you and say it's Aid and then will demand 10000 kwacha from you from all the help he has given you.
Let me give you an allegory between trade with the colonial masters and chinese
A chinese trader wants to buy from you but at any given oppurtinity will steal if you turn your eye away from him. If you stand firm he will still buy from you honestly and walk away
A colonial western trader will want to buy from you at reduced prices and will want a share in your business to the point where he controls that business. He will donate 100 kwacha to you and say it's Aid and then will demand 10000 kwacha from you from all the help he has given you.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by No More Neocolonialism , April 26, 2009
" Dr Kaela Mulenga is wrong, he attacks China as an alternative partner and yet I wonder if he knows if No CHINA then it's back to the colonial masters. "
Why? Zambia has everything it needs to develop. It has massive natural resources, and there are many ways to benefit from those. For instance, if Zambia does not have mining companies capable of mining them (they did under Kaunda), you can always levy heavy taxes on western mining companies. That would get the country the money it needs to develop - no loans required. If there is not enough expertise to set up farms, then we can send out students to learn from the Chinese, Indians and Japanese, just as Japan did when it industrialized - they sent out students to bring technology back, they never went to seek out western companies to do manufacturing for them in Japan itself.
It is the corruption of the current crop of politicians, who are pushing this colonial mindset in the service of neocolonialism (i.e., the continued exporting of raw materials, and without benefiting form it).
We need to start producing goods for our own markets. Use existing consumption as the basis for creating a manufacturing base and create jobs. (Just as a thought, there are 12 million Zambians, 70% of which (8.4 million) live on $1,- per day - that is 8.4m x $1 x 365 days = $3.066 billion per year in food, heating, etc).
What if everything consumed in Zambia was produced in Zambia? Tractors, fertilizer, cell phones etc. What if Zambia no longer exported ore, but only copper cathodes, copper wire, etc?
It is the law and a good industrial policy that has nothing to do with 'attracting foreign investors', that is lacking.
We need politicians who no longer have this neocolonial mindset that everything good must come from abroad. Or that in order to develop, we need to attract foreign businesses instead of enabling our own entrepreneurs.
Why? Zambia has everything it needs to develop. It has massive natural resources, and there are many ways to benefit from those. For instance, if Zambia does not have mining companies capable of mining them (they did under Kaunda), you can always levy heavy taxes on western mining companies. That would get the country the money it needs to develop - no loans required. If there is not enough expertise to set up farms, then we can send out students to learn from the Chinese, Indians and Japanese, just as Japan did when it industrialized - they sent out students to bring technology back, they never went to seek out western companies to do manufacturing for them in Japan itself.
It is the corruption of the current crop of politicians, who are pushing this colonial mindset in the service of neocolonialism (i.e., the continued exporting of raw materials, and without benefiting form it).
We need to start producing goods for our own markets. Use existing consumption as the basis for creating a manufacturing base and create jobs. (Just as a thought, there are 12 million Zambians, 70% of which (8.4 million) live on $1,- per day - that is 8.4m x $1 x 365 days = $3.066 billion per year in food, heating, etc).
What if everything consumed in Zambia was produced in Zambia? Tractors, fertilizer, cell phones etc. What if Zambia no longer exported ore, but only copper cathodes, copper wire, etc?
It is the law and a good industrial policy that has nothing to do with 'attracting foreign investors', that is lacking.
We need politicians who no longer have this neocolonial mindset that everything good must come from abroad. Or that in order to develop, we need to attract foreign businesses instead of enabling our own entrepreneurs.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by kwanu ni kwanu , April 26, 2009
Dambisa's teacher ( Prof) wrote this as part of the review of her book-
"Dambisa Moyo is to aid what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is to Islam. Here is an African woman, articulate, smart, glamorous, delivering a message of brazen political incorrectness: cut aid to Africa. Aid, she argues, has not merely failed to work; it has compounded Africa's problems. Moyo cannot be dismissed as a crank. Educated at Harvard and Oxford, she heads the Africa strategy of a major bank. Nor can she be dismissed as a renegade who has rejected her roots. She is deeply wounded by the lack of development in Zambia, her home country....
But the core of her argument is that there is a better alternative. Governments could find money for development through financial markets, both international and domestic...
So is there solid evidence to refute her claim that aid worsens governance and so impoverishes? Unfortunately, the research on whether aid is effective is frankly shambolic. At the level of an individual project we can often show it is effective, but this misses Moyo's point: that what matters is the overall impact on the society.....
However, cutting aid may not be the best response. My preferred alternative is to strengthen its potential for "governance conditionality": aid agencies should insist on both transparent budgeting and free and fair elections. That said, I have to admit that Moyo has a good retort. She shows how feeble aid agencies have been: when occasionally one gets tough, others compensate. Within aid agencies, performance is judged predominantly by short-term criteria such as how much aid is disbursed, rather than longer-term effects on accountability. Based on past behaviour, a government could assume that the aid would keep flowing more or less regardless of what it did....
African societies face problems deeper than their dependence on aid. Divided by ethnic loyalties, they are too large to be nations. Yet with only tiny economies, they lack the scale to be effective states. As a result the vital public goods of security and accountability cannot adequately be provided. In their absence the valuable natural assets that many countries possess become liabilities instead of opportunities for prosperity....
(Paul Collier is professor of economics at Oxford University and author of 'The Bottom Billion' (Oxford)-As it happens I taught Moyo both at Harvard and Oxford, but her ideas are decidedly her own )
The problem with Dead Aid is that it does nothing to advance the debate on development assistance. This is partly because the author is bent on tilting at windmills. Most advocates for increased development assistance recognize that aid is not a cure-all for poverty and that trade is critically important (most of Moyo's evidence on trade is actually lifted from Oxfam). They also recognize that corruption is a serious problem, that aid is often less effective than it should be, and that aid flows have to be managed to prevent economic distortions that can harm growth prospects. Compared with Moyo, Bob Geldof is a model of nuance and cautious realism.
The more serious difficulty with Dead Aid is the evidence base. Take the argument three decades of aid have served only to increase poverty and reduced economic growth. In fact, there is a large body of academic work pointing in the opposite direction: on average, aid tends to raise growth levels. Establishing causality from aid to growth, or vice versa, is inherently difficult. But Moyo is apparently oblivious to the causality problem. Using her logic, you could argue that fire engines cause fires because you find them near burning houses.
The difficulties don't end there. Thirty years ago, much of what passed as aid was directed not towards African growth and poverty reduction, but to Cold War priorities. Why would you expect aid replenishments to the Swiss bank accounts of Daniel Arap Moi or Mobuto Sese Seko to help Africa's poor?
One of the most disconcerting aspects of Dead Aid is its failure to explore why past aid has delivered so little. The impact of the debt crisis in undermining economic growth, reinforcing poverty, and eroding health and education systems is ignored. Structural adjustment programs which made aid conditional on governments signing up for stringent deflation and damaging experiments in 'big-bang' market liberalization barely get a mention. This is despite the fact that Moyo's home country, Zambia, was one of the worst affected countries, with the agricultural sector left devastated by a botched liberalization of food marketing.
Whatever the factors behind the failures of the 1980s and 1990s, recent evidence points in a more positive direction. Before the economic crisis struck, eighteen non-oil exporting economies in Africa--from Burkina Faso and Mali to Ghana, Tanzania and Mozambique--were growing at more than 5 per cent a year. For the record, all of these countries are highly aid-dependent. Higher growth has brought with it some fragile gains in poverty reduction. Since 2000, for the first time in over three decades, the incidence of poverty in Africa has been falling--from 58 per cent to 51 per cent. Moyo turns a blind-eye to evidence for an obvious reason: it doesn't back her prejudices.
It's not just the economic growth and poverty story that Moyo misrepresents. Throughout the book, Africa is represented as a basket case for human development--a "zero-progress" zone for the targets set under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This is a caricature. ( Kevin Watkins- Huffington Post).
What is sad about Dambisa book marketing TV appearances is that,usually she sits side by side with a
caucasian person but ironically it is always the caucasian person that makes the most sense.
African's poverty did not begin with the first aid or loan, show me a picture of Africans at the begining of the 20th century or better still go the Himba (East Africa) or the bushmen (southern Africa), there status is indicative of the extreme poverty and underdevelopment that engulfed much of sub saharan Africa. On the other hand find pictures of London or any western city of the same period , you will see the difference in standard of living is extreme. Therefore if we expect 1 Trillion dollars to offset generational poverty across the Africa continent, I think thats a bridge too far..
Of course it is just and prudent for Africans to be able to meet their needs, but what needs are we talking about? The Himba or Bushmen have no need of Starbucks neither does my grandma in the village, poverty is relative to one's circumstances.
Perhaps Dambisa is frustrated that Lusaka after receiving 7 billions dollar in aid still does not have a Starbucks but is that a reasonable expection given what Lusaka looked like 50 years ago?
Social development has many factors to it, inter cultural interaction is only part of it, the problem must Africans educated in the west have maybe accepting the status quo when they return to their homeland. They wonder why there is no Starbucks, no well stocked libraries, no efficient public transport, no efficient govt etc. After graduating tops in a class of western there is temptation to feel an equal footing in all things but our African history is not on the same footing.
Unless I have not heard of them we had no African Leonardo di Vinci, Plato, William Shakespeare, Mozart sure we have evidence of some great passivisation for some dark era but the foundation on which specter contemporary western civilization stands is not as strong in Africa.
"Dambisa Moyo is to aid what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is to Islam. Here is an African woman, articulate, smart, glamorous, delivering a message of brazen political incorrectness: cut aid to Africa. Aid, she argues, has not merely failed to work; it has compounded Africa's problems. Moyo cannot be dismissed as a crank. Educated at Harvard and Oxford, she heads the Africa strategy of a major bank. Nor can she be dismissed as a renegade who has rejected her roots. She is deeply wounded by the lack of development in Zambia, her home country....
But the core of her argument is that there is a better alternative. Governments could find money for development through financial markets, both international and domestic...
So is there solid evidence to refute her claim that aid worsens governance and so impoverishes? Unfortunately, the research on whether aid is effective is frankly shambolic. At the level of an individual project we can often show it is effective, but this misses Moyo's point: that what matters is the overall impact on the society.....
However, cutting aid may not be the best response. My preferred alternative is to strengthen its potential for "governance conditionality": aid agencies should insist on both transparent budgeting and free and fair elections. That said, I have to admit that Moyo has a good retort. She shows how feeble aid agencies have been: when occasionally one gets tough, others compensate. Within aid agencies, performance is judged predominantly by short-term criteria such as how much aid is disbursed, rather than longer-term effects on accountability. Based on past behaviour, a government could assume that the aid would keep flowing more or less regardless of what it did....
African societies face problems deeper than their dependence on aid. Divided by ethnic loyalties, they are too large to be nations. Yet with only tiny economies, they lack the scale to be effective states. As a result the vital public goods of security and accountability cannot adequately be provided. In their absence the valuable natural assets that many countries possess become liabilities instead of opportunities for prosperity....
(Paul Collier is professor of economics at Oxford University and author of 'The Bottom Billion' (Oxford)-As it happens I taught Moyo both at Harvard and Oxford, but her ideas are decidedly her own )
The problem with Dead Aid is that it does nothing to advance the debate on development assistance. This is partly because the author is bent on tilting at windmills. Most advocates for increased development assistance recognize that aid is not a cure-all for poverty and that trade is critically important (most of Moyo's evidence on trade is actually lifted from Oxfam). They also recognize that corruption is a serious problem, that aid is often less effective than it should be, and that aid flows have to be managed to prevent economic distortions that can harm growth prospects. Compared with Moyo, Bob Geldof is a model of nuance and cautious realism.
The more serious difficulty with Dead Aid is the evidence base. Take the argument three decades of aid have served only to increase poverty and reduced economic growth. In fact, there is a large body of academic work pointing in the opposite direction: on average, aid tends to raise growth levels. Establishing causality from aid to growth, or vice versa, is inherently difficult. But Moyo is apparently oblivious to the causality problem. Using her logic, you could argue that fire engines cause fires because you find them near burning houses.
The difficulties don't end there. Thirty years ago, much of what passed as aid was directed not towards African growth and poverty reduction, but to Cold War priorities. Why would you expect aid replenishments to the Swiss bank accounts of Daniel Arap Moi or Mobuto Sese Seko to help Africa's poor?
One of the most disconcerting aspects of Dead Aid is its failure to explore why past aid has delivered so little. The impact of the debt crisis in undermining economic growth, reinforcing poverty, and eroding health and education systems is ignored. Structural adjustment programs which made aid conditional on governments signing up for stringent deflation and damaging experiments in 'big-bang' market liberalization barely get a mention. This is despite the fact that Moyo's home country, Zambia, was one of the worst affected countries, with the agricultural sector left devastated by a botched liberalization of food marketing.
Whatever the factors behind the failures of the 1980s and 1990s, recent evidence points in a more positive direction. Before the economic crisis struck, eighteen non-oil exporting economies in Africa--from Burkina Faso and Mali to Ghana, Tanzania and Mozambique--were growing at more than 5 per cent a year. For the record, all of these countries are highly aid-dependent. Higher growth has brought with it some fragile gains in poverty reduction. Since 2000, for the first time in over three decades, the incidence of poverty in Africa has been falling--from 58 per cent to 51 per cent. Moyo turns a blind-eye to evidence for an obvious reason: it doesn't back her prejudices.
It's not just the economic growth and poverty story that Moyo misrepresents. Throughout the book, Africa is represented as a basket case for human development--a "zero-progress" zone for the targets set under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This is a caricature. ( Kevin Watkins- Huffington Post).
What is sad about Dambisa book marketing TV appearances is that,usually she sits side by side with a
caucasian person but ironically it is always the caucasian person that makes the most sense.
African's poverty did not begin with the first aid or loan, show me a picture of Africans at the begining of the 20th century or better still go the Himba (East Africa) or the bushmen (southern Africa), there status is indicative of the extreme poverty and underdevelopment that engulfed much of sub saharan Africa. On the other hand find pictures of London or any western city of the same period , you will see the difference in standard of living is extreme. Therefore if we expect 1 Trillion dollars to offset generational poverty across the Africa continent, I think thats a bridge too far..
Of course it is just and prudent for Africans to be able to meet their needs, but what needs are we talking about? The Himba or Bushmen have no need of Starbucks neither does my grandma in the village, poverty is relative to one's circumstances.
Perhaps Dambisa is frustrated that Lusaka after receiving 7 billions dollar in aid still does not have a Starbucks but is that a reasonable expection given what Lusaka looked like 50 years ago?
Social development has many factors to it, inter cultural interaction is only part of it, the problem must Africans educated in the west have maybe accepting the status quo when they return to their homeland. They wonder why there is no Starbucks, no well stocked libraries, no efficient public transport, no efficient govt etc. After graduating tops in a class of western there is temptation to feel an equal footing in all things but our African history is not on the same footing.
Unless I have not heard of them we had no African Leonardo di Vinci, Plato, William Shakespeare, Mozart sure we have evidence of some great passivisation for some dark era but the foundation on which specter contemporary western civilization stands is not as strong in Africa.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by AS , April 26, 2009
The funny part is Kaela says he hasnt read Dambiso's book. So, why critisice something which you are in othr words claiming you do not understand. Kaela. simply doesnt understand.
On the fcae of things, surely aid is not something to be proud of, meaning, we should learn to work for ourselves, and sustain our budgets.
On the fcae of things, surely aid is not something to be proud of, meaning, we should learn to work for ourselves, and sustain our budgets.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Truth , April 26, 2009
It would be great if people would write a book so as we can critiise them too. Our young lady has done us a humble deed. Spoken when others procrastinated. Lets not pretend like AID gets to the general populace. May God bless Dambisa and may many more spring up that grab any bull by its horns.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Tobwa , April 26, 2009
Kwanu ni kwanu
CP's(cooperating partners) are not donor agencies donating to the poor zambian, they are financial institutions that have interests in zambian infrastructure for financial gain.Most cp's are mere loan sharks that lend huge amounts only to ask for a pound of flesh later on. Theres nothing in what you have posted that rebuts my fact that UNZA bursaries are paid via tax money.the money that you seem to think is accounted for is a loan (liability) which will need to be paid back.
CP's(cooperating partners) are not donor agencies donating to the poor zambian, they are financial institutions that have interests in zambian infrastructure for financial gain.Most cp's are mere loan sharks that lend huge amounts only to ask for a pound of flesh later on. Theres nothing in what you have posted that rebuts my fact that UNZA bursaries are paid via tax money.the money that you seem to think is accounted for is a loan (liability) which will need to be paid back.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by jon , April 26, 2009
Dr. Kaela Mulenga - I think you should have done the noble thing of reading Dambisa's book and grasp the content fully before rushing to critisise. This book has been reviewed by other scholars and it has a very good rating. I urge you to read it in full and feedback later. Please dont rely on paragraphs. A bit disappointed by you. By your own admission you did not read it
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by radicalrationale , April 26, 2009
If cutting off aid to the Zambian govt will force it to find alternative sources and consequently lead to an efficient govt as Dambisa says, I have would like to make a few suggestions on how the Zambian government can recoup some of the money thus far spent on educating Zambians especially those now living in diaspora and possibly fund better education in Zambia -
i) Petition western governments particularly the UK and US to expel every Zambian that has stayed on after completing government, former ZCCM or aid agency sponsored study in the next five years.
ii) Convert the cost of study to student loans with interest and begin collecting fees from these Zambians, just like Americans or British students repay student loans.
Regardless of high unemployment in Zambia the returning graduates will find alternative forms of income, besides America's founders were also, only equipped with ideas and a firm belief in making it work.
iii) The Zambian govt should cut ALL subsidies, charge user fees for all services rendered in education, health, agriculture etc in the next 5 years.
i) Petition western governments particularly the UK and US to expel every Zambian that has stayed on after completing government, former ZCCM or aid agency sponsored study in the next five years.
ii) Convert the cost of study to student loans with interest and begin collecting fees from these Zambians, just like Americans or British students repay student loans.
Regardless of high unemployment in Zambia the returning graduates will find alternative forms of income, besides America's founders were also, only equipped with ideas and a firm belief in making it work.
iii) The Zambian govt should cut ALL subsidies, charge user fees for all services rendered in education, health, agriculture etc in the next 5 years.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by kwanu ni kwanu , April 26, 2009
Tobwa-
The 50% figure only refers to the period in the 70'S here is how the Zambian govt funded it budget in 2008 according the Minister of finance when he presented this years' budget-
"Mr. Speaker, for the year 2008,total expenditures amounted to K13,402.6billion against the target of K13,761.4billion. On the other hand, total domesticrevenue collections and foreign grantreceipts, excluding revenues from the newmining tax regime, were K12,008.2billion, and were marginally below thetarget of K12,106.4 billion. The deficit ofK1,394.3 billion was financed throughdomestic borrowing of K811.6 billion andforeign financing of K582.7 billion.34. Mr. Speaker, domestic revenuecollections in 2008 amounted to K9,918.1billion. This was above the target ofK9,828.5 billion and represented 18.5percent of GDP. Of this amount, taxrevenues amounted to K9,350.9 billion,and were 2.4 percent above target. Nontaxrevenues totalled K567.3 billion, andwere 18.4 percent below the target ofK694.9 billion.35. Sir, from the new mining taxregime, the Government expected tocollect K917.3 billion by end-December2008. Collections however were muchlower at K319.5 billion, representing a 65percent under-collection. This was mainlyon account of administrative challenges inimplementing the regime during the year.36. Mr. Speaker, grant receipts fromour cooperating partners totalled K2,090.1billion against the projected amount ofK2,277.9 billion, representing a shortfallof 8.2 percent.37. Mr. Speaker, total expenditures in2008, excluding foreign financed projects,amounted to K11,518.0 billion.Categorised by function, General PublicServices accounted for the highest share at33.8 percent, while Education and Healthcombined followed at 27.9 percent.Economic Affairs accounted for 15.0percent, while the balance of 23.3 percentwent to Housing and CommunityAmenities; Defence; Public Order andSafety; Social Protection"
The 50% figure only refers to the period in the 70'S here is how the Zambian govt funded it budget in 2008 according the Minister of finance when he presented this years' budget-
"Mr. Speaker, for the year 2008,total expenditures amounted to K13,402.6billion against the target of K13,761.4billion. On the other hand, total domesticrevenue collections and foreign grantreceipts, excluding revenues from the newmining tax regime, were K12,008.2billion, and were marginally below thetarget of K12,106.4 billion. The deficit ofK1,394.3 billion was financed throughdomestic borrowing of K811.6 billion andforeign financing of K582.7 billion.34. Mr. Speaker, domestic revenuecollections in 2008 amounted to K9,918.1billion. This was above the target ofK9,828.5 billion and represented 18.5percent of GDP. Of this amount, taxrevenues amounted to K9,350.9 billion,and were 2.4 percent above target. Nontaxrevenues totalled K567.3 billion, andwere 18.4 percent below the target ofK694.9 billion.35. Sir, from the new mining taxregime, the Government expected tocollect K917.3 billion by end-December2008. Collections however were muchlower at K319.5 billion, representing a 65percent under-collection. This was mainlyon account of administrative challenges inimplementing the regime during the year.36. Mr. Speaker, grant receipts fromour cooperating partners totalled K2,090.1billion against the projected amount ofK2,277.9 billion, representing a shortfallof 8.2 percent.37. Mr. Speaker, total expenditures in2008, excluding foreign financed projects,amounted to K11,518.0 billion.Categorised by function, General PublicServices accounted for the highest share at33.8 percent, while Education and Healthcombined followed at 27.9 percent.Economic Affairs accounted for 15.0percent, while the balance of 23.3 percentwent to Housing and CommunityAmenities; Defence; Public Order andSafety; Social Protection"
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by kwanu ni kwanu , April 25, 2009
Tobwa-
You might be surprised to know that more than 50% of the Zambian annual budget, from which the Ministry of education funds the bursaries program is funded by Foriegn donors. Much further do you think free primary and secondary school education( basic) was continue in rural Zambia, without the Zambian govt accessing donor funding for its annual budget?
You might be surprised to know that more than 50% of the Zambian annual budget, from which the Ministry of education funds the bursaries program is funded by Foriegn donors. Much further do you think free primary and secondary school education( basic) was continue in rural Zambia, without the Zambian govt accessing donor funding for its annual budget?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Tobwa , April 25, 2009
Kwanu ni kwanu
May I correct you on the fact that Unza bursaries come from donor Aid. The monye used for bursaries comes from Taxpayers not from donors abroad. I think it's assumptions that are wrong like Kwanu ni Kwanu are the reason why Africans can never wean themselves of donor aid because you are under a constant assumption the little money we have is from donors.
May I correct you on the fact that Unza bursaries come from donor Aid. The monye used for bursaries comes from Taxpayers not from donors abroad. I think it's assumptions that are wrong like Kwanu ni Kwanu are the reason why Africans can never wean themselves of donor aid because you are under a constant assumption the little money we have is from donors.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Zambia One , April 25, 2009
What is the matter with us Zambians,Kaela has set out a very meaningful debate about our Dambisa's book, and i don't feel by any means he has any ill feelings or Jealousy for her own success.Why are we so unconfortable to meaningfully discuss issues with due respect, as Africans and always end up insulting each other, and wanting to suppress each other's views.This in my oppinion is the attitude that makes Africa not to develop,because this is the same attitude we see in the way our leaders back home govern nations.There's nothing wrong with having different oppinions about issues and we need to discuss so that we come out with refined ideas.Is it a matter of maturity or civilization??
Lets mature and learn,and not just Educated.
Lets mature and learn,and not just Educated.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Kwanu ni kwanu , April 25, 2009
Though Dambisa makes a distinction between charitable aid and loans to African govts, the overall premise of her book that "aid" has failed to uplift the quality of life in Africa is flawed. she is only right in calling attention to the failure of SOME African govts to make effective use of every loaned dollar, she fails to acknowledge the impact loans have had in improving health, education, transport, communication, energy infrastructure for many Africans. When newly independent African govts sought loans from from the western govts, the IMF and Worldbank in the 60's and 70's the rate of infant mortality, illiteracy, poor/NO roads was staggering. It is fair to say that every living Zambian over 40 has or had at least parent or immediate relative who could not read or write contrast this with the number of Zambians educated in the last 40 years.
Dambisa herself is a beneficially of free education made possible by loans the Zambian govt got to build schools, including the university of Zambia. Where does Dambisa think the part of bursary allowance she got at UNZA came from?
Hindsight vision is 20/20 but for Dambisa, after getting the benefit of free education and ending up the ladders of the World Bank and Goldman Sachs
she now wants to pull the plug for other Africans.
What is it about some educated Zambians in particular that makes them yank the plug for others after making it big?
Dambisa herself is a beneficially of free education made possible by loans the Zambian govt got to build schools, including the university of Zambia. Where does Dambisa think the part of bursary allowance she got at UNZA came from?
Hindsight vision is 20/20 but for Dambisa, after getting the benefit of free education and ending up the ladders of the World Bank and Goldman Sachs
she now wants to pull the plug for other Africans.
What is it about some educated Zambians in particular that makes them yank the plug for others after making it big?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Tobwa , April 25, 2009
Dr kaela and other economists(zambianeconomist) criticising Dambisa, where were your economic proposals to help Zambia and Africa as a whole?? Did you just sit and wait for Dambisa to write a book before you jumped out to grab a pen? I sense some saltiness here because how are you quick to critique a book you haven't read properly. I know a lot of academics harbour huge ego's but sometimes give credit where it's due , build your own reputation don't wait for someone to gain recognition before you want to build on what you want to destroy. i googled Dr Kaela and it seems your contributions and accomplishments are not as extensive as Dambisa's. Dambisa's theory is long overdue because the majority of africans already know the problems with AID, am just glad it took a zambian like Dambisa to point out the obvious. As with regards to the issue with China thats ano brainer, everyone knows the chinese though corrupt other a way better deal with the west.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Kush , April 25, 2009
Dr Kaela,
If only you had cared listen to Dr Moyo and not been so hastey in penning your critique, you will know that she distinguishes emergency humanitarian aid and charities(e.g boreholes, vaccines etc) from govt to govt aid (bilateral) and multinational aid which her book is on, and which also forms the bulk of the aid inflows to Africa.
She also explains that you may diagree with her on her 5 yr timeline to cut aid but there atleast be an agreement that open aided must cease, whether in 10 yrs, 15yrs etc it simply can't go on indefinately
If only you had cared listen to Dr Moyo and not been so hastey in penning your critique, you will know that she distinguishes emergency humanitarian aid and charities(e.g boreholes, vaccines etc) from govt to govt aid (bilateral) and multinational aid which her book is on, and which also forms the bulk of the aid inflows to Africa.
She also explains that you may diagree with her on her 5 yr timeline to cut aid but there atleast be an agreement that open aided must cease, whether in 10 yrs, 15yrs etc it simply can't go on indefinately
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Well, Well , April 25, 2009
So you have not yet read the book and yet you had the audacity to write all this? Seriously Dr., do you not see anything wrong with this?
Where did you get your doctorate from Sir? I suggest you give it back seriously.
The minute I heard of the book, I went on the net, checked my nearest bookshops & within hours I was reading through the pages. The weekend of that week, I met Dambisa in Oxford and we had a constructive chat. I would have felt ashamed discussing her book on the back of hear-say.
You are bringing the doctorate into disrupt Sir and I am even more dissapointed in you than before.
Where did you get your doctorate from Sir? I suggest you give it back seriously.
The minute I heard of the book, I went on the net, checked my nearest bookshops & within hours I was reading through the pages. The weekend of that week, I met Dambisa in Oxford and we had a constructive chat. I would have felt ashamed discussing her book on the back of hear-say.
You are bringing the doctorate into disrupt Sir and I am even more dissapointed in you than before.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Kaela , April 25, 2009
I just got the book, I’ll go through it. Some points made here are good others not. But it doesn’t bother me because I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. Neither does Dambisa. Jeoffrey Sachs and others have already expressed different view points from hers.
The fact that many of you jumped to the key board shows that I touched on something. Rest assured that I will never be afraid to express my own opinion on matters which affect me either directly or indirectly, Oh! by the way, the beauty of being independent and living in a democratic society - is that you can express yourself freely without fearing any repercussions or reprimands. It is a beautiful life based on choice. Keep on writing. Thanks! Kaela
The fact that many of you jumped to the key board shows that I touched on something. Rest assured that I will never be afraid to express my own opinion on matters which affect me either directly or indirectly, Oh! by the way, the beauty of being independent and living in a democratic society - is that you can express yourself freely without fearing any repercussions or reprimands. It is a beautiful life based on choice. Keep on writing. Thanks! Kaela
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Kachepa , April 25, 2009
I find it extremely disappointing that a "doctor" could criticise an academic piece of work without fully reading it. Dr kaelo or whatever you are called, if you are really worth your salt read dr moyo's book in full before making your presumptious accusations. Media buzz can be tantamount to tabloid reporting and to make conclusions from them, from a man of learning, like yourself just shows why we don't need dinosaurs like you.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Muko , April 25, 2009
Dr Kaela, I strongly agree with you over the Chinese:the so called Chinese Investors, they are not doing any good for Zambia the exploit our people,mistreat and later pay them peanuts. I am not for the Chinese Investors, we know that the only reason they are still in Zambia is political. They leaders are getting their huge commissions and top profits directly from the Chinese.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by muko , April 25, 2009
Critics will always be there :to criticize other peoples efforts of work. Did you say you are an Economist Dr Kaela? You have been in Canada for years now and if you wanted your ideas to be heard you would have stood up for them years ago. It’s a new generation and we need people like Dr Moyo to contribute , face and contribute to the world. She is very courageous, intelligent and is not afraid of sharing her views.
Its true that over half of Donor the funds go in the hands of the politicians in Zambia not for getting our own leader.
Leaders are there to help themselves and do not care much about the citizens.
Its true that over half of Donor the funds go in the hands of the politicians in Zambia not for getting our own leader.
Leaders are there to help themselves and do not care much about the citizens.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Baby cee , April 25, 2009
Dr kaela Mulenga where have you been all these? mwalika uko komwaikala for years why did it take long for you to give advice to Zambian, mwilaumfwila umwaiche jelous. She is very intellegent and she has been given respect by alot of people in the world for her hard work.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Baby cee , April 25, 2009
Dr Kaela Mulenga is just jelous of the young lady Dr moyo. Where has he been all these years? Wake up Dr and start giving advice and not critsizing other people's work. You can also write a book if you want, Dr Moyo is intellegent. I wish her God's blessings!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Well, Well , April 25, 2009
Dr Kaela Mulenga is one of those pointless Doctors we have litered across Zambia. Never coming up with anything original, always prepared to sound "educated" at every concievable opportunity to critisize.
What is the point? Dambisa represents a different breed, the new breed, the young, original and progressive thinking.
I am 100% behind Dambisa and I will do everything in my power to support her cause. Beat that Doctor!!!
What is the point? Dambisa represents a different breed, the new breed, the young, original and progressive thinking.
I am 100% behind Dambisa and I will do everything in my power to support her cause. Beat that Doctor!!!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by dzed , April 24, 2009
i agree with slumdog...i think dr mulenga is very wrong...my thinking is that we can take aid and continue working with anyone...including china...china has come on the scene with there interest very clear for everyone to see...its up to africa to show their interests too...so much much that when we with any power or region...our interests come first...if the west provide aid...we get it...if on the other hand china provides investments...we get it...what we need to do is to provide conditions within which the chinese operate...it would unwise to complain that chinese companies offer poor conditions when we r the ones that come up with labour laws...change the laws to suit the local people...institute minimum wages and other conditions...moyo is providing a viable alternative...it has some flaws...they can be worked on.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Slumdog Shalapungu , April 24, 2009
Dr Kaela Mulenga is wrong, he attacks China as an alternative partner and yet I wonder if he knows if No CHINA then it's back to the colonial masters. I do agree with the fact that China may e exploiting africa but in comparison with the colonial masters China offers a better package. China needs to be regulated in africa and monitered that will sort out the problems caused by these chinese.
And as far as praising bono and the likes of Geldoff , they are just puppets and most of the aid they promote never even reaches the intended people. Some africans have a disabled mentality where you assume the little we live on comes from Aid when in fact it doesn't come from Aid. Take Salaulafor example , it leaves the west on the pretext of charities giving clothes to the poor for free and yet when it arrives in Africa those clothes are for sale.
Lastly I cannot stand african scholars who are very vociferous towards China and yet are silent against the west's exploitation of africa. Did china ever colonize africa?? talk about a military agenda tell me dr mulenga areb't most of the weapons in african wars from the west.This is not really about Dambisa Moyo, it's more about how you still want to be breastfed by the west despite the countless atrocities and genocides they did and still continue to do.
And as far as praising bono and the likes of Geldoff , they are just puppets and most of the aid they promote never even reaches the intended people. Some africans have a disabled mentality where you assume the little we live on comes from Aid when in fact it doesn't come from Aid. Take Salaulafor example , it leaves the west on the pretext of charities giving clothes to the poor for free and yet when it arrives in Africa those clothes are for sale.
Lastly I cannot stand african scholars who are very vociferous towards China and yet are silent against the west's exploitation of africa. Did china ever colonize africa?? talk about a military agenda tell me dr mulenga areb't most of the weapons in african wars from the west.This is not really about Dambisa Moyo, it's more about how you still want to be breastfed by the west despite the countless atrocities and genocides they did and still continue to do.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
| Related articles: |
|---|
|
| Powered By relatedArticle |
Copyright © 2010 - 2010 Joomla