how foreign aid creates povertyHow Fore

How Foreign "Aid" Creates Poverty... or when good intentions go wrongly

Envision a community somewhere in the developing world experiencing high mortality rates due to malaria and contaminated drinking water. Over the years the high mortality has kept population growth in check and in general balance with the surrounding environment. Fertility rates are high at six or seven but since infant mortality is high this does not create an unsustainable trend.

The high mortality rate soon catches the attention of international aid groups� mostly centered in Europe or the US. These groups often look for problems that can be addressed readily and cost effectively with existing technology. Certainly malaria and water borne diseases meet these criteria. Soon a group dispatches mosquito nets and distributes them to the general population. Malaria infection rates plummet. The aid group gets some positive recognition and publicity and they move on to another project.

The attaboy response is noticed by another aid group that specializes in water treatment equipment and they send in water filtration devices that remove micro organisms and advise all to drink and cook with only filtered water. Infection rates plummet. Another aid group gets some quick praise and publicity. All get that warm and fuzzy feeling from doing well. And they move on.

Meanwhile no one recognizes that the well meaning "aid" groups failed to view the consequences of their technology transfer in a long term perspective. They were more interested in short term problem solving that gave them the immediate feedback of positive publicity and thus the ability to announce their successes in literature seeking contributions. However, while their efforts increased life expectancy and reduced infant mortality they did little to address fertility. After all, the consequences of high fertility rates take a longer time to become manifest, and discussing family planning and birth control is often "touchy" or potentially politically sensitive so better left alone or ignored.

Then after maybe a decade or two it is revealed that the same region is being threatened by a water shortage due to cyclical climate variability. In the past, periodic drought periods and floods strained food resources but were manageable. There would be a temporary switch to the cultivation of drought resistant crops and there was usually plenty of water to drink to sustain the needs of those resistant to the microbiological load.

But this time the population has doubled. The surrounding arable land that could have been used for back up cultivation was now diminished by village sprawl and unavailable for cultivation. Other food sources were also under pressure� like the farm animals used for protein from their meat and milk. As the population exploded the number of animals had similarly increased to the extent the animals were consuming about all available natural food in surrounding grasslands. With the advent of drought the grasses already stressed to the margin grew more sparsely and were not able to maintain the herds. Meat shortages then added to the vegetable and grain shortages.

Soon the developing famine catches the attention of the international community. Food aid is rushed in. Since it is difficult to grow crops with the water shortage people become accustomed to dependency on food donations. What was once a sustainable community has now become a welfare case. A relatively small number of people living in balance with their environment morphs into a larger number of impoverished people now surviving on handouts. And we call it "aid".

This is not a fantasy. In spite of the billions of dollars of aid, estimates of poverty levels in sub-Saharan Africa show poverty increasing with some estimates showing growth from about 10% in the 1950's to around 70% now. In fact, in spite of all the breakthroughs in technology and the transfer of that technology in the form of billions of dollars of aid, from 1970 to 2006 the number of people living in impoverished conditions has doubled worldwide. In Africa during only the one decade of the 90's the number of people living at less than a dollar a day increased 20%. And we call it "aid".

On top of all this much of our aid has historically ended up in the pockets of corrupt leaders or oligarchs and has helped these people to stay in power while milking the wealth or their countries. And in a further gesture of assistance we often encourage dependency on monoculture agriculture to maximize profits. Where crop diversity in balance with local conditions and resources once existed we end up introducing high intensity crops that although profitable in the near term are vulnerable to the whims of climate cycles and the vagaries of international markets. Local economies no longer track local conditions but are dependent on markets in places that the locals did not even existed. They are not only impoverished but they have lost control of their lives.

Clearly something is not working. If we want to do well and truly provide assistance to others we should have a holistic understanding of the long term effects of our efforts. We must think holistically in the context of the true needs of the people we are trying to aid. If we are unsure of the effects of our actions we should not act. It would be better to leave people alone than insert ourselves blindly into their lives in order to produce change that we perceive to be good from our perspective. Particularly when our perspective has limited knowledge of the ecology, resources, climate, and culture of the people we are trying to assist. Our attempts to help a few too often end up inflicting harm on the welfare of the many.

And the stresses carry over to the natural world. Growing numbers of species become threatened as exploding populations plow habitat for agricultural crops and raid forests for bush meat. Our aid often not only worsens the human condition but also threatens the welfare of many other forms of life. We need to rethink what we are doing in the guise of helping others. It is better to do nothing than to seek a pat on the back for doing something when long term ramifications are unknown.

11.20.10a