Why Africa Needs Economic Freedom

The A ^ | 2/18/08 | Edward Hudgins

[Ed Hudgins]

ehudgins@atlassociety.org

As he departed for a tour of Africa, President George W. Bush said the United States rejects "the paternalist notion that treats African countries as charity cases." I wish he would reject the paternalist notions of his own administration that treats American citizens as charity cases. No matter, let's consider that impoverished continent for a moment.

Bush said, "I'm going to witness the generosity of the America people firsthand. It will give me a chance to remind our fellow citizens about what a compassionate people we are." Of course, the foreign aid taken from American taxpayers by the U.S. government and sent to Africa doesn't represent "compassion" because real caring need not be coerced. And in any case, the United States and other Western countries have dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into Africa with dismal results. If this is compassion one would hate to see true insensitivity.

Many Americans do not resent such aid to Africa and, indeed, give to private charities because they are repulsed by the grueling poverty they see in the cradle of the human race. And perhaps Bush meant well when he spoke of "investments" rather than charity for Africa. But the money going there for the most part is wasted. One can understand why by looking at the economic systems that dominate the continent.

Let's put African development in perspective. In 1990 I did a study at the Heritage Foundation, with the help of researcher Bryan Johnson, entitled "Why Asia Grows and Africa Doesn't." We asked the question, "What would sub-Saharan Africa look like if it had grown at the rate of the economically dynamic Asian Tigers-- Hong King, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan?"

[elpadre]

Comparing African countries today with where they were 5, 10, 20, years ago, I believe there is measurable progress. I don’t suppose any part of the world has to do with the difficult and erratic tribalism as do the African governments.

One thing comes to mind is that by doing what the President is doing, that is, giving aid in targeted, goal-oriented, verifiable ways, provides a greater motivation for the Africans than the old hand-outs with no oversight.

If the Africans can look to America as their closest friends, would that not lead to some productive partnerships for their wealth of rich resources, especially oil??. Is this what the President is trying to establish and promote??

[Tired of Taxes]

Well-said. Economic freedom brings prosperity. Thanks for posting.

[nancyvideo]

Giving alms does not friends make. Ask anyone who has ever lent or given money. The borrower - recipient automatically becomes the supplicant, and will usually end up hating you for it.
Korea, Palestine, Europe, need I could go on.

[Last Dakotan]

The Chinese already own Africa they bought and paid for it.

[Ed Hudgins]

Our side—the pro-free market folks—should be on the moral highground on this issue rather than allowing the likes of Bono to occupy it. The usual line is “The U.S. gives less to Africa than other countries, proving that we are morally backwards.” Wrong! I hope my piece shows that giving away American tax dollars against their will is a mark of immorality and in any case stifles economic growth in Africa.

[nancyvideo]

I just read an article that claimed most of the aid given Africa is given by the private sector, as opposed to government

[Ed Hudgins]

A substantial amount of aid from the United States does go through private groups. Some are for the most part funded privately. Other non-governmental-organizations in fact get money from government so the figures are mixed. More European aid is from governments. And if you look at the history of aid you’l find lots from government.

Even so, as I indicate in the piece, private aid is well-meaning but often wasted because of the terrible socialist policies or political corruption in African countries.