NAD
Supporting Them Support Themselves

In rich countries, when economic growth declines by three or fourpercentage points, people lose their jobs and possibly their houses,but they regain them when the economy rebounds. In poor Africancountries, children get pulled out of school—and miss out on becomingproductive adults. In some cases, children die before they have achance to go to school. If the current growth collapse is typical ofthe ones Africa has experienced in the past, an additional 700,000 African children may die before their first birthday.

In short, the effects of the global recession on Africa will be permanent. So the idea that aid may be threatenedbecause of the recession in rich countries seems to have the logicbackwards. Precisely because the effects in rich countries aretemporary, resources should go to places where they may bepermanent. Of course, there are political pressures to spenddomestically. But do politicians in rich countries really think that afew more votes are worth more than the lives of the infants who willdie as a result of the recession? 

Furthermore, the relatively modest sum spent on aid to Africa in thepast decade was at least partly responsible for the continent’s rapidgrowth.  From 1998-2008, aid to Africa was increasing and economicgrowth was accelerating (to over 6 percent in 2007); poverty wasdeclining and human development, especially primary school completionrates and the spread of HIV/AIDS, was improving. African countries hadstrengthened their macroeconomic policies—inflation had dropped to halfits level in the mid-1990s—so that aid was more productive.  Privatecapital was flowing in at a faster rate than in any othercontinent. All of these developments have come to a grinding haltbecause of the global economic crisis—a crisis that was not remotelythe fault of Africans. By increasing aid to Africa, the internationalcommunity has a chance to reverse this trend and prevent a temporaryshock from having permanent consequences.