Getting rich in the fight against poverty

The new class

From a Western point of view, Black Africa's integration into the globalised world economy is certainly a step in the right direction as far as the planning and implementation of development concepts are concerned. IMF and World Bank act as monitoring authorities here, assigned with the task of ensuring that the development plans drafted in Western cooperation ministries are feasible. In this article I should like to take a critical look at those externally crafted plans, point out a few shortcomings and suggest ways in which the we can get out of the blind alley we find ourselves in today.


Privatisation of the public sector – A wrong move?

If Western development concepts for Black Africa have anything in common, it is privatisation of the public sector. And the task of administering this bitter pill to the eternal infant Black Africa falls to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The way they tackle this assignment is to simply deliver state-owned enterprises which are vital for the poorer sections of the African population into foreign hands: the hands of multinational companies. We are talking here about sectors like water, power, telecommunications and infrastructure – sectors which often yield high profits, which are transferred home while people in Black Africa go hungry. But the starving nations are not allowed to rebel against the multinationals. The plans, we are told, are in the interests of Black Africans. IMF and World Bank, which used to play white knights, now play on the same side as the multinationals. Indeed, they are in their service.

Development through privatisation has proven a wrong road for Africa. If any nation has benefited from privatisation, it is not a nation in Black Africa but a nation elsewhere. And there is no prospect of change in the future. Even if the mammoth organisation NEPAD does get established, its activities, too, are directed from outside.

Even if a few African consortia – e.g. from South Africa – are now operating in some of the sectors I mentioned above, the public at large will not profit because South Africa is still controlled by capitalist interests. Profits reaped there are passed on in shady transactions to American-European multis. The question as to whether privatisation in Black Africa is a wrong move can be answered only with a laconic yes. And it is not the only wrong move being made.


Development through cooperation with NGOs –
A new way forward?

Since the 1990s, when the wave of democratisation reached Black Africa and barbaric privatisation brought the Black African economy to its knees, the constitution of a strong civil society has been seen as a new road to development, a new ray of hope. The refrain that issues from both Black Africa and the North is: non-governmental organisations are best able to help alleviate poverty. Under that banner, money is now being pumped into "priority sectors". And indeed this is not a bad alternative, considering that NGOs are closer to the people than anyone else and better informed about local problems. Consequently, they can respond to actual needs. So far so good - but there's a catch.

The funds made available to NGOs are not always used to fight poverty; some of the money is pocketed by those who claim to be helping the poor. A new elite is emerging in Black Africa, an elite of NGO executives. The money allotted for projects is often not used for the intended purpose. Many NGO executives are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It is tempting to say that these new elites are actually fighting against the poor: they misappropriate funds and are subject to no controls whatsoever.

They are rulers in a forest where dog eats dog, where the law of the jungle prevails, where the main thing is to get richer. They are Africans doing what outsiders do to Africa: a minority illicitly lining their pockets while the majority of the population languishes in poverty. They do this with the support of partners who either know the score or have the wool pulled over their eyes. It must be said, however, that most donors do not anticipate such behaviour. They presume their African partners are honest.

The NGOs also receive HR assistance, and this is where there is an opportunity to put things right. One of the tasks assigned to seconded experts should be financial controlling. They should be involved in the management of funds so that partners in the North are adequately informed about how their money is used. I like the idea of people who misappropriate funds being called to account in a court of law in their home country. I don't know if this happens but I think there ought to be mechanisms for it in donor countries.

More control is needed

For bigger projects it would even be advisable to employ outside accountants. Contrary to widespread claims, this would not be a form of re-colonisation; it would be fair project monitoring. And monitoring is better than financing – there is no controversy about that in the context of Black Africa. The Japanese, who build schools themselves in a number of African countries, seem to me worth emulating. They want to ensure schools are built where they are really needed but they have found that development funds are often spent in the wrong place. What has actually happened, however, is that many projects designed to be realised in this way have not been approved by the powers-that-be because they offer no opportunities for misuse of funds.

In a democratic society, if foreign partners were prepared to take concerted action, it would be feasible for NGOs to monitor one another. For smaller projects, another possibility would be for partner organisations to appoint an independent local controller – provided honest controllers were available. Maybe – in a democratic community – this task could be performed by a government agency in cooperation with representatives of civil society. At any rate, it needs to be ensured that the level of corruption in the country is lowered.

So would working with NGOs make for more effective development cooperation? The answer is plainly yes. But pragmatic steps need to be taken to ensure that project work is closely monitored. Guarantees are needed that local partners are fighting against poverty, not against the poor.