Frank Lasee: How Western aid keeps Africans poor

A young Senegalese man had the drive, savings, and plan to open a small store. He never did.

The moment he opened, cousins, uncles, and neighbors would demand goods for free because they were in need. Family obligation would force him to say yes until the shelves were empty and the business dead.

So he never started. Or he moved far away from his family to start his business with all the hardships that brings.

That story repeats itself across the continent in a thousand variations. It is not a story about African potential, which is enormous. It is a story about the environment surrounding that potential and how it systematically crushes it.

Traditional obligation networks crush initiative from below. Kleptocratic governments extract what survives from above. For seventy years, Western aid has subsidized both.

The math is simple and damning. When the World Bank, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), or the International Monetary Fund routes billions to governments that cannot enforce contracts or protect private property, they are not building prosperity; they are subsidizing the very institutions that prevent it.

Governments that would otherwise face fiscal pressure to reform instead receive a reliable stream of outside money that removes that pressure entirely. The aid buys them time. It buys them survival. It does not buy their people freedom.

Dambisa Moyo, the Zambian economist, documented this dynamic with surgical precision in “Dead Aid.” African governments that depend on foreign transfers have no incentive to build the tax base that requires a productive citizenry. A government that taxes its people must answer to them.

Aid removes the very pressure that forces reform. A government that taxes its citizens must deliver results. One funded by Washington or Brussels answers to donors — or to no one.

The free-market case is simple: secure property rights, enforceable contracts, impartial courts, and honest prices. These are not Western imports. They are universal. South Korea, Taiwan, Estonia, Botswana, and Mauritius proved it. Africa’s exceptions prove it, too.

These are not Western impositions. They are universal prerequisites. Every society that has achieved mass prosperity built it first. Every society that skipped them is still waiting.

What keeps African entrepreneurs from building businesses is not primarily a lack of technology, roads, or electricity. It is the absence of the institutional bedrock that makes investment rational.

Why fund a thirty-year project in a country where a new president can rewrite the rules on day one? Why build a factory where your title to the land is a political favor that can be revoked? Why open a store where theft carries no consequences and courts serve the connected?

I saw this firsthand years ago in Uganda, when a regional governor approached me about building a hydroelectric dam. The river and terrain were perfect. The need was desperate; his people had electricity maybe two days a week.

But when I asked whether an investor could count on getting paid, he got sheepish. Most locals had no cash, and electricity theft was rampant.

People climbed the poles, hooked on illegally, and faced zero consequences. No investor would touch it. The physical infrastructure was viable; the institutional infrastructure was absent.

Climate finance adds a third insult: The West industrialized on cheap, reliable energy. Now it pressures Africa toward expensive, intermittent renewables that cannot power factories, hospitals, or cold storage chains. The unspoken message: “We got rich on affordable energy.

You stay poor on expensive green virtue.” Africans deserve better. The message, stripped of diplomatic language: We industrialized on cheap energy and got rich, and now we would like you to develop on expensive energy and stay poor a little longer for the climate’s sake.

Africans deserve better than that bargain. The countries that broke through did so by making institutional choices, not by receiving the right kind of aid. Botswana managed its diamond revenues under the rule of law. Rwanda drove an aggressive anti-corruption campaign. Mauritius opened its economy. Their leaders decided that property rights mattered, that courts sometimes had to rule against the powerful, and that foreign investors needed to count on being paid.

Those decisions came from within. No UN resolution produced them. Trade, not aid, is the mechanism that built every wealthy nation. Open markets, technology transfer, and trade agreements that do not exclude African producers would do more for the continent than another generation of development consultants writing reports.

The young Senegalese man was not lacking potential. He was a rational actor in an irrational system; one that aid has prolonged for decades.

The path forward is unglamorous but proven: build independent courts, secure property rights, enforceable contracts, and reliable energy people can actually afford. Do that, and investment and entrepreneurship will follow. They always do.

Frank Lasee is an expert on energy and environmental issues. This article was sourced HERE