USAID Cuts: A crisis or an opportunity?

Dirk-Jan Koch (DJ): Hi Adenike. Talking of the cuts to international aid, it’s not just the recent cuts by the USA: the British and Germans quickly followed suit, making it a much bigger shock.

Adenike Fapohunda (A): Aid cuts and the reliance on aid has been a political issue for a very long time. It’s pretty contentious.

DJ: What do you mean by that?

A: I recently revisited Dambisa Moyo’s book, Dead Aid, in which she argues that aid doesn’t work for Africa: what the continent needs is large-scale investments and infrastructure. In one of her recent talks she predicted changes in the entire aid ecosystem: changes such as the role and investment in infrastructure by China, the UAE and other Gulf countries. It's a different type of aid.

DJ: And doesn't she also say that African governments, instead of relying on aid, should borrow more money from the capital markets?

A: Yes. Her argument is grounded in neoliberal capitalist logic and faces a lot of  criticism, but her point about not relying on Western capitalism is just. For example, South Africa is Africa’s largest economy but doesn’t use the money invested in pension funds or the reserve bank to drive economic growth.

[Moyo's] point about not relying on Western capitalism is just. 

But we're jumping straight into the criticisms of aid before going into the immediate effects of aid cuts. And the most immediate effects are, of course, the large scale job losses in the aid sector and reduced emergency humanitarian aid in conflict areas.

DJ: The cuts can be portrayed as a crisis but can also be seen in a positive light – some say aid wasn’t working anyway, so the cuts don’t matter. How are the cuts being portrayed in the press in South Africa and Nigeria?

A: The largest proliferation of aid in South Africa was in HIV treatment, and there the government has stepped in to fill the gaps. But that has come at a cost – funds had to be reallocated from elsewhere and the coalition government can’t agree on a budget. The media isn’t linking this explicitly to aid cuts but I’m convinced the link’s there.

Nigeria is in a constant state of crisis so the aid cuts are just another crisis. The Nigerian government’s strategy has been to try to pay off its IMF loans in order to attract more capital and foreign investment. Yet at the same time, ecological disasters like the recent flooding that killed about 700 people receive almost no emergency response, partly because of the cuts.

The cuts may also change international relations, with African governments … able to engage on a more equal footing with the USA

DJ: Nigerian newspapers are reporting that the government is now increasing its investments in health to ensure that basic healthcare continues. That can surely be seen as a good thing. Nigeria has a lot of rich people who could pay more tax; perhaps the government is now being forced to tap more into those resources. So yes, it's a crisis, but I think it's also a chance to get to work on the social contract in some of these countries.

A: I completely agree., There’s great potential for governments now having rely on their own capacity. An example in Nigeria is the large-scale under- and unemployment amongst university graduates. Nigeria has been trying to increase its tax base for a long time; now there's more urgency and opportunity to get it right.

DJ: Of course, the way the Trump administration introduced the cuts was terrible, with no proper handover strategy, capacity training programmes or joint ventures. A proper exit strategy could have mitigated some of the problems caused by the cuts.

A: Definitely. There should have been a slower phasing out of aid. On the other hand, the cuts may be changing international relations, with African governments now feeling able to engage on a more equal footing with the USA. For example, when the South African president recently talked to Trump about the AGOA agricultural trade programme, Trump made his false accusations of a white genocide in South Africa and threatened to cut the AGOA deal. President Ramaphosa’s response to Trump was supported by the Ghanaian president. I wonder whether Ghana would have shown such support had it still been receiving US aid. So maybe the aid cuts mean there’ll be a change in international relations.

DJ: So African governments will be able to speak more freely?

A: Exactly. In Nigeria there’s a growing sentiment of, ‘We don't want your aid; we’ll develop on our own’. But of course, the people voicing that sentiment aren’t personally affected by the cuts.

DJ: Indeed. I participated in a radio show in Nigeria discussing a fake news story used by the US government to justify the aid cuts. The story was that US aid had been funding terrorist groups like Boko Haram. Much of the ensuing discussion was about this news story rather than about what the cuts meant to the poor. Or am I misrepresenting attitudes in Nigeria?

A: No, you're not misrepresenting them. Criticism of aid as a foreign imposition which impacts national policy decisions is valid. Yet this narrative of usually framed by elites, not the people who are the most reliant on aid.

DJ: In my book on the unintended consequences of aid I showed that sometimes rebel groups siphon off some of the aid by taking a cut as aid trucks pass through their territory. This is an unwanted and unfortunate side effect of aid. What do you think, with all these side effects, should we move from aid to trade?

China’s Belt and Road Initiative is different – it builds roads and bridges and creates immediate jobs rather than simply providing food.

A: I'm not convinced. It’s a very neoliberal argument that doesn’t take into account that there are a lot of people who don’t have access to education or have the necessary skills. What happens to them while others are creating this new economy? Africa has a large youth population - what is their economic future? We need a fundamental shift in infrastructure that will provide them with jobs. That’s why China’s Belt and Road Initiative is different – it builds roads and bridges and creates immediate jobs rather than simply providing food.

DJ: It helps with the trade. I understand that there’s now a railway from Lagos to Kano being constructed with Chinese funding.

A: Yes, it goes as far as Ibadan. I’ve used it to visit my grandmother. The train’s old but it's safe. When I growing up in Lagos and visited my grandma in Ibadan I had to take the old road that was covered in potholes. This was litigated in the Nigerian courts for years – trying to get the Nigerian government to repair the road.

DJ: . Yes, I remember seeing signs along that road saying: ‘Please bear with us. This road belongs to the national government.’

A: And now China has invested and we have a railway. This highlights the problem with aid – it provides a band-aid but allows structural problems to persist.

DJ: I’ve see two responses to the current aid cuts: the first calls for reform, to plug the holes and make aid stronger. The second approach argues that international relations have changed and we need to reimagine aid entirely. Where do you stand on this?

There’s a moral argument to continue with humanitarian aid [but in] stable countries aid can stifle accountability

A: I lean towards reimagining. Maybe that’s part of my African pride that doesn't like the idea of accepting aid, but I believe we need a new framework.

DJ: I think there’s a moral argument to continue with humanitarian aid to people affected by conflict. At the same time, there’s a lot of the aid that goes to relatively stable countries where it can stifle national accountability. So how do we reimagine aid? Maybe the answer is to reinforce the social contract between citizens and governments, with citizens holding their governments to account on issues such as education, healthcare, water and sanitation provision.

A: Exactly. These are basic services that a government should provide. Citizens in traditional aid-receiving countries didn’t elect Trump; why should he be able to take away their access to such services? They’re the responsibility of national governments.

DJ: Or should we just stop aid all together?

A: Not everywhere. I don't think South Africa, for example, should be an aid-receiving country; the problem there is inequality, not poverty. A similar argument can be made for Ghana. But countries like Burundi and Somalia are a different story.

poverty is no longer the problem in many countries; the problem is inequality so the focus should be on accountability

DJ: I agree. Crisis is a chance and many of the changes are long overdue. We need an overhaul of the 20th century model of money flowing from rich to poor countries to something more relevant. As you said, poverty is no longer the problem in many countries; the problem is inequality so the focus should be on accountability. Maybe a focus on financial support to NGOs or civil society movements who are pushing for better accountability.

A: But even that’s controversial. For example, much of the pushback on LGBTQI+ rights in Africa is due to the perception that the West is once again pushing its values into Africa.

DJ: That aligns with my findings from interviews I did in Senegal. LGBTQI+ activists said that advocacy by diplomats was counterproductive for their struggle as foreign involvement was highjacked by conservative politicians to suggest foreign interference.

There are also a number of interconnected global challenges that we have to face together. Climate change is one, pandemics are another. So if the DRC doesn't have a functioning health system, for example, this will also have an impact in Europe. Our destinies are tied. I think it’s more relevant to reframe foreign aid as international cooperation or investment for global public good. Of course, as you said, some countries still need some traditional support, especially to deal with crisis situations, but in other countries we should focus on shared challenges. This will also reduce the amount bad press that international agencies are getting in African countries as people will begin to see how collaboration is helping.

A: I agree with you. It’s also about an accountable political process. I think many Africans don’t feel that their vote translates into political representation and accountability, despite the perceived authority such governments have in the West.

DJ: You raised an important point earlier that the West shouldn’t support authoritarian governments. As an alternative the West has funded some NGOs in those countries but you suggested that this is maybe also not a good idea as it can contribute to a backlash against all Western involvement. Should we therefore just stop providing aid altogether to some countries?

A: To some countries, maybe. But we also need to consider this persistent idea of the exceptionalism of African corruption. Trump’s re-election has shown that corruption and authoritarianism are not exclusively African problems. Accountability requires proper courts, and proper courts need good judicial salaries. This requires a larger tax base. In the long term, creating stable state structures may be a better tool against authoritarianism than funding an NGO that can’t access legal systems due to corruption.

They made me realise that you really do have a different perspective depending on where you’re from.

DJ: I really like what you’re saying. Corruption can also be many different things. When I was writing Foreign Aid and its Unintended Consequences I talked to a lot of people who disagreed with my definition of corruption. For them corruption wasn’t only about money ending up in the pockets of officials; it was also about aid workers staying in five star hotels and receiving US$200 per day in a country where the GDP per capita is US$200 per year. That was a real eye-opener for me. I’d always thought that I didn’t have a strong white gaze because I’d been living in Africa for about 10 years. They made me realise that you really do have a different perspective depending on where you’re from.

A: Yes, I think we all have certain blind spots or prejudices.

DJ: Maybe we could talk a bit about what the aid cuts mean for ISS. Have you felt their impact here?

A: Definitely. Look at enrolment rates, for example, and the cut in the number of scholarships. This is changing the demographic of ISS. In previous years there were many more African students, for example.

DJ: And that's a pity. ISS can’t be the ISS it was if it only has self-paying students.

A: Of course. It creates a bias. We were speaking earlier about who creates knowledge about development and social justice issues. Well, it’s the sort of people who can afford to come and live in The Hague for a year or more. I’m not saying there’s an inherent bias but they are the ones creating that knowledge.

DJ: I was lucky that when I did my master's programme in London the Dutch government had scholarships for students going to top universities. Do you see the Nigerian or South African governments starting such programmes?

A: Not in South Africa; the country has plenty of highly-rated universities of its own and there's already been a lot of conflict over university funding. Traditionally, African countries don’t offer scholarships for development and political sciences; African scholarships tend to be for technical knowledge such as engineering. But we need social scientists, economists and political scientists, so perhaps that's something we're going to see.

ISS isn't just a location; it’s also the people. It’s a very diverse community with people from South America, Asia, Africa as well as Europe and North America.

DJ: But is it right for an institute like ISS to be receiving students from the Global South focusing on development studies? Why should an institute like that be in The Hague? I love what it’s achieved over the last 70 years but if we’re reimagining foreign aid, shouldn't we also be reimagining ISS?

A: I hadn’t really thought about that, but I think you’re right – we should question the need for ISS. On the other hand, ISS isn't just a location; it’s also the people. It’s a very diverse community with people from South America, Asia, Africa as well as Europe and North America. I'm not sure where else you can interact with so many different people. I'm also not sure that if ISS moved it would attract people from all over the world. Europe is still more multicultural than anywhere else.

DJ: How do you feel about the plan by ISS to introduce more double degree programmes? We now have joint PhD programmes with universities in Ethiopia, Vietnam and Indonesia for example. ISS has built up certain skills over the years that it can share that with other universities. Do you think that's an interesting step?

A: I do, because it allows for diversity of knowledge and diversity of opinions.

DJ: Maybe we need more joint MA programmes with students studying at ISS for one term and at their own university for the other. This could also be a way to reduce fees. We need to start experimenting with different funding models because I don't think a good scholarship programme will come back anytime soon, at least not from the Dutch government.

A: Or from other governments either. It's just not just a clampdown on development, it’s on everything. We need more modular programmes and more practical programmes.

DJ: What do you mean by that?

A: For example, a programme in which you could work for one term at a multilateral development bank so that you could at least earn some money.

DJ: Or short diploma programmes for career professionals. ISS has to come up with innovative ways to generate funds. Because I agree with you that it is an ideal place to get to know people from many different backgrounds and cultures; it would be a pity if that were lost.

A: I agree. I could have done development studies at the University of Cape Town because it has a great programme and the weather’s much better! But then I would only have interacted with other people from Africa, which is fine but I'm enjoying hearing different perspectives here at ISS.

DJ: Absolutely! Thanks for a great conversation.