Jacaylbaro Posted July 17, 2011 The Economist, a global social affairs magazine, reported in its latest issue on the research carried out by a Stanford University academic, Nicholas Eubank which suggested that Somaliland’s success is down to the fact that it receives no direct international aid as a non recognised State. Instead, Eubank argues, Somaliland authorities have to rely on locally collected tax revenues in order to survive and this has made Somaliland a more democratic place in that it has made the government more inclusive, representative and accountable as the public have some real leverage. Supporters of aid in Africa as a means of development would surely be angry with this latest research as it flies in the face of all their past arguments. Aid to Africa is usually distributed by national governments as well as International Financial Institutions (IFI’s) like the IMF and World Bank in the form of loans. The idea is that upon receiving these loans good hearted, public centred government than use it to build their nations infrastructure, human capital and health care systems and so forth. However, what is rarely discussed openly by advocates of Aid are the crippling Neo-Liberal, free market economic conditions that are usually attached to it. The IMF and World Bank are notorious for forcing privatisation and whole sale public sector reforms on developing countries at times when they least need it and are prepared for it. In addition, with the requirement to open up developing nations economies to speculators and private investors, the developing countries are not given a fair platform to trade globally in order to repay the debt in the future which consequently traps them in a vicious cycle of poverty and aid dependency. READ FULL ARTICLE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
