Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

African nations are not solely to blame for poverty

By Andrew Hewett - posted Monday, 15 August 2005

One of the world’s great heroes, Nelson Mandela, told a crowd in London ahead of the G8 meeting in July that “while poverty persists, there is no true freedom”.

If the response to the global Make Poverty History campaign and Live 8 concerts is anything to go by, it would seem that millions are beginning to agree with him.

People are not prepared to continue to live in a world where the richest three people are wealthier than the poorest 48 nations. They don’t want to live in a world where poverty kills 30,000 children each day and where 2.7 billion people struggle to exist on less than $US2 a day.


Yet many commentators in the world’s richest countries are quick to dismiss the groundswell of support for tackling global poverty as naïve and ultimately counterproductive. Often they suggest that poverty in developing countries is not a shared problem that the global north and south must take on together, but one that is essentially of the poorest countries’ own making.

Corrupt leaders of developing country and fat aid bureaucracies are accused of wasting the majority of aid dollars spent by donors in the past 40 years, largely using it to line their own pockets. We are told poverty would not exist if it weren’t for corruption, and poverty will only be fixed when developing countries’ governments eliminate corruption. More aid and debt relief, in the interim, would only fill more Swiss bank accounts and buy fleets of Mercedes.

There is no doubt that foreign aid has too often been given to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Aid has been wasted by donors and recipients and corruption remains a significant problem.

But developing countries and their governments hardly have a global monopoly on corruption.

For example, WorldCom boss Bernard Ebbers was sentenced recently to 25 years in prison for his part in corruption involving an $US11 billion accounting fraud which bankrupted the $US200 billion company, eliminated millions of dollars in US pension funds and put thousands of Americans out of work. Yet few people are clamouring for US corporations to be denied further taxpayer funded assistance until they can demonstrate they are corruption-free.

The reasons for the persistence of poverty in developing countries are complex. They include substantial historical handicaps such as colonialism, slavery and Cold War politics, war and conflict, chronic under funding of important programs to combat hunger and disease and to fund basic services. Further reasons include the impact of blunt and inflexible World Bank and IMF policies and waste due to mismanagement or corruption.


Aid and debt relief can work, however, and well-targeted aid can and is being used to fight corruption and promote good governance. In Malawi, Oxfam has funded groups which tour the country’s schools making sure textbooks and other educational materials paid for by foreign aid actually arrive. In Kenya, a national government anti-corruption campaign reduced the incidence of bribery by 25 per cent over 2 years.

Aid can increase developing countries’ capacity to monitor spending and can ensure public servants are paid a salary on which they can survive, minimising the motivation to accept bribes. It can help build institutions, such as the judiciary, capable of tracking and tackling corruption. It can foster features of a civil society, including media, to improve public scrutiny.

Developed countries can also do their part to assist in the fight against corruption by ratifying the UN Convention on Corruption and by improving the transparency around corporate and government payments to developing countries through schemes such as Publish What You Pay and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. These actions would minimise the scope for investment dollars or donor revenues to be siphoned off.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Article edited by Natalie Rose.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

5 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Andrew Hewett is Executive Director of Oxfam Australia.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Andrew Hewett
Related Links
Oxfam Australia
United Nations Millennium Summit

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Andrew Hewett
Article Tools
Comment 5 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Latest from OXFAM Australia
 The Aussies and Kiwis shouldn’t leave island neighbours high and dry
 Australian miners 'lacking transparency'
 Take the pace out of PACER
 Asian Development Bank - hindering or helping?
 Humanitarian work - not for the faint hearted

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy