As an #Ethiopian woman who worked in development aid, I can tell you, hand on heart, that many of the interventions to alleviate long-term, systemic poverty, are fundamentally causing it. 

But First, a Caveat

I want to start with an important distinction. 

When I refer to development aid, I’m talking about long-term, structural aid, used to supplement what should be the normal provisions and workings of the government.

This includes infrastructure provision, WASH services, educational interventions, and much more. 

This is different from short-term aid, which includes emergency relief funding, such as disaster relief, emergency food provision, urgent healthcare, and refugee and human rights services, amongst others. 

While short-term aid is super important and saves lives, it is my opinion that long-term interventions, particularly as part of charity or grant funding, do not work. 

Here’s why.

Self-Reliance Matters

When an African government receives free money, regularly, for a job and service they are supposed to be providing in the first place, an air of entitlement begins to cloud the picture. 

I’ve seen this firsthand in Ethiopia, where the constant and abundant influx of aid has created a culture of complacency. This aid economy has reached such epic proportions that it often accounts for the majority of the national budget.

In fact, during my time there, government officials often pitted development aid agencies against each other to raise the most grant funding.

"I know your organisation offered $2m in grant funding, but the World Bank is giving us $3.5m and throwing in a study tour for the entire water and sanitation department to go to the US. Are you able to top that?" 

This kind of diversion of focus, where our governments are more interested in pleasing and extorting donors rather than serving communities, leads to a whole host of systemic problems.

Rather than figuring out a way to benefit from the vast agricultural, mineral, and human potential, Ethiopia and Africa are still net importers of agricultural goods. 

And, rather than using the brightest minds to chart a path out of this cycle of dependency, the most talented people join these very same aid agencies because they are the biggest (and best-paying) employers in the country and on the continent. 

Trust me, I worked there, myself.

Development aid systematically stifles innovation, self-reliance, and actual development. 

Reputation Matters

One of the biggest effects of accepting all of this free, no-strings-attached, ‘goodwill’ charity money for an extended period of time is the loss in reputation. 

Our passive reception of long-term, development aid has resulted in the notion that Africa is incapable of self-reliance. This perception is deeply entrenched in the global narrative and has significant repercussions. 

Africa receives only 5.2% of foreign direct investment, despite hosting 17.9% of the world’s population (with a majority being of working age) and 20.4% of total land, much of it fertile. 

But even home-grown businesses are moving abroad. Besides high-impact African start-ups incorporating abroad (due to reputational, tax, and ease-of-business advantages), existing businesses are also moving their services off the continent. 

This is because Africa has and continues to be rated as a risky investment.

Self-Image Matters

Perhaps my biggest grievance with the culture of dependence on foreign aid is what it psychologically does to the everyday African. 

For generations, Africans have been conditioned to view themselves as incapable, perpetually in need of external support. This mindset erodes self-esteem, stifles innovation, and ultimately hinders our collective growth potential.

Couple that with a lingering racial undertone justifying old colonial viewpoints of an Africa that needs the white man to develop, and you have a recipe for an inferiority complex the equivalent of a nuclear disaster in the African brain. 

Breaking the Dependency Cycle: The Role of Visionary Leadership

We cannot look to the donors and international governments offering aid to stop. Counterintuitively, it suits them very much to be giving Africa swathes of their taxpayer money. 

Why? 

Because a helpless, incompetent, meek Africa is better than the alternative. A helpless, incompetent, meek Africa sells its natural resources (including its labour) cheaply and gratefully accepts anything it can get in return.

The only way this cycle ends is if we refuse the aid. 

But that is easier said than done. 

Easy, no-strings-attached money is notoriously hard to turn down, which is why we need visionaries in the decision seats. 

A paradigm shift at key decision-making points: a willingness to abandon the paternalistic approach that has characterized international aid for decades, in favour of self-reliance and empowering communities to drive their own development agendas. 

It requires leadership willing to be unpopular in the short-run, in order to catalyse long-term, intergenerational change. 

It requires a concerted effort from governments, civil society, and the private sector in Africa to shift in focus from short-term relief to long-term investments in capacity building, infrastructure development, and the creation of a conducive business environment.

Most importantly, it requires a mindset shift among Africans themselves. We must cultivate a sense of agency, believing in our ability to shape our own destiny. We must embrace our strengths, innovate, and take ownership of our development challenges.

We recognise that the continent's rich potential lies not in external handouts, but in our own collective determination to break free from the shackles of post-colonial dependency. 

The time has come to rewrite the narrative of Africa, not as a continent in need of charity, but as a force to be reckoned with. A continent that is ready to take its rightful place on the world stage.