Why some Africans see opportunity in foreign-aid cuts

14-03-2025

Why some Africans see opportunity in foreign-aid cuts

Ending dependence on foreign donors would not only lead to prosperity but also to “self-respect for our nation”. Thus argued Nana Akufo-Addo, then the president of Ghana, when he launched his “Ghana beyond aid” policy in 2017.

Eight years later the west African country may indeed move beyond aid—just not in the way it hoped. The post-cold-war era of Western help for Africa is over. The obliteration of the United States Agency for International Development (usaid) is only the most dramatic example of recent cuts. Britain, France and Germany, among others, are becoming stingier. Even before Elon Musk eviscerated usaid development, wonks were already talking of a “post-aid world”.

For John Mahama, who replaced Mr Akufo-Addo in January, the timing is inauspicious. His predecessor failed in his mission. Instead of prosperity, he led Ghana into default and its 17th imf bail-out. Yet Mr Mahama sees reason for hope. “It sends a signal to Africa that the time has come for us to be more self-reliant.”

Over the next few years aid cuts will lead to great harm. But Mr Mahama is not alone among African politicians in viewing the crisis as an opportunity for Africa to escape the dependence that has distorted policymaking and sapped self-esteem. The question is whether such a response is more evidence of the complacency that defines many African elites—or whether it will cause them to take more responsibility for the prosperity of their own people.

But before any gain, the pain. In 2023, the latest year for which there are comparable data, rich Western countries spent $60bn on aid in Africa, which is 27% of global aid spending by these countries. For the median African country aid accounts for about 4% of gross national income (gni), though it ranges from less than 0.5% in fairly rich countries like South Africa to 27% in very poor ones such as Central African Republic .

More than a quarter of that money came from America. Most of America’s spending went on public health and humanitarian aid, feeding people caught up in war zones or natural disasters, sometimes through multilateral bodies such as the World Bank and the un. Smaller amounts went on schemes pursuing goals such as more productive farms and better schools. The Trump administration says it will cut 90% of usaid’s programmes globally, ending some 10,000 projects.

In Washington these are rows on a spreadsheet; in Africa there are lives at stake. In Ethiopia, where almost 16m people required food support in 2024, funding for food aid has stopped. “It’s just a matter of time” before people die, says Charles Owubah of Action Against Hunger, an ngo. In Burkina Faso and Congo, America funds around 50% and 70% respectively of efforts to help people caught up in conflicts there. In Congo the end of American aid will make it harder to respond to diseases such as Ebola.

That is one effect of permanent aid cuts recently outlined by Nicholas Enrich, the top usaid official for global health. He was placed on leave after sending memos warning higher-ups of the looming catastrophe. In one missive that was later made public he estimated that there could be 71,000 to 166,000 additional deaths from malaria and 1m more untreated children with acute malnutrition every year.

Then there is hiv. pepfar, a scheme launched by President George W. Bush, has saved more than 25m lives via drugs and prevention. It is now in effect closed. Many African ngos implementing pepfar had their contracts terminated last week; some of their letters ended with “God bless America”. In South Africa, where pepfar accounted for 17% of the money spent on hiv treatment and prevention, there will be more than 500,000 excess deaths over the next decade as a result, estimates Linda-Gail Bekker of the University of Cape Town. In poorer African countries, where most anti-hiv costs were covered by pepfar, the proportional impact will be worse. Moses Mutumba, whose Ugandan ngo had its contract ended, says there are already many cases of hiv-positive children not getting refills for their medicines.

Aid cuts will have economic effects as well. In 16 African countries usaid funding is at least 1% of gni, according to data from the Centre for Global Development in Washington, and an important source of foreign exchange. The Institute for Security Studies, a South Africa-based think-tank, estimates that almost 19m more Africans will fall below the World Bank’s extreme poverty line by 2030 if aid from rich countries is permanently cut by 20%. Middle-class Africans working for aid-funded ngos will lose their jobs, with ripple effects throughout local economies.

Click here to read more.

GNBCC | News