Aid and Development in Question

I think one would be hard-pressed to find an individual not in favor of a world with less HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis. Who wouldn't want to eliminate such broad-scale suffering? These diseases have proven to wreck so much damage economically, politically, and socially that in terms of the poverty and health level of many nations, development is hopelessly retrograde or stagnant unless something can be done to address the underlying health issues. As one aid organization's website notes with regard to Sub-Saharan Africa, "The most obvious effect of [the HIV/AIDS] crisis has been illness and death, but the impact of the epidemic has certainly not been confined to the health sector; households, schools, workplaces and economies have also been badly affected."

At a fundamental level then, it is difficult to see how anyone would be opposed to efforts taken to combat the major diseases affecting regions of our world, especially considering their broader implications. In reality, however, the delivery of aid is much more complex and contested than one could initially imagine. The Global Health Leader's Program discussed some of the issues that may arise with developmental aid in their September 20th seminar focused on health and development. Drawing from our broad personal experiences (volunteering in the Peace Corps, international service projects, internships with the WHO, etc.) and considering the insights of scholars like Dambisa Moyo (author of Dead Aid) we came to realize that achieving any sort of lasting success in improving health in any location requires local acceptance, cultural relevancy and sustainability among a number of other necessary qualities.

We talked also about the Millennium Development Goals set forth by the United Nations. Of note, the 6th Millennium Development Goal specifically aims at some of the major health crises in the world, namely HIV/AIDS and malaria. Other goals, such as reducing child mortality (#4) and improving maternal health (#5) also seek worldwide development by addressing the health status of (often) the most precarious individuals in the population: women and children. With specific objectives to be achieved by 2015, the MDGs represent a continued effort by the international community to move toward prolonged and sustainable development.

But in the end, I wonder. Moyo goes so far as to call for an aid-free Africa. What would that look like? Would it really lead to development? And are the MDGs achievable, effective and not imperialistic? I only hope that we can tell... before time will tell.