Aid, Africa, and the Illusion of Development: Learning from Chang and Moyo

What happens when a crutch becomes a cage? For decades, foreign aid has been framed as Africa’s lifeline, a bridge to prosperity built on Western generosity. And yet, after trillions of dollars in assistance, Africa remains economically marginalized, its industrial base stunted, and its policy autonomy constrained. Ken Opalo ’s recent SEMAFOR article correctly identifies the unraveling of the traditional aid model, but this moment should not be seen as a crisis. It is an opportunity.

Scholars like Baroness Dambisa Moyo and Ha-Joon Chang have long warned that aid, as traditionally structured, has been less about development and more about control. Moyo, in Dead Aid, argues that foreign assistance has not just failed, it has actively hindered Africa’s progress. Rather than fostering self-sufficiency, aid has entrenched dependency, undermined governance, and distorted economic incentives. Chang, in Kicking Away the Ladder, goes further, showing how today’s industrialized nations built their prosperity through protectionism and state intervention, only to later demand that developing nations embrace free markets and austerity, effectively denying them the same path to development.

The time has come for the African continent to reject the crutch of aid and reclaim its agency.

Aid as a Political Tool, Not a Development Strategy

As Opalo notes, the global aid architecture is shifting, with donor countries openly tying aid to geopolitical interests rather than developmental outcomes. But this is not a new phenomenon. Aid has always been about power. In the Cold War, it was a tool of ideological competition. In the neoliberal era, it became a means of enforcing market reforms that benefited Western capital more than African economies. Now, as the geopolitical landscape shifts again, aid is being weaponized to secure influence in a multipolar world.

The consequence? Africa remains economically subordinate, structurally dependent on external capital rather than domestic industry. Foreign aid has shielded governments from the need to develop robust tax bases, fortify local financial markets, and build competitive industries. Worse, it has often come with conditions that strip nations of their ability to chart their own policy paths. As Chang demonstrates, no country has industrialized through free trade alone, yet that is precisely the doctrine forced upon African nations in exchange for aid.

The “Helping Hand” That Holds Africa Back

Moyo’s critique of aid dependency is devastating. Between 1970 and 1998, when aid to Africa was at its peak, poverty levels soared, literacy rates stagnated, and economies became more fragile. Rather than fuelling real growth, aid distorted local economies, encouraged corruption, and disincentivized reform. Governments that relied on aid had little reason to develop policies that encourage innovation or domestic investment; after all, their budgets were underwritten by western donors.

Moreover, aid has historically favoured short-term humanitarian relief over long-term economic transformation. Yes, programs have saved lives, but where is the African pharmaceutical industry to manufacture its own medicines? Infrastructure projects abound, yet how many African countries have developed homegrown engineering giants to rival those of China, Brazil, Canada or Germany? Aid sustains dependency because it is designed to treat the symptoms, not cure the disease.

The Ladder Has Already Been Kicked Away

If the industrialized world were genuinely interested in Africa’s economic rise, it would advocate the same strategies that built its own wealth. But as Chang meticulously documents, those strategies are precisely what Africa has been denied.

The United States, Germany, South Korea, and Britain all industrialized behind walls of tariffs, state subsidies, and aggressive market intervention. Only once they secured economic dominance did they begin preaching the virtues of free trade. The logic is clear: keep Africa dependent on commodity exports and external capital, and it will never become a serious competitor.

The result? African countries are locked into an economic model that extracts value rather than creates it. Raw materials are exported cheaply, while finished goods are imported at a premium. Financial markets remain shallow, industrialization remains stunted, and the continent continues to be seen as a source of raw materials rather than a centre of production.

A New Path Forward: Beyond Aid and Toward Economic Sovereignty

If the era of traditional aid is ending, Africa must ensure that what comes next is not merely a new form of dependency. The path forward requires:

1. A Shift from Aid to Investment – Aid should be phased out in favour of financing that builds productive capacity. This means developing capital markets, regional trade agreements, and state-backed industrial policies that channel investment into manufacturing, technology, and infrastructure.
2. Trade Policies That Serve Africa’s Interests – African states must resist external pressures to fully liberalize markets prematurely. Strategic tariffs, subsidies, and state-led industrialization should be used to protect nascent industries, just as today’s wealthy nations did when they were developing.
3. Policy Autonomy – African nations must reclaim control over their economic policies. No serious economy allows external institutions to dictate its fiscal, monetary, and trade policies. The IMF, World Bank, and donor governments must no longer act as de facto economic planners for the continent.
4. Regional Economic Integration – The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) presents an unprecedented opportunity to create a $3 trillion market driven by African demand, African production, and African capital. This is the real alternative to dependency.

Ken Opalo is right, this is the end of an era. But it is not a moment to lament; it is a moment to act. The demise of traditional aid should not be seen as a loss, but as an opportunity for Africa to chart its own course. Chang’s warnings about the ladder being kicked away remain as relevant as ever: Africa will not develop by following the rules imposed by others. It must write its own playbook, based on the strategies that history has proven to work.

If Africa is to rise, it must do so on its own terms, not on the generosity of others. And that means finally breaking free from the illusion that foreign aid is the engine of progress. It never has been, and it never will be.

By Templar K. , Senior Fellow, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, 加拿大多伦多大学 for Canada-Africa Policy at the Canadian Centre for African Affairs and Policy Research .