JOHANNESBURG: Key analysts have told Digital that increased trade with the U.S., rather than aid, is crucial for Africa’s future.

Frans Cronje, an advisor for the Yorktown Foundation for Freedom, stated to Digital that U.S. trade dollars exchanged with Africa far outweigh aid dollars granted.

While USAID reportedly spent $11 billion in Africa in 2024, trade between the U.S. and Africa during the same period reached $71.6 billion, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Cronje believes that while providing aid may seem admirable, it does little to address the structural factors causing poverty in Africa. He suggests that trade offers a more viable path for the U.S. to build strong relationships with Africa, aligning with President Donald Trump’s transactional style of diplomacy.

Cronje explained that aid can act as a subsidy for ineffective governments, allowing them to remain in power despite a lack of reform. Conversely, trade necessitates reforms and improved governance for sustainability.

Following the Trump administration’s policy shift, Ledama Olekina, a senator for Kenya’s Narok County, declared on X on Jan. 28, “We don’t need aid in Kenya; we can do it on our own!” He added that relying on Western aid limits opportunities for industry and creativity, urging Kenyans to live within their means, eliminate corruption, and embrace patriotism. He thanked @realDonaldTrump and @USAID, stating it was time for change.

Anna Mahjar-Barducci, a senior research fellow at the Middle East Media Research Institute, told Digital that foreign aid perpetuates dependency rather than helping the needy. She argues that international aid primarily benefits governments, leading to an expanded role for the State in the recipient country’s economy, which discourages private sector development.

She further explained that foreign aid has supported central governments, promoting statism and hindering the creation of an entrepreneurial culture. As a result, government officials have become wealthier while ordinary citizens have become poorer. She quoted British economist Peter Bauer, who stated that “Aid is a process by which the poor in the rich countries subsidize the rich in poor countries.”

Mahjar-Barducci also noted that aid provides governments, many of which are dictatorships, with readily available cash, which discourages both entrepreneurship and peace efforts in conflict zones.

She pointed out that while many Westerners (primarily on the radical left) criticized President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend U.S. foreign aid, many African intellectuals welcomed the new policy.

She referenced a recent column by Nigerian expert Mfonobong Inyang, titled, “Wake Up Africa, Foreign Aid Is Not A Development Strategy,” in which he argued that foreign aid should be a temporary measure, not a long-term policy for sovereign nations.

Mahjar-Barducci stated that numerous African economists believe that the suspension of USAID funding presents an opportunity to redefine African development strategies, prioritizing an “Africa-first approach” based on direct investments, innovation, partnerships, and empowered local governance.

The Associated Press reported on Sunday that approximately 1,600 positions at USAID would be eliminated following a review of notices sent to USAID employees.

China has significantly increased its investment in Africa. According to China’s commerce industry, Beijing invested over $700 billion in infrastructure development on the continent in the decade leading up to 2023.

Cronje noted that China favors trade over aid in its engagement with Africa. He stated that China is a significantly more important economic partner for Africa than the U.S. in terms of both foreign investment and trade flows. Since around 2010, Chinese investment has increased sharply, while trade levels between the U.S. and Africa have remained relatively stable.

Mahdar-Barducci used Ghanian economist George Ayittey’s term “Chopsticks Mercantilism” to describe China’s policy in Africa, highlighting China’s skill in negotiating deals with African leaders that disproportionately benefit China. Chinese multinational companies invest in the African continent in exchange for access to natural resources.

Cronje argued that for the U.S., trade is likely to be a more effective approach than aid for establishing strong economic and diplomatic ties with Africa, as it fosters sustainable African economies without burdening American taxpayers.

Cronje concluded that the U.S. needs to catch up to China in Africa. He believes that American policymakers should be more concerned about the trade and investment deficit relative to China than about future aid flows.