One of the key economic development challenges facing Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is its low agricultural productivity. Governments, donors, and foreign investors have underinvested in African agriculture even though research evidence shows that higher agricultural productivity would boost economic growth and poverty reduction. Solutions to the problem require a number of interconnected strategies, including, but not limited to, research on seeds and inputs, extension services, rural development, credit, institutional, and trade and price stabilization policies. We use the system two-step Generalized Method of Moments to examine whether official development assistance (ODA) for agriculture and rural development is helping to boost agricultural productivity. We find a positive relationship between ODA and agricultural productivity. However, when broken down into the main agricultural ODA recipient sectors, there is a substitution effect between food crop production and industrial crop production. While there exists a positive relationship between ODA for industrial and export crops output per worker (agricultural productivity), ODA for food crops has a negative relationship. Better public institutions and economic freedom are also found to enable agricultural productivity growth and to increase the ODA effectiveness. We correct the results for spurious correlation assuming that more ODA might be allocated where agricultural productivity is already increasing due to some other factors. Concerning the determinants of ODA allocation, we find that the allocation of ODA for agriculture is primarily determined by agricultural need, and that the expected effectiveness increases the ODA receipts. Finally, there is a weak ODA-led structural economic change effect in SSA. Labor released from agriculture to the urban sector(s) has a positive market effect on agriculture but is not engendering significant structural economic transformation.

Aid to Sub-Saharan Africa has been less effective in promoting economic development than has aid to other regions. Policies in the recipient countries of Africa - though certainly not the only factor - play the most important role in determining aid's effectiveness. At the heart of the problem is politics, and the solution rests in the hands of the people of Africa.

"This publication contains the main report of a study championing the case for increased public support to agricultural and food security in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). It advances four main reasons why agriculture in SSA deserves more public support. The first is a moral imperative: SSA governments cannot and should not ignore a sector on which about 70 percent of their population directly depend for their livelihoods if they are serious about their commitment to MDG1. Second, in spite of its generally poor performance, SSA countries do not have any realistic strategic option that they can rely upon for achieving sustainable economic development other than agriculture. Third, there is evidence from a number of SSA countries that appropriate policies and direct public sector investment have combined to trigger agriculture sector-led economic growth. This publication argues for countries to build on their success stories and for others to explore such opportunities, taking into account their specific environmental, economic and social conditions. Fourth, on average, agriculture in SSA has generally performed better than most other sectors, except in countries endowed with mineral resources."--Publisher's description.

In recent years, agricultural aid has become one of the most common policy instruments used by the international community to support developing and less developed countries. It is of particular importance for promoting economic development, reducing poverty, and increasing social stability for recipient countries. Over the past three decades, productivity growth has remained slow in Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries. The international community has strengthened measures to deal with increasing economic challenges faced by these countries. Agricultural development, with high contributions to the GDP growth, is expected to promote productivity and enhance their global competitiveness. But there have been growing concerns about aid effectiveness in recent years. These concerns motivate the question key to this study: How does agricultural aid from OECD donor countries impact agricultural development in Sub-Saharan African countries? This study utilizes data collected by the OECD, the World Bank, and the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) of the United Nations from 2002 through 2011 across 44 SSA countries. The analysis seeks to examine agricultural aid effectiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa, and, in general, finds no evidence that agricultural aid and agricultural growth has a relationship.

"Food insecurity is a persistent problem in sub-Saharan Africa: hunger affects 30% of the population and nearly half of the children suffer from chronic malnutrition. The court examined whether European Union (EU) development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa is effective, i.e. whether it addresses the countries' needs and priorities and the EU interventions achieve their objectives. The audit focused on EU direct development support for the three dimensions of food security, i.e. food availability, access to food and food utilisation or nutrition. The court concludes that EU development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa is mostly effective, highly relevant to countries' needs and priorities, and makes an important contribution to achieving food security. However, there is scope for significant improvement in several areas, such as better assessing the potential scope for support in chronic food insecure countries, giving adequate priority to nutrition and improving the sustainability of the interventions."--P. [4] of cover.

This book is an anthology of essays contributing new scholarship to the contemporary discourse on the concept of aid. It provides an interdisciplinary investigation of the role of aid in African development, compiling the work of historians, political scientists, legal scholars, and economists to examine where aid has failed and to offer new perspectives on how aid can be made more effective. Questions regarding the effectiveness of aid are addressed here using specific case studies. The question of ownership is examined in the context of two debates: 1) to what extent should aid be designed by the recipient country itself? and 2) should aid focus on “need” or “performance”? That is, should donors direct aid to the poorest countries, regardless of their policies and governance, or should aid “reward” countries for doing the right thing? The future of aid is also addressed: should aid continue to be a part of the development agenda for countries in sub-Saharan Africa? If so, how much and what type of aid is needed, and how it can be made most effective? The major criticism against aid is that it cripples the recipient country’s economic growth by turning it into a passive receiver; in addition, it has been noted that aid is mostly supply-driven, depending upon donors rather than the actual needs of recipients. For this reason, aid may not meet the goals for which it was intended. To meet the needs of the communities they want to help, donors should work through consultation and a measure of recipient ownership. Donors need to understand context, to protect human rights, and to be guided by principles of social and environmental justice. Other suggested strategies for making aid more effective include peer review; self-assessment; the empowerment of women; encouraging accountability; investing in agriculture; helping smallholder subsistence farmers; introducing ethical and professional standards for civil service; and raising the competence of civil servants.