In her 2009 book, Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is Another Way for Africa, Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo likens foreign aid dependence to a destructive chemical addiction.
“Africa is addicted to aid. For the past 60 years it has been fed aid. Like any addict, it needs and depends on its regular fix, finding it hard, if not impossible, to contemplate existence in an aid-less world. The notion that aid can alleviate systemic poverty and has done so, is a myth,” reads the book in part.
I was reminded of Moyo’s warning when Minister of Finance, Economic Planning and Decentralisation Joseph Mwanamvekha recently told his audience in Lilongwe that “donors are still by our side”.
His sentiments came in response to news that the United Kingdom is trimming its assistance to Malawi by 60 percent in the 2026/27 financial year, with cuts expected to reach 90 percent by the 2028/29 fiscal year.
“Donors are not withdrawing; they are reallocating their investments,” the minister reassured. “Malawi will continue receiving support—even more than before.”
While development partners may not pull out wholesale, the writing on the wall is clear: things will never be the same. Wealthier nations are facing their own domestic economic pressures, forcing major cuts in foreign assistance. The sooner we accept this reality in Malawi, the better positioned we will be to navigate it.
In fact, the signals have been flashing red. US President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order in January 2025, placing a temporary freeze on global foreign development assistance pending review to assess alignment with his ‘America First’ policy.
Malawi was not spared as it lost substantial funding from USAid programmes and infrastructure support under the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Former African Development Bank President Akinwumi Adesina delivered a similar wake-up call during an April 2025 public lecture: “The era of aid or free money is gone. African countries must now learn to develop via investment discipline… Benevolence is not an asset class.”
My take is that rather than clutching at straws and banking on aid, Malawi must convert these cuts into an opportunity to build true economic sovereignty.
Consider our health sector, where the government has virtually abandoned its primary responsibility by relying predominantly on foreign taxpayers to fund the national drug budget.
I believe Malawi has the capacity to fund its own priorities. What we lack is political will and commitment to public finance management. Estimates indicate that roughly one-third of the resources Parliament allocates in the national budget end up leaking into private pockets rather than reaching intended beneficiaries.
By way of illustration, in our K10.978 trillion 2026/27 National Budget, a one-third loss equals K3.3 trillion. That single leakage represents almost half of the K6.3 trillion tax collection target set for the Malawi Revenue Authority this fiscal year. From this example, one can see that Malawi does not simply have a revenue problem, but a leak and discipline crisis.
What Malawi needs in these circumstances is trade, productivity and investment—not aid handouts. As the World Bank consistently emphasises, countries open to international trade grow faster, innovate more, improve productivity and create sustainable domestic opportunities.
Changing circumstances are painful, but we can draw inspiration from the eagle. Facing a fierce storm, the eagle does not surrender; it uses the heavy winds to soar higher.
The brutal truth is that we are not entitled to aid. Malawi must reduce its dependence on foreign taxpayers by mobilising domestic resources and executing home-grown solutions.
Framers of Malawi 2063 foresaw this exact crossroads when they resolved to create “an inclusively wealthy and self-reliant industrialised upper-middle-income country by the year 2063, so we can fund our development needs primarily by ourselves”.
That vision must not remain a dusty policy document. It must be financed and be made our guiding light and daily action plan.
