Vol:.(1234567890) Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-022-00191-3 1 3 RESEARCH PAPER The role of foreign aids and income inequality in poverty reduction: A sustainable development approach for Africa? Rasheed O. Alao1,2 · Andrew A. Alola3,4  Accepted: 1 May 2022 / Published online: 9 September 2022 / Published online: 9 September 2022 © The Author(s) 2022, corrected publication 2022 Abstract In the last decades, international interventions mostly through foreign aids have consist- ently been directed toward sustainable development objectives such as reduction of poverty in African countries. Thus, this study investigates the effect of foreign aids and income inequality in poverty reduction in Africa for 1990–2016. The novelty lies in the investiga- tion of the effectiveness of aid remittances to Africa from the United Nations and Organi- zation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) which has previously been overlooked in extant studies. By using the system Generalized Method of Moments, the study showed that the interaction of inequality with the United Nations Development Pro- gramme (UNDP) funds and OECD Official Development Assistance is not statistically sig- nificant. Meanwhile, the interventions from the UNDP funds and OECD Official Devel- opment Assistance statistically yield significant and expected results of reducing poverty in the poor continent. However, the study surprisingly failed to establish that remittances from the UNDP have significantly mitigated poverty in Africa. Importantly, this study pre- sents a significant policy guide for the governments and the stakeholders and recommends that the donor agencies adopt poverty-reduction, and income distribution-based criteria for the allocation of their resources to reduce poverty in the continent. Keywords  Poverty · Income inequality · Foreign aids · Sustainable development · SDGs · Africa JEL Classification  I31 · O11 · O55 * Andrew A. Alola aadewale@gelisim.edu.tr Rasheed O. Alao rasheedalao74@gmail.com 1 Department of Economics, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria 2 Department of Economics, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Turkey 3 Department of Economics, Istanbul Gelisim University, Istanbul, Turkey 4 Department of Economics, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5355-3707 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s40847-022-00191-3&domain=pdf 457Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 Introduction How severe are the poverty and the income inequality in Africa? Despite the recent economic growth experienced in some regions or countries in the continent (Asongu and Kodila-Tedika 2018), appropriate answers are yet to sufficiently underpin the seemingly regenerative cause of this dilemma in Africa’s poor. The rising profile of poverty and inequality in the poorest region and in some developing countries has been a source of worry for governments, policymakers, and intergovernmental agencies (Choi 2021). Thus, the goal of driving the poverty reduction agenda of the United Nations is paramount in the organization’s 2000 Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) declarations. According to the United Nations (UN) (2000), eight (8) Millennium Development Goals (MDG) were set up. The MDGs rolled out by the UN were committed to building a safer, more prosperous, and more equitable, egalitarian world. From the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at the 8th plenary meeting in New York, USA, September 8, 2000, the United Nations Millennium Declaration, under the caption (III) envisioned Development and Poverty Eradication where “UN will spare no effort to free people and especially the vulnerable groups such as children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected”. The declaration roadmap set out eight time-bound and measurable goals achievable by 2015. Goal one (1) was to create No-Poverty world latest by 2015. Others include: achieving universal primary education; promoting gender equality and empowering women; reducing child mortality; improving maternal health; combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability while goal (8) focus on how to develop a global partnership for development (United Nations 2015a, b). There is a growing negative relationship between foreign aids and poverty mitigation in the recipient countries (Akobeng 2017; Vacaflores 2018; Gharleghi and Jahanshahi 2020). In contrast, Chong et al. (2009) and Briggs (2017) found that aids are ineffective. While Allen et  al. (2021) explored the role of science in sustainable development, the current study is investigating the drive toward attaining sustainable development by looking at the effect of aid and inequality on poverty in fifty African countries. Though with different scope, the closest paper to the study is Vacaflores (2018). Questioning whether remittances are helping to lower poverty and inequality levels in Latin America, Vacaflores (2018) uses dynamic GMM to examine the effectiveness of aids in reducing poverty and inequality and found that increases in aids have a negative and significant impact on poverty and inequal- ity in the region. Additionally, Akobeng (2017) found that aid flow to Africa reduces pov- erty but the size of the poverty reduction depends on how poverty is being measured. To solve the rigidity of static models, a new dynamic tool was introduced in the 2000s to sub- due the endogeneity of variables of models using instrumental variables and to also take charge of heterogeneity of the individuals. In the context of dynamic panel data analysis, mention must be made of Baltagi and Levin (1986) followed by the increasingly popular Baltagi (2005), Baltagi (2008), Arellano and Bond (1991), and Arellano and Bover (1995). The purpose of the study is to investigate the impact of foreign aids on poverty-inequal- ity in Africa covering fifty selected African countries from 1990 to 2016. The research question is: do United Nations Development Programme funds and OECD’s Official Devel- opment Assistance matter in poverty-cutting in the poorest region? The quest for answers to this question formed the basis of the research and paved the way for the objective which is to explore the effect of aids on poverty and inequality in Africa. It is crucial to provide 458 Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 pragmatic answers to these questions because it is projected that many most vulnerable countries are will not achieve any of the SDGs target (Moyer and Hedden 2020), and financing the SDGs is one of the biggest challenges of development today (Barua 2020) The current study is designed to advance a related study of Gharleghi and Jahanshahi (2020). On the novelty, the current study contributes to the literature by examining the effectiveness of aid from the United Nations (UN) and Organization for Economic Coop- eration and Development (OECD)’s Official Development Assistance to Africa. Although a handful of studies have examined the potential mitigating drivers of poverty and income inequality in Africa, the conceptual framework adopted in the current study is the first in the literature. Assessing the effect of aids from different donor agencies is vital. The criteria of aid allocation could be responsible for the kind of relationship between aids and poverty in the recipient countries. This is because both donors and recipients countries are primarily con- cerned about the optimal allocation of the aids. In this regard, aid agencies set up guide- lines, quantitative criteria (formulas), or formal models for the allocation of their resources to different developing countries. Meanwhile, the formula is the most conventional criteria, which corresponds to Performance-Based Allocation (PBA). However, different donors use different formulas. Hence, the difference in criteria might result in the different effects of aid on poverty. This study includes aids from different donors and also accounts for income distribution to evaluate the effects of the aids on poverty in Africa. The paper is made up of six sections. The other sections are arranged such that “Syn- opsis of poverty, inequality, and aids in Africa, 1990–2016” section presents a synopsis of variables of interest, “Literature review” section briefly highlights the literature review while the methodology is presented in “Methodology” section. The fifth and sixth sections discuss the results and concluding remarks with policy direction, respectively. Synopsis of poverty, inequality, and aids in Africa, 1990–2016 Concerning radar analysis of poverty levels in Africa, Fig. 1 shows countries with differ- ent levels of (27 year average) poverty levels. Series point(s) on the radar to the poverty level of each country on or within each circumference as shown in Fig. 2. The outermost circle/layer houses the positional point of Burundi followed by C.A.R. and others. The lower the rate the better the country as shown in the radar value vertical axis. The desired, low seven rates mostly from North Africa are Seychelles (0.04), Mauritius (0.18), Gabon (3.56), Egypt Arab Rep. (3.94), Morocco (4.08), Sudan (4.41), and Algeria (4.76). The highest seven rates which spread across the continents are Burundi (73.71), Central Africa Republic (68.44), Tanzania (66.11), Niger (65.70), Lesotho (65.32), Rwanda (64.66), and Madagascar (63.48) (see Table 1). The severity of inequality as measured by the Gini index or coefficient was developed by an Italian Statistician named Corrado Gini in 1912 using the Lorenz curve. Gini coef- ficient ranges from zero (0) or 0% to one (1) or 100%, with 0 representing perfect equal- ity and 1 representing perfect inequality. Countries’ Gini coefficients that are close to 1 are referred highly severed inequality while countries whose Gini index is close to zero are less severed while any coefficient higher than one (1) are theoretically recorded due to negative income or wealth (see Table 1). The movement or deviation from the perfectly equal straight line which characterizes or represents a coefficient of zero (0) maintains that the higher or lower the Gini coefficient the less or more equal the society, respectively. 459Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 Figure 2 shows different levels of income inequality severity in Africa (1990–2016) which can be grouped into six, A–F, disregarding rounding off values. Group A of Gini index, g.i. (0.5) contains Lesotho, Botswana, South Africa, and the Central Africa Republic. The A grouped countries represent very high inequality and so more unequal. Group B of the Gini index (0.4) comprises Zambia, Swaziland, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Guinea- Bissau, and Cote d’Ivoire. Others are Ghana, Senegal, Guinea, and Morocco. Numerous group C of g.i. (0.3) covers Tunisia, Mozambique, Madagascar, Malawi, Burkina Faso, Tanzania, and Niger. Others in the C group are Mali, Algeria, Burundi, Mauritania, Cam- eroon, Namibia, The Gambia, and Egypt. Next is group D of g.i. (0.2) having Cabo Verde, Ethiopia, Comoros, Djibouti, Chad, Benin, Congo Republic, and the Congo Democratic Republic as members. Group E of g.i. (0.1) include Sierra Leone, Gabon, Togo, Mauritius, Angola, and Sudan while the last group F of Gini index (0.0) which is mostly desired con- tains Zimbabwe and Seychelles (see Table 1). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Seychelles ZimbabweSudanAngola Mauri�us Togo Gabon Sierra Leone Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Benin Chad Djibou� Comoros Ethiopia Cabo Verde Egypt, Arab Rep. Gambia, The Namibia Cameroon Mauritania BurundiAlgeriaMaliNigerTanzaniaBurkina Faso Malawi Madagascar Mozambique Tunisia Morocco Guinea Senegal Ghana Cote d'Ivoire Guinea-Bissau Uganda Rwanda Nigeria Kenya Swaziland Zambia Central African Republic South AfricaBotswanaLesotho avepov inequality Fig. 1   (Mean) Poverty levels in Africa. Source Constructed by the author from World Bank Development Indicators (2018) 460 Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 0.0173333 0.096 0.1048889 0.1423333 0.1456296 0.1782222 0.1875556 0.1946667 0.203 0.2137778 0.2140741 0.2141481 0.2301852 0.2534444 0.2782963 0.2914815 0.3147407 0.3197778 0.3214074 0.3385185 0.3398148 0.3431111 0.344963 0.3455556 0.3570741 0.3580741 0.3728148 0.3772222 0.3794 0.3848889 0.3898518 0.4014444 0.4035926 0.4051481 0.4063334 0.4085185 0.4197037 0.4241481 0.4248148 0.4431482 0.4441111 0.464037 0.4881852 0.5178148 0.5454444 0.5496666 0.5636296 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Seychelles Zimbabwe Sudan Angola Mauri�us Togo Gabon Sierra Leone Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Benin Chad Djibou� Comoros Ethiopia Cabo Verde Egypt, Arab Rep. Gambia, The Namibia Cameroon Mauritania Burundi Algeria Mali Niger Tanzania Burkina Faso Malawi Madagascar Mozambique Tunisia Morocco Guinea Senegal Ghana Cote d'Ivoire Guinea-Bissau Uganda Rwanda Nigeria Kenya Swaziland Zambia Central African Republic South Africa Botswana Lesotho Fig. 2   (Mean) Income Inequality Severity Index in Africa. Source Constructed by the author from the World Bank Development Indicators (2018) 461Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 Table 1   Twenty-seven (27) year mean of poverty headcount, inequality, OECD’s, aid and UNDP funds. Source Authors’ calculation (mean), using data from the World Bank WDI (2018) Country POV INEQ ODA($m) UNDP($m) Algeria 4.76 .3450 285 944,074 Angola 10.03 .14.23 410 4,377,037 Benin 26.00 .2141 416 4,250,000 Botswana 24.72 .5497 130 719,259 Burkina Faso 55.25 3728 716 6,443,334 Burundi 73.71 .3431 358 7,151,852 Cabo Verde 6.56 .2915 166 766,667 Cameroon 24.28 .3385 740 2,367,037 Central African Republic 68.44 .5178 209 3,651,482 Chad 27.17 .2141 362 5,560,000 Comoros 7.18 .2534 49 1,281,111 Congo, Dem. Rep 42.16 .2030 1620 12,800,000 Congo, Rep 19.69 .2138 271 1,181,482 Cote d’Ivoire 23.28 .4085 900 3,312,593 Djibouti 11.64 .2302 126 881,852 Egypt, Arab Rep 3.94 .3147 2610 3,384,445 Ethiopia 36.51 .2783 2120 14,900,000 Gabon 3.56 .1876 82 471,852 The Gambia 30.20 .3198 89 2,630,000 Ghana 32.31 .4063 1090 5,576,297 Guinea 53.63 .4036 374 4,577,408 Guinea-Bissau 59.19 .4197 126 3,017,037 Kenya 33.69 .4441 1280 6,881,482 Lesotho 65.32 .5636 137 1,923,333 Madagascar 63.48 .3794 591 7,564,445 Malawi 50.97 .3772 722 8,299,630 Mali 49.52 .3456 760 6,543,334 Mauritania 14.97 .3398 305 2,357,037 Mauritius 0.18 .1456 63 585,926 Morocco 4.08 .4014 1080 1,887,407 Mozambique 58.63 .3849 1630 9,540,370 Namibia 13.70 .3214 208 1,305,185 Niger 65.70 .3571 528 7,331,852 Nigeria 55.96 .4431 1570 11,700,000 Rwanda 64.66 .4248 690 6,575,556 Senegal 46.77 .4051 792 3,836,667 Seychelles 0.04 .173 23 82,593 Sierra Leone 62.80 .1947 373 4,769,630 South Africa 22.87 .5454 736 1,262,593 Sudan 4.41 .1049 1050 7,302,963 Swaziland 46.73 .4640 63 704,074 Tanzania 66.11 .3581 1900 10,300,000 Togo 21.97 .1782 190 3,977,778 Tunisia 5.91 .3899 413 899,259 Uganda 56.33 .4241 1250 8,681,852 Zambia 50.27 .4882 1030 4,832,593 Zimbabwe 4.76 .960 530 4,507,778 462 Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 Literature review A plethora of papers has unwrapped studies on poverty and measures to be taken to subdue poverty in the region which usually tagged poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSP). This paper, following the PRSP but departs to step up to adopt a sustaining poverty-inequality reduction strategy (PIRS). Early research on Panel data methodology commenced in the 1900s focused on linear regressions and static models at a time when time series and pool data analysis were ineffective in preferring solutions to endogenous problems. To solve the rigidity of static models, a new dynamic tool was invented in the 2000s to subdue the endogeneity of variables of the models using many instrumental variables and to also take charge of the issue of heterogeneity of the individuals. Notable among the pioneer dynamic panel data (DPD) modelers are Balestra and Ner- love (1966) and in the seventies, Nerlove (1971) and Madalla (1971, 1975) while the nineties noted Arellano and Bond (1991), Arellano and Bover (1995), Blundell and Bond (1998) as well as Roodman (2008) and Ruiz-Porras (2012) in the 2000s to upgrade the knowledge of complex economic models and processes through empirical works. Dynamic panel data is usually adopted to solve some limits of micro-panel especially when panels are formed from databases with short observations/time (t) and long cross sections/large numbers of individuals (n). The paper, therefore, justified in using a dynamic panel data system due to its short time t (27 observations) and long n (50 cross sections). As posited in the extant literature, there is a consensus on the poverty-inequality positive relation with either of the two vices or interaction of both suffers negative effect on eco- nomic growth (Asongu et al. 2020). Works of Ncube et al. (2014) in the case of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) for the period 1985–2009, shows how income inequality increases poverty but reduces economic growth. The recent finding of Majeed and Breunig (2020) followed Ncube et al. (2014) but of more concentration among countries with high poverty and advocated for policies aimed at alleviating poverty rather than distribution. This paper sees to an improvement in measuring of poverty rates in the world. This is done by estimating poverty from the Space using high-resolution satellite imagery (HRSI) to extract objects vis-à-vis its textures. The extractable may include the number and density of buildings, roof materials, the prevalence of shadows, number of cars, density and length of roads, types of agriculture and degree of climate change. This proposal is in accord with a World Bank working paper by Engstrom et al. (2017). Estimates from HRSI will confirm or otherwise the measurements of poverty through pov- erty headcounts or from survey to survey. For over five decades, foreign aids have been used by the developed world and aid donors/agencies to alleviate poverty, reduce the dis- parity of income inequality and stimulate growth in Africa but quite surprisingly contro- versial, the remittances miss targets of poverty cutting in Africa and another developing world. Burnside and Dollar (2000) maintain that foreign aid favors the presence of good macroeconomic policies and so also Collier and Dollar (2002) agree that aids reduce pov- erty. In contrast, Easterly (2003) and Kirikkaleli et al (2021) submit that foreign aid does not have any significant effect on growth, even if good policies are implemented in recipi- ent countries. From the latter assertion, it is evident that there are many factors responsible for aids to miss the target of reducing poverty facts of which include poor management of aids through bad leadership and misplacement of priority in Africa. In general, most studies, especially all the listed research on poverty, inequality, and growth usually find out that inequality increases poverty and vice versa while both inequal- ity and poverty reduce economic growth (Adebayo et al. 2020). The novelty of the study 463Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 and the gap to fill in the literature is to confirm the usual relation of the trio of poverty- inequality-growth and above all appraise the effectiveness of Official Development Assis- tance (ODA), UN, and other donor institutions remittances to Africa which many previous studies adequately fail to do. Methodology We estimate the following equations using dynamic GMM due to “small T, large N’’ pan- els, meaning few periods and many cross sections. We specified Eqs.  (1) and (2) on the interaction of ODA’s aid and FUNDP with inequality in Eq. (1). where Poverty (Povi,t) is the dependent variable of country i in time t; Povi,t−n is lag of dependent variable of countries i in time (t − n); α0 is constant; αi is the coefficient of the variable i; Ineqi,t is inequality/Gini index; Ineq*Aidi,t and Ineq*FUNDPi,t depicts the inter- action of inequality with ODA and UNDP aids; ln(rgdppc)i,t is log of real GDP per capita; Xi,t is contemporaneous variables; εi is error terms and uit is unobserved time-invariant het- erogeneity. Differentiating Eq. 2 concerning Ineqi,t, we thus obtain Eq. (3). The α2, α5, and α6 capture the extent to which aid and UNDP funds affect poverty in Africa. Due to limited space, only two models were specified—Eqs.  (1) and (2), results of which were presented in columns 15 and 16 in Table 2 while others 1–14 estimates were meant for consistency cross-checks. Making use of World Development Indicators (2018), the following data were sourced. They include poverty headcount $1.90  per day, which was measured as the percentage of the population living on less than 1.9 USD per day, inequality coefficient/Gini index, external debts, trade openness, mineral rents, inflation, unemployment, exchange rate, real gross domestic product per capita and total population. Others are OECD’s ODA and funds from the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP. The model also made use of dummies for African regions. The GDP per capita and official exchange rate in actual values and so log-transformed while other unlogged vari- ables were already in percentages. Results and discussion Table 2 reports dynamic GMM estimates and shows that inequality significantly increases poverty. The study finds that a one-unit change in income inequality would result in a 0.82% increase in the poverty level in Africa. A positive and significant Gini coefficient indicates that greater inequality is associated with higher poverty in Africa therefore (1) Pov i,t = �0 + �1Povi,t−n + �2Ineqi,t + �3Aidi,t + �4FUNDPi,t + �5 ln (rgdppc)i,t + �6Xi,t + � i + u i,t (2) v i,t = �0 + �1Povi,t−n + �2Ineqi,t + �3Aidi,t + �4FUNDPi,t + �5 ( Ineq∗ i,t Aid i,t ) + �6 ( Ineq∗ i,t FUNDP i,t ) + �7 ln (rgdppc)i,t + �8Xi,t + � i + u i,t (3) �Pov �Ineq = �2 + �5Aidi,t + �6FUNDPi,t 464 Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 Ta bl e  2   D yn am ic G M M e sti m at es . S ou rc e A ut ho r’s c al cu la tio n D ep en de nt v ar ia bl e: P ov er ty h ea dc ou nt ra tio ($ 1. 90 ) Va ria bl es (1 ) (2 ) (3 ) (4 ) (5 ) (6 ) (7 ) (8 ) (9 ) (1 0) (1 1) (1 2) (1 3) (1 4) (1 5) (1 6) Pr ev io us p ov - er ty ra te 0. 79 ** * 0. 70 ** * 0. 69 ** * 0. 69 ** * 0. 69 ** * 0. 68 ** * 0. 68 ** * 0. 68 ** * 0. 67 ** * 0. 66 ** * 0. 66 ** * 0. 65 ** * 0. 65 ** * 0. 70 ** * 0. 71 ** * 0. 71 1* ** (0 .0 26 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 34 ) (0 .0 35 ) (0 .0 34 5) In eq ua lit y 0. 72 ** * 0. 74 ** * 0. 74 ** * 0. 74 ** * 0. 74 ** * 0. 75 ** * 0. 75 ** * 0. 75 ** * 0. 75 ** * 0. 76 ** * 0. 76 ** * 0. 76 ** * 0. 76 ** * 0. 80 ** * 0. 82 ** * 0. 68 4* ** (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 30 ) (0 .0 30 ) (0 .0 30 ) (0 .0 30 ) (0 .0 30 ) (0 .0 30 ) (0 .0 30 ) (0 .0 30 ) (0 .0 30 ) (0 .0 30 ) (0 .0 30 ) (0 .0 30 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 32 ) (0 .0 40 7) In eq ua lit y * O D A 7. 3e − 1 1* * (0 .0 00 ) In eq ua lit y * FU N D P 2. 0e − 1 ** * (4 .9 5e − 0 9) Lo g (R G D PP C) − 6 .6 7* ** − 5 .9 3* ** − 4 .9 9* ** − 4 .9 8* ** − 4 .9 7* ** − 5 .1 5* ** − 5 .1 0* ** − 4 .9 8* ** − 5 .2 3* ** − 5 .2 3* ** − 5 .4 4* ** − 5 .7 4* ** − 8 .1 9* ** − 8 .8 2* ** − 8 .0 69 ** * (1 .4 6) (1 .5 2) (1 .5 8) (1 .5 8) (1 .5 8) (1 .5 7) (1 .6 2) (1 .6 1) (1 .6 0) (1 .6 0) (1 .5 9) (1 .6 1) (1 .7 2) (1 .8 9) (1 .8 73 ) Ex te rn al d eb t (e xt d) 0. 01 1 0. 01 1 0. 01 1 0. 00 95 0. 00 58 0. 00 71 0. 00 41 − 0 .0 00 39 − 0 .0 00 39 − 0 .0 00 58 0. 00 07 1 − 0 .0 04 0 − 0 .0 03 0 2. 05 e− 0 5 (0 .0 07 1) (0 .0 07 1) (0 .0 07 5) (0 .0 07 8) (0 .0 08 0) (0 .0 08 2) (0 .0 08 3) (0 .0 08 5) (0 .0 08 5) (0 .0 08 5) (0 .0 08 5) (0 .0 08 9) (0 .0 09 0) (0 .0 08 85 ) Tr ad e op en (o pe nn es s) − 0 .0 3* * − 0 .0 3* * − 0 .0 3* * − 0 .0 26 ** − 0 .0 27 ** − 0 .0 24 * − 0 .0 26 ** − 0 .0 26 ** − 0 .0 28 ** − 0 .0 29 ** − 0 .0 31 ** − 0 .0 30 ** − 0 .0 30 5* * (0 .0 13 ) (0 .0 13 ) (0 .0 13 ) (0 .0 13 ) (0 .0 13 ) (0 .0 13 ) (0 .0 13 ) (0 .0 13 ) (0 .0 13 ) (0 .0 13 ) (0 .0 13 ) (0 .0 13 ) (0 .0 13 3) M in er al re nt s( m re nt ) − 0 .0 10 − 0 .0 85 − 0 .0 62 − 0 .0 58 − 0 .0 46 − 0 .0 26 − 0 .0 26 − 0 .0 16 − 0 .0 27 0. 12 0. 12 0. 07 90 (0 .1 0) (0 .1 1) (0 .1 1) (0 .1 1) (0 .1 1) (0 .1 1) (0 .1 1) (0 .1 1) (0 .1 1) (0 .1 2) (0 .1 2) (0 .1 18 ) Lo g (e xc ha ng e ra te s) − 0 .5 8* * − 0 .5 3* − 0 .5 1* − 0 .4 3 − 0 .3 4 − 0 .3 4 − 0 .4 8 − 0 .4 9 − 0 .1 2 − 0 .3 0 − 0 .4 51 (0 .2 9) (0 .2 9) (0 .2 9) (0 .3 0) (0 .3 0) (0 .2 9) (0 .3 0) (0 .3 0) (0 .3 2) (0 .3 3) (0 .3 31 ) A id fr om N et O ffi ci al D ev el op - m en t A ss ist an ce (O D A ) − 1 .1 e− 09 ** − 1 .2 e− 1* * − 1 .0 e− 09 * − 8 .1 e− 10 − 8 .1 e− 10 − 7 .9 e− 10 − 7 .9 e− 10 − 6 .4 e− 1 0 − 6 .9 e− 10 − 2 .8 8e − 0 9* * (5 .3 e− 1 0) (5 .3 e− 1 0) (5 .3 e− 1 0) (5 .4 e− 1 0) (5 .4 e− 1 0) (5 .4 e− 1 0) (5 .4 e− 1 0) (5 .6 e− 1 0) (5 .6 e− 1 0) (1 .2 7e − 0 9) 465Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 Ta bl e  2   (c on tin ue d) D ep en de nt v ar ia bl e: P ov er ty h ea dc ou nt ra tio ($ 1. 90 ) Va ria bl es (1 ) (2 ) (3 ) (4 ) (5 ) (6 ) (7 ) (8 ) (9 ) (1 0) (1 1) (1 2) (1 3) (1 4) (1 5) (1 6) Fu nd s t ra ns fe r fro m U ni te d N at io ns D ev el op - m en t Pr og ra m m e (F U N D P) 1. 7e − 0 8 2. 3e − 0 8 6. 5e − 0 8 6. 5e − 0 8 5. 7e − 0 8 7. 0e − 0 8 9. 9e − 0 8 1. 3e − 0 7 − 6 .2 1e − 07 ** * (9 .8 e− 0 8) (9 .8 e− 0 8) (9 .9 e− 0 8) (9 .9 e− 0 8) (9 .9 e− 0 8) (9 .9 e− 0 8) (1 .0 e− 0 7) (1 .0 e− 0 7) (2 .1 2e − 0 7) To ta l p op ul a- tio n − 1 .e − 07 * − 8 .6 e− 08 − 8 .6 e− 08 − 8 .4 e− 08 − 8 .9 e− 08 − 1 .9 e− 0 8 − 2 .5 e− 08 − 1 .2 e− 0 7* (6 .5 e− 0 8) (6 .7 e− 0 8) (6 .7 e− 0 8) (6 .7 e− 0 8) (6 .7 e− 0 8) (7 .0 e− 0 8) (7 .1 e− 0 8) (7 .1 5e − 0 8) In fla tio n ra te − 1 .3 e− 07 ** − 1 .3 e− 07 ** − 1 .2 e− 07 ** − 1 .0 e− 07 − 1 .8 e− 07 ** * − 1 .2 e− 07 − 3 .4 8e − 0 5 (6 .2 e− 0 8) (6 .2 e− 0 8) (6 .2 e− 0 8) (6 .5 e− 0 8) (6 .9 e− 0 8) (7 .2 e− 0 8) (0 .0 00 26 ) U ne m pl oy m en t ra te − 1 .8 e− 06 − 8 .3 e− 06 − 8 .3 e− 06 − 0 .0 00 01 3 − 0 .0 00 02 0. 11 4* * (0 .0 00 25 ) (0 .0 00 25 ) (0 .0 00 25 ) (0 .0 00 26 ) (0 .0 00 26 ) (0 .0 57 2) Ce nt ra l A fr ic an du m m y 0. 11 * 0. 11 * 56 .7 2* ** (0 .0 57 ) (0 .0 58 ) (1 5. 70 ) Ea st A fr ic an du m m y 6. 59 * 5. 07 9. 37 ** 57 .2 ** * 40 .5 1* ** (3 .5 8) (3 .8 2) (4 .0 2) (1 5. 9) (1 4. 84 ) N or th A fr ic an du m m y − 4 .6 0 − 0 .2 4 42 .4 ** * 67 .0 5* ** (4 .1 2) (4 .3 3) (1 5. 0) (2 3. 45 ) So ut hA fr ic an du m m y 67 .4 ** * 64 .9 ** * 41 .8 5* * (1 1. 5) (2 3. 7) (1 7. 26 ) 466 Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 Ta bl e  2   (c on tin ue d) D ep en de nt v ar ia bl e: P ov er ty h ea dc ou nt ra tio ($ 1. 90 ) Va ria bl es (1 ) (2 ) (3 ) (4 ) (5 ) (6 ) (7 ) (8 ) (9 ) (1 0) (1 1) (1 2) (1 3) (1 4) (1 5) (1 6) W es tA fr ic an du m m y 42 .2 ** 51 .6 2* ** (1 7. 5) (1 4. 87 ) 51 .6 ** * (1 5. 1) Co ns ta nt − 1 5. 6* ** 38 .9 ** * 32 .6 ** * 27 .0 ** 27 .0 ** 29 .5 ** 31 .6 ** 31 .1 ** 30 .2 ** 34 .3 ** * 34 .3 ** * 35 .8 ** * 39 .4 ** * 45 .3 ** * (1 .1 6) (1 2. 0) (1 2. 5) (1 2. 8) (1 2. 8) (1 2. 9) (1 2. 9) (1 3. 4) (1 3. 4) (1 3. 3) (1 3. 3) (1 3. 3) (1 3. 6) (1 4. 2) A R( 2) − 0 .3 10 − .3 48 − .3 77 − .3 55 − 0 .3 50 − .3 51 − 0 .3 27 − 0 .3 48 − 0 .8 99 − 0 .3 34 − 0 .7 42 − 0 .7 10 − 0 .3 19 0. 50 8 − 0 .2 12 0. 50 8 P- va lu e (A R( 2) ) [0 .7 5] [0 .7 27 ] [0 .7 06 ] [0 .7 23 ] [0 .7 25 ] [0 .7 26 ] [0 .7 44 ] [0 .7 27 ] [0 .3 69 ] [0 .7 38 ] [0 .4 58 ] [0 .4 78 ] [0 .7 50 ] [0 .6 11 ] [0 .8 32 ] [0 .6 11 ] Sa rg an (P -v al ue ) 0. 84 01 0. 44 0 0. 40 65 0. 47 12 0. 47 52 0. 48 02 0. 48 82 0. 41 89 0. 41 85 0. 34 19 0. 34 60 0. 32 46 0. 31 52 0. 66 82 0. 69 31 O bs er va tio ns 13 00 12 93 12 93 12 93 12 93 12 84 12 84 12 84 12 84 12 84 12 84 12 84 12 84 12 84 12 84 12 84 N um be r o f c id 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 St an da rd e rr or s i n pa re nt he se s. ** *, * *, * d en ot es 1 % , 5 % , a nd 1 0% le ve l o f s ig ni fic an ce , r es pe ct iv el y 467Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 income inequality is harmful to the poor continent. The study also finds that a one per- cent change in real GDP per capita reduces poverty by 8.82% which is in accord with the literature. Other factors Fuelling Poverty in Africa include mineral rents, funds from UNDP, unemployment rate while dummy variables of central, west, north, east, and south- ern Africa have a significant and positive effect on poverty. However, the interaction of inequality with aids as shown in Table 2 column (16) estimates exonerated the duo and so yields expected results of reducing poverty in the region. In a related study, Park implied that financial development is correlated with lower poverty and income inequality in 176 countries. However, Noonan and Sadiq (2018) found that there is a significant impact of the Community Rating System (CRS) on poverty and income inequality in the USA. Sargan test was carried out to verify the overall validity/efficacy of the instruments and the result was found to be sufficiently valid. The p-value must be less than 0.1 or 0.05 to reject, so we are far from having any indicated problems with the instruments and therefore over-identification does not hold or exist. With all Sargan p-values higher than 0.05, it quite clearly indicates that one cannot reject the null hypothesis, Ho which states that overidentify- ing restrictions are valid, and so is a good result. On the contrary, if the p-values fall below 5%, then the instruments are invalid and so one can reject Ho so the Sargan tests are boon and reliable. In addition, the results of the Arellano–Bond test for zero autocorrelation in first- differenced errors, AR(2), show that there is no problem of autocorrelation in the model. This is indicated by the p-values of the AR(2), which are greater than 0.05 as reported in Table 2. Concluding remarks This study examined the effect of aid on poverty-inequality in Africa. The paper concludes that inequality, as expected, responds positively to increases in poverty levels. Other factors fuelling poverty include mismanagement/underutilization of mineral resources, high unemployment rate with basic education. The results further illustrate a high rate of poverty across African regions, thus indicating the reason the UNDP is geared toward reducing poverty and poor-rich gap in Africa. But, aids can only reduce poverty when the donor agencies adopt poverty-reduction, and income distribution-based criteria for the allocation of their resources. Additionally, alloca- tion criteria that minimize income inequality would reduce poverty in the African continent. Currently, most of the donor agencies are using a formula or formal models that account of GDP per capita but fail to adequately capture income distribution. Consequently, funds from the donors promote income inequality and aggravate poverty in the recipient countries in Africa. This is indicated by the interaction terms between income inequality and aids, which eliminated the positive nexus between aids and poverty (see Table 2). Given that poverty and income inequality are reportedly linked with other noneconomic (such as social and environmental) factors (Asongu and Kodila-Tedika 2018; Morse 2018), the policies of the governments especially toward poverty and income inequality reduction could be further driven by inclusive development (Asongu and Odhiambo 2019). Additionally, due to the high level of forms of corruption, the intergovernmental interventions especially that are designed to tackle the challenges of poverty and income inequality in Africa should be adequately supervised. As such, the supervision of the process of interventions should cover the execution to implementation and the evaluation stage. 468 Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 Acknowledgements  We acknowledge the professionalism of Aviola Consult for the editing service provided. Funding  Open access funding provided by University of Vaasa (UVA). Data availability  The dataset will be made available upon request. Declarations  Conflict of interest  There is no associated conflict of potential conflicts of interest. Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. References Adebayo TS, Beton KD (2020) Ongoing debate between foreign aid and economic growth in Nigeria: a wavelet analysis. Soc Sci Q 101(5):2032–2051 Akobeng E (2017) Gross capital formation, institutions and poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. J Econ Policy Reform 20(2):136–164 Allen C, Metternicht G, Wiedmann T (2021) Priorities for science to support national implementation of the sustainable development goals: a review of progress and gaps. Sustain Dev 29:635–652 Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components mod- els. J Econom 68(1):29–51 Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: monte carlo evidence and an applica- tion to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2):277–297 Asongu SA, Kodila-Tedika O (2018) Institutions and poverty: a critical comment based on evolving currents and debates. Soc Ind Res 139(1):99–117 Asongu SA, Odhiambo NM (2019) How enhancing information and communication technology has affected inequality in Africa for sustainable development: an empirical investigation. Sustain Dev 27(4):647–656 Asongu SA, Nnanna J, Acha-Anyi PN (2020) Inequality and gender economic inclusion: the moderating role of financial access in Sub-Saharan Africa. Econ Anal Policy 65:173–185 Balestra P, Nerlove M (1966) Pooling a cross-section and time series in the estimation of a dynamic model: the demand for natural gas. Econom J Econom Soc 34(3):585–612 Baltagi B (2008) Econometric analysis of panel data. Wiley, New Jersey Baltagi BH (2005) Econometric analysis of panel data, 3rd edn. Wiley, New Jersey Baltagi BH, Levin D (1986) Estimating dynamic demand for cigarettes using panel data: the effects of boot- legging, taxation and advertising reconsidered. Rev Econ Stat 68:148–155 Barua S (2020) Financing sustainable development goals: A review of challenges and mitigation strategies. Bus Strategy Dev 3(3):277–293 Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 87(1):115–143 Breunig R, Majeed O (2020) Inequality, poverty and economic growth. Int Econ 161:83–99 Briggs RC (2017) Does foreign aid target the poorest? Int Organ 71(1):187–206 Burnside C, Dollar D (2000) Aid, policies, and growth. Am Econ Rev 90(4):847–868 Choi G (2021) Individuals’ socioeconomic position, inequality perceptions, and redistributive preferences in OECD countries. J Econ Inequal 19:1–26 Chong A, Gradstein M, Calderon C (2009) Can foreign aid reduce income inequality and poverty? Public Choice 140(1–2):59–84 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 469Journal of Social and Economic Development (2022) 24:456–469 1 3 Collier P, Dollar D (2002) Aid allocation and poverty reduction. Eur Econ Rev 46(8):1475–1500 Easterly W (2003) Can foreign aid buy growth? J Econ Perspect 17(3):23–48 Engstrom R, Hersh J, Newhouse D (2017) Poverty from space using high-resolution satellite imagery for estimating economic well-being. Policy Res Work 36:8284 Gharleghi B, Jahanshahi AA (2020) The way to sustainable development through income equality: the impact of trade liberalisation and financial development. Sustain Dev 28(4):990–1001 Kirikkaleli D, Adeshola I, Adebayo TS, Awosusi AA (2021) Do foreign aid triggers economic growth in Chad? A time series analysis. Future Bus J 7(1):1–17 Madalla G (1971) The likelihood approach to pooling cross-sections and time series. Econometrica 39(6):939–953 Madalla G (1975) Some problems arising in pooling cross-section and times series data. Discussion paper, University of Rochester, Nueva York Moyer JD, Hedden S (2020) Are we on the right path to achieve the sustainable development goals? World Dev 127:104749 Ncube M, Anyanwu JC, Hausken K (2014) Inequality, economic growth and poverty in the middle East and North Africa (MENA). Afr Dev Rev 26(3):435–453 Nerlove M (1971) Further evidence on the estimation of dynamic economic relations from a time series of cross sections. Econometrica 39(2):359–382 Noonan DS, Sadiq AAA (2018) Flood risk management: exploring the impacts of the community rating system program on poverty and income inequality. Risk Anal 38(3):489–503 Roodman D (2008) A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 71(1):135–158 Ruiz-Porras A (2012) Econometric research with panel data: history models and uses in Mexico. MPRA paper 42909, University Library of Munich, Germany United Nations (2000) United nations millenium declaration. Resolution adopted by the general assembly. https://​www.​un.​org United Nations (2015a) Millenium development goals report. https://​www.​susta​inabl​edeve​lopme​nt.​un.​org United Nations (2015b) Sustainable development knowledge platform. https://​www.​susta​inabl​edeve​lopme​ nt.​un.​org Vacaflores DE (2018) Are remittances helping lower poverty and inequality levels in Latin America? Q Rev Econ Finance 68:254–265 WDI (2018) World Bank data: world development indicators. https://​datab​ank.​world​bank.​org/​repor​ts.​aspx?​ source=​world-​devel​opment-​indic​ators Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. https://www.un.org https://www.sustainabledevelopment.un.org https://www.sustainabledevelopment.un.org https://www.sustainabledevelopment.un.org https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators The role of foreign aids and income inequality in poverty reduction: A sustainable development approach for Africa? Abstract Introduction Synopsis of poverty, inequality, and aids in Africa, 1990–2016 Literature review Methodology Results and discussion Concluding remarks Acknowledgements References