That's close...but even among African governments/societies that generally behave themselves, there is a lot of unsustainable development and environmental degradation.
Not to mention that almost half the population is infected with AIDS...
Poverty causes these problems (e.g. people slashing-and-burning forests in a desperate attempt to clear enough farmland to not starve). And these problems, in turn, cause even more poverty (e.g. a lack of timber to sell and a lack of farmland due to overuse).
I've heard that education also plays into this, since a majority of the population lacks the agricultural knowledge to make sustainable crops.... This seems possible, but I'm uncertain.
If it was that simple, one would think that Western governments would've adopted that education policy for themselves by now. That's not the way an economy works. You never get something for nothing; building schools and hiring teachers cost money.
You're right though, it's not a simple problem (or even set of problems) working against the countries of Africa.
Depends how you define functioning economies I guess. Korea was as poor as some parts of Africa prior to US developmental assistance. It succeeded largely because of a huge influx of cash that Africa never received. Israel is another good example; prior to independence, Israel was nearly as poor as most of its neighbors. But Israel received development assistance (more than every African nation combined), which has helped make Israel an economic powerhouse in the region.
That's why I come from the perspective that the elites that are bringing about the 'new world order' (mentioned earlier in this thread) has no real interest in allowing Africa to become an industrialized nation.... much of this will come through the 'environmental / anti-co2' movement because Africa will have to develop itself first with 'cheaper' co2 producing machinery to create what it needs to develop more energy efficient techniques. Or an influx of cash (with no debt strings) that could create an energy efficient economy.... and well, 15$ per african per year.... I don't think that'll do much of anything.
$600 billion over 45 years is only $13 billion annually. Africa has a population of 922 million. This works out to about $14 per African per year.
However its also worth bearing in mind that this isnt necessarily a zero sum game. If we could help third world countries develop their agriculture through things like irrigation [or dare i say it: GM crops] then its easy to see how we could benefit in light of the ever rising price of food.
Unfortunately, GM crops are a part of the problem for the developping world... it creates a financial depends on Monsanto (or similar GM company) whose seeds of the crop will not sprout again (Terminator seeds).... Take the example of some north american farmers, some farmers never once had a GM crop, and then lawyers from monsanto went to them and tested their wheat and determined that they had a 'monanto' gene, and successfully sued these farmers for stealing their product. That is the practical end purpose of GM foods, it's about the CONTROL of food, and not the human benefits that they have the potential for.
Example, I might not be opposed to gene modification that would triple the yealds with the same nutritional values... but the GM products are only BARELY tested for their safe consumption by people, and I believe that ANY modification should undergo rigourous testing before being added to the food supply... who knows what could happen.
Let's use an extreme example : A type of wheat is modified for whatever reason, but when people eat it, the enzymes are so incompatible with humans that it creates cancers in about 80% of the people that eat it. Now, this product gets in the wild, and the only way to determine if the gene is in the product is with a DNA test.... You'd have to label that product as 'toxic' just to be safe.