The G7 Summit in Evian: a stated ambition, but persistent structural limitations (By Cheikh Kanté, economist)

Since independence, sub-Saharan Africa has been the focus of more than 580 international summits, conferences, and forums dedicated to development. Yet, the aid architecture remains fragmented, opaque, and often ineffective. This system has gradually become a trap whose harmful effects are now being denounced by a new generation of African intellectuals, economists, and policymakers.

While the latest G7 summit follows in the footsteps of numerous international summits addressing African development, it does not introduce a structural break in aid governance or in the concrete instruments capable of sustainably improving the prosperity of African populations. Yet, as I explained in my book *The Price of Freedom *, the African continent has suffered for several decades from a veritable "pathology of intergenerational poverty." Every year, poverty increases in sub-Saharan Africa, even though the continent should be fully benefiting from its demographic dividend. The results are indeed worrying:

* More than 256 million people live in multidimensional poverty;

* More than 600 million people do not have access to electricity;

* More than 400 million people lack access to drinking water;

Sub-Saharan Africa remains the region of the world most affected by food insecurity.

Due to rapid population growth, insufficiently supported by effective development policies, the continent sees nearly 10 million new people fall into multidimensional poverty each year. A strategic analysis of the final communiqué of the G7 summit in Evian highlights several structural limitations:

1. First, no significant new funding has been announced. The G7 continues to operate within a framework of Western leadership while employing the vocabulary of partnership. The rhetoric has changed, but the power imbalance remains. Priorities are defined by the G7 countries, while African countries are essentially expected to comply.
2. Secondly, the declaration by the heads of state contains no binding mechanisms. No financial amount is announced, no precise implementation timetable is defined, and no rigorous monitoring and evaluation system is planned. It is essentially a declaration of intent lacking a genuine operational plan.
3. Third, the vision presented is both very broad and particularly vague. The communiqué simultaneously addresses growth, infrastructure, debt, health, nutrition, education, and climate resilience. This proliferation of priorities, without clear prioritization, creates a real risk of diluting efforts and reduces the potential effectiveness of the announced commitments.

Furthermore, the private sector is presented as a key driver of economic transformation, but no concrete support, guarantee, or financing mechanisms are proposed to foster its development. Similarly, no specific measures are put forward to promote youth employment, women's economic empowerment, or support for African entrepreneurs.

The communiqué also mentions the need to reform international financial institutions, particularly the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. However, no specific transformations are defined, and no major institutional changes are proposed. The G7 would nevertheless benefit from learning from the limitations of the Bretton Woods agreements and the Washington Consensus, whose structural adjustment programs have profoundly weakened many African economies.

Another major weakness lies in the absence of the most representative African organizations. The African Union, which champions the vision of "the Africa we want," occupies no central place in this cooperation framework. Regional organizations such as ECOWAS, ECCAS, and SADC are also absent from the proposed structure. This omission is concerning. A lasting partnership between Africa and the G7 cannot be purely bilateral; it must be systemic and rely on African regional institutions, which constitute the most legitimate frameworks for defining, coordinating, and implementing the continent's priorities.

Finally, the approach remains heavily focused on traditional principles of macroeconomic stability: fiscal discipline, debt management, and structural reforms. These orientations, which have dominated development policies for several decades, have failed to bring about lasting transformations in African economies. They leave little room for alternative models based on local realities, endogenous dynamics, and the aspirations of African peoples.

Reforms for Africa can no longer be designed exclusively by experts from outside the continent. They must be developed through a process of co-construction, taking into account African historical, cultural, social, and economic realities.

Nevertheless, the G7 leaders' commitment to contributing to a fairer world and a more prosperous Africa is commendable. This declaration opens an interesting political window and displays laudable ambitions. However, it remains insufficient in terms of practical implementation.

The 21st century will not remember the number of communiqués published by the G7. Rather, it will remember the number of young people, women, and African families who were able to escape poverty permanently and regain hope for a free, sovereign, and prosperous Africa.

By Cheikh Kanté, economist