Advantages and Disadvantages of Giving International Aid to Poor Countries
Poor countries have been receiving aid from the international community for over a century now. While such aid is supposed to be considered an act of kindness from the donor nations or international bodies, it has led to over dependence among the developing countries. They have adopted the habit of estimating and including international aid in their national budgets to reduce their balance of trade deficits. It is believed that foreign aid is necessary for poor nations in order to break the cycle of poverty that ties their citizens in low productivity zones and so their economy will not be weak. However, some critics view the extension of aid to poor countries as means of keeping the nations in economic slumber so that they can wake up from only by devising ways of furthering self-sustainability. Because of these two schools of thought concerning the topic, debate has arisen on which side is more rational and factual than the other. The non-sustainable nature of international aid, however, leaves the question of what may happen in the event that foreign aid is unavailable for the poor nations. After thorough consideration on the effects of the assistance to poor countries, it is sufficient to state that giving international aid to the poor nations is more disadvantageous than beneficial to the nations. This point is argued through an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of giving international aid to the poor countries with appropriate examples drawn from various regions of the world to prove the stance.
International aid furthers economic laziness among the poor nations, making them stay longer in poverty when they could work ways easily out o...
... middle of paper ...
...The New York Times, 2009. Web.
Retrieved 25 April, 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23Women-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Nixon, R. “Politics: Provision Could Limit U.S. Food Aid.” The New York Times, 2014. Web.
Retrieved 25 April, 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/us/politics/provision-could-limit-us-food-aid.html?ref=foodaid&version=meter+at+6®ion=FixedCenter&pgtype=article&priority=true&module=RegiWall-Regi&action=click
Provost, C. “Aid still benefits companies from donor countries.” The Guardian, 2011. Web.
Retrieved 25 April, 2014 from http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2011/sep/07/aid-benefits-donor-countries-companies
Sha, A. “Foreign Aid for Development Assistance.” Global Issues Organization, 2012. Web.
Retrieved 25 April, 2014 from http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance
Nixon, Ron. “New Rules for School Meals Aim at Reducing Obesity”. The New York Times. 25. Jan. 2012. 14. Oct. 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/us/politics/new-school-lunch-rules-aimed-at-reducing-obesity.html?_r=0
... aid across the world. As we have established that we do have an obligation to redistribute globally in a cosmopolitan perspective, distributing wealth however we may need to rethink what the best assistance is. Amaryta Sen conveys that before sending aid to the third world state, we would need to fully understand the limitation of freedom in the country. Redistributing wealth to global countries requires it to be evaluated by the economic shortage that they are suffering and to see whether it will be efficient in the long run. The more effective ways to contribute would be to international relief agencies or NGO’s that would pursue international development projects to help those in poverty or the alternative option by Tom Campbell’s idea of a ‘Global humanitarian levy’ which suggests a more appropriate taxation on all citizens to collectively aid those in need.
What is absolute poverty? According to Robert McNamara it is "life at the very margin of existence" (Singer 219). It is a life that, if not ended by early death, causes a kind of misery unseen to those living in the United States. Compared to the estimated 1.2 billion people, worldwide living in poverty, those of us in developed countries experience a life of luxury. The things that we take for granted, such as cars, computers, microwaves, and televisions, are extravagant items that most people living in extreme economic poverty will never see. The gap between the affluent and the poverty-stricken is wide, and is getting even wider in many areas of the world. Are we morally obligated to help those less fortunate than ourselves? Should we merely go about our daily lives, forgetting about those on the other side of the world who are dying of malnutrition? These are just a few of the questions that I am about to explore.
In other words, it is not a quick fix. Paarlberg, when talking about fighting hunger, states that “one reason for this failure has been sharply diminished assistance from international donors”(Attention). Similar to the 1980’s and 1990’s, it is not enough just to send food aid. The necessity is development, which leads these hunger struck countries to become independent and productive. Evidence shows that these specific contributions have made significant impacts in the past. For instance, “The U.S. Agency for International Development, with the World Bank, helped finance fertilizer plants and infrastructure projects, including rural roads and irrigation”(Attention), which was not in India’s independent capability at the time, and pushed India to independence from foreign aid. This is just one of the few examples of the type of support that is needed to end global hunger, which Paarlberg is advocating
Despite these criticisms, it is unlikely that foreign aid programs will be dissolved any time soon, and at least in the United States, there are two primary reasons for this. First, aid giving only accounts for one percent of the United States’ gross domestic product, thus there is not a large incentive for change (Eischen 2012). Secondly, aid has historically been used as a political tool, not solely for altruistic reasons (Alesina and Dollar 2000). It follows that even if aid were shown to hinder long-term economic growth in recipient countries, it would still be prevalent if it were effective at promoting donor state interests.
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
Foreign aid can destroy natural mechanisms of economic growth if not properly apportioned to the individuals with motivation and passion for expansion. When blindly given to governments and the public, aid destroys native markets and halts natural growth. NGOs, charities and governments need to take the time to meet the needs of the poor individuals ensuring that local governments have a symbiotic relationship with those they govern over and that governments do not become corrupt or prone to cause civil unrest. Aid focused on meeting the needs of those ensnared by poverty traps can exponentially initiate growth but only if done with appropriate care and caution.
While the efforts of developers have aided the lives of billions, none would claim the amount of humanitarian aid administered has raised the living standards of the vast majority of the poor even close to that of industrialized nations and for a large proportion of the poor even to a state of adequately possessing basic necessities including food, clean water, and clothing. Even wealthy nations must struggle to finance the consumption of crucial modern goods such as healthcare and information technology. It is doubtful then the small fractions of wealthy nations' income being donated to the impoverished will be sufficient to fill a significant share of this material gulf of inequality between rich and poor nations. The goods humanitarians wish for the poor can only be produced in satisfactory quantities by the currently poor peoples themselves in economies in which they are valued, productive participants. The question then is whether sending aid to autocracies controlling destitute nations serves this greater goal of economically enabling the impoverished or does little more than prop up the level of development in poor autocratic nations. To answer this question, we again invoke Easterly's
Since the countries that receive foreign aid are usually underdeveloped countries that lack solid government systems there can be the issue of local corruption. Developed states tend to use this excuse as a reason not to provide the aid that should be given to the global poor, but it is not the rich states place to comment or deal with local corruption because as we saw in the relatively widespread failure of structural adjustment programs on the African continent, when the West intervenes in the economies of sovereign states they tend to cause more damage than repair in the long run. Aid should be sent no questions asked in the same way that China is now investing in countries all over Africa. If foreign aid wants to by-pass the hands of local corruption then they should send people to directly use the aid for state development. The developed part of the world could also support change in global institutions, which favour poor countries. Even if it is not ‘feasible’ or ‘possible,’ there should still be a move towards a more egalitarian model because rich states were able to develop at a time when there restrictive global institutional practices did not exist and in contrast the Global South is struggling to develop not only in a shorter time frame but under a vastly different economic and
This essay will argue that the current British policy of trying to meet the target of spending 0.7% of British Gross National Income on foreign aid is flawed. It will be split into three sections: the first will establish that foreign aid is an important and contentious area of policy, the second will show the problems of the 0.7% target whilst the final one will propose solutions to the problems inherent in current policy choices in the area. The main conclusion of the essay will be that, if the United Kingdom is committed to delivering effective foreign aid, it ought to stop considering whether it has spent enough on developing countries but instead focus on whether its expenditure is having effect. Throughout, discussion will be made harder by the fact that current academic commentary on foreign aid ‘anarchy’. Considering this, the essay will try to illustrate as broad a range as possible in the various approaches taken to the topic, before reaching its overall conclusion.
Poverty has conquered nations around the world, striking the populations down through disease and starvation. Small children with sunken eyes are displayed on national television to remind those sitting in warm, luxiourious houses that living conditions are less than tolerable around the world. Though it is easy to empathize for the poor, it is sometimes harder to reach into our pocketbooks and support them. No one desires people to suffer, but do wealthy nations have a moral obligation to aid poor nations who are unable to help themselves? Garrett Hardin in, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor," uses a lifeboat analogy to expose the global negative consequences that could accompany the support of poor nations. Hardin stresses problems including population increase and environmental overuse as downfalls that are necessary to consider for the survival of wealthy nations. In contrast, Peter Singer's piece, "Rich and Poor," remarks on the large differences between living conditions of those in absolute poverty with the wealthy, concluding that the rich nations possess a moral obligation to the poor that surpasses the risks involved. Theodore Sumberg's book, "Foreign Aid As Moral Obligation," documents religious and political views that encourage foreign aid. Kevin M. Morrison and David Weiner, a research analyst and senior fellow respectively at the Overseas Development Council, note the positive impact of foreign aid to America, a wealthy nation. Following the examination of these texts, it seems that not only do we have a moral obligation to the poor, but aiding poor nations is in the best interest of wealthy nations.
The allocation of foreign aid in international society is not predicated by notions of necessity and development, but rather by self interest and power. Foreign aid’s altruistic façade can often serve to mask a vehement power struggle between the super powers of global politics. In such a struggle aid is used as a currency to purchase power and influence. These powerful gains can be broken into three different categories, the first and most tangible of these gains is the economic dominance that foreign aid grants the donor nation, this is then followed by the security and stability that accompanies strategic aid allocation and finally the gain of soft power through the spread of norms, values and ideologies is prevalent in this ostensibly
The Effectiveness of International Aid in the Development Process If an individual was having trouble in some way, wouldn’t one’s natural instinct be to help him or her out? This does not merely apply to persons, but also on a larger basis. All over the world, countries are suffering from many problems. The majority of these sufferers are ELDCs (Economically Less Developed Countries).
“…increasing international trade and financial flows since the Second World War have fostered sustained economic growth over the long term in the world’s high-income states. Some with idle incomes have prospered as well, but low-income economies generally have not made significant gains. The growing world economy has not produced balanced, healthy economic growth in the poorer states. Instead, the cycle of underdevelopment more aptly describes their plight. In the context of weak economies, the negative effects of international trade and foreign investments have been devastating. Issues of trade and currency values preoccupy the economic policies of states with low-income economies even more than those with high incomes because the downturns are far more debilitating.1”
In recent discussion about helping the poor, one controversial issue has been whether to help or not to help. On one hand, some say that helping the poor is very simple and doesn’t take much. From this point of view, it is seen as selfish to not help the poor. On the other hand, however, others argue that by helping others you are in fact hurting yourself at the same time. In the words of Garrett Hardin, one of this view’s main proponents, “prosperity will only be satisfied by lifeboat ethics.” According to this view, we are not morally obligated to help other countries. In sum, then, the issue is whether to help poorer countries or not.