In Monika Krause’s, The Good Project, it is argued that humanitarian organizations present a desire to help people in need of assistance, but their underlying goal is on creating profitable, sustainable projects to present to donors. Krause presents the work of NGOs as commodities, things that are sought after and can be “bought” or “sold” to donors and the beneficiaries, the people in need. In turn, because donors are choosing where to place their money, the beneficiaries become commodified in the decision of how they will receive the project and if they are beneficial to serve. Utilizing her argument, I will apply it to the proposal presented by Malaria No More. Throughout their proposal there is evidence of beneficiaries becoming commodities …show more content…
As such, the organizations need to present themselves with high similar standards with other organizations but present their difference by emphasizing its uniqueness. In this way, the commodity individuals choose is not much different than choosing vanilla ice cream from two different companies. The one that presents itself as both different and better, will receive the most profit. NGOs will develop their policy positions, not only in direct response to the dilemmas that are identified, but also in ways to react to other agencies’ views to actively differentiate themselves from each other (Krause, 123). In this way, each organization exists as a new way of aid, but targets different groups of individuals - for instance, many want to help education in one area of the world, but another finds food security to be a larger problem. Both groups will seek to provide aid for the same area, but they will present themselves as the greater need. Like most other international organizations that presented to us, Malaria No More presents itself as a good (worthwhile, investable) NGO by targeting the area of Cameroon. It has shown to the donors that it found a high needs area and that they have established a strong track record for their work in Cameroon, thus investment in the program would be of …show more content…
A good project is one that can successfully put itself out of business, by having the community it was supporting surpass. Malaria No More’s primary goal for their work, as presented to us, is give hard to reach communities bed nets and Malaria education. In addition to this, I believe Malaria No More could be more successful if they provided additional materials for Malaria care, in not only focusing on prevention education, but also rehabilitation for those who have already contracted the disease. Additionally, Malaria No More can help these areas, by providing ways for the community to produce their own bed nets effectively. In this regard, if there is a situation where there are limited or too high a number of damaged bed nets, the community will not have to worry for the next batch of nets to come as they can be producing their own. This, however can lose some donors who may want to keep their involvement with the program. In my view, a good project is one that becomes sustainable even after the NGO and donations decrease or are removed entirely. Yet, in this method of working through and solving the problem, there can be more needs identified and addressed. This presentation allows for more solutions for more problems, while the donors can be confident that they are making a sustainable
...trategy addresses the areas in which they believe the foundation is best positioned, among a broad spectrum of partners, to help reduce the burden of malaria. They support R&D for more effective treatments, diagnostics, mosquito-control measures, and a safe and effective malaria vaccine. They also support the development of strategies to make progress toward malaria elimination. To date, they have committed nearly $2 billion in malaria grants. They have also committed more than $1.4 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which supports the expanded use of proven prevention and treatment tools for malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis. Beyond their own direct investments in the fight against malaria, they also advocate for sustained and increased funding of malaria control and elimination efforts by donor governments and endemic countries.
Conversely, in the case of preventing the death of a child in a third world country by donating to a charity, you are more likely prolonging a life for a short period of time rather than truly saving it. Donating money that will be put towards, for example, a malaria net, may prevent someone from passing away due to one illness but it will not give them an education and it will not save them from famine or distress. The donation will only save people in great poverty from one of their many struggles. In the biography “Mountains Beyond Mountains,” Tracy Kidder discusses Paul Farmer’s establishment of the nonprofit, Partners in Health, that obtains donations to its charitable cause from large companies and organizations. These companies and organizations are well-established foundations that can give an amount of money great enough to potentially make a difference and save lives through health care. Nonetheless, even with these great amounts of money, one of Farmer’s patients, John, gets all the medical help possible yet dies anyway. This saddening story exemplifies the point that when donating you cannot guarantee that a life will be saved. The best medical care possible could not save John, so even the best help we can give through charity may not save the people in need. There are many struggles in third-world countries
... 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.
Singer argues and concludes in his weaker argument that those more fortunate have a duty to donate significant amounts of money to foreign aid agencies. If Singer’s conclusion is to be rejected, it seems one must provide a satisfactory argument for denying the second premise, for the following reasons. Firstly, premise one is beyond challenge, as from an intuitive level, denial would be morally callous at best. The third premise would only be refutable insofar as the efficacy of aid itself is refutable, however the scope of this essay will not examine this considering the relative security one has in trusting aid’s efficacy on an increasing basis. The second premise of the argument is by far the most ambitious and controversial, and therefore in need of enquiry. *Refine and exclude third premise as beyond scope
They state, "Aid is a tool for buying influence and policy. " In this sense, the two groups are really only separated by the sizes of their various selectorates, as their motivations for government spending and foreign aid are almost identical. Mesquita and Smith explain how corruption is inherent to power.
Did you have a cup of coffee today? Or maybe you went shopping for that new shirt for the summer? Your money could be going to a better cause. Of the 7.15 billion people on Earth today, approximately 2.4 billion people live on less than two dollars and day, and 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 a day. More than eight-hundred people go to bed hungry, and more than one million people do not have access to clean drinking water. The amazing stat is that over eighteen thousand children die per day from diseases that are preventable. Kids die from a multitude of cause such as diarrhea, malaria, malnutrition, and disease. (Abbate, Global Poverty, 2014) Each could be prevented with the money you spent on that nonessential item for yourself. Most people do not seem to do this because of the out of sight out of mind principle. Since we never get to see how our aid actually helps those across the world, individuals are less inclined to help. In his article ,“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” (Landau, 2012) Peter Singer provides a unique argument in that he believes that we are no different than a murderer because we had the capability to stop it and didn’t do so. We have the ability to give what we essentially waste to maximize the happiness of another person and reduce poverty around the world. There are many charities out there, that can take the little money that we have or need to give, and can distribute it to help a magnitude of people worldwide. In this paper, I am arguing that we should give what money we can to relief and aid organizations in order to reduce global poverty because it is our duty to maximize the happiness around us.
If we donated maximally to everyone suffering in poverty-stricken countries our economic foundation would be destroyed. Our economy is driven by the consumption of buyers. However, if the income of individuals is affected by the standards of charity outlined by Peter Singer, consumers would not be able to uphold their role in supporting economic growth through the purchase of normal and luxury goods. As a result of this, the economy would collapse and individuals would lose their jobs. If the job market declined, no one would be able to fulfill Singer’s ideology of preventing suffering. In fact, we wouldn’t be able to complete the normal societal standards of charity. In addition, our income would not be able to support the continuation of giving due to our creation of overpopulation in other countries. Giving maximumly would prevent priorly inevitable deaths of individuals around the world. Be that as it may, even though this is monumental, when there is greater longevity, the population of a country grows dramatically and a bigger population leads to more impoverished humans. Moreover, economic dependency is also created when an affluent country supports an indigent country. The economy of a poverty- stricken country such as Bengal, in the example given by Singer, will become dependent on donations to prevent famine. If expectations of donations are not met, the individuals and economy of such country
The first reasons to think that foreign aid should be spend is that “Aid saves lives” which is clearly illustrated by the researches conducted. Compare 1990 to 2010, as a result of aid in vaccines and health, there was a decrease in number of children who died from illness of pneumonia and diarrhoea (BBC). For example, in Botswana, the foreign aid fund had provided a test of HIV for pregnant mothers and therefore decrease the amount of newborn babies which catches HIV. Furthermore, in Bangladesh, there is a 62% drop in death rate for the under five children, the aid fund allows the government to be able to afford “vaccines and trained the midwives”.
Malaria is a disease that is caused by parasites. It is transferred from one person to another by the infected female Anopheles mosquito. Malaria has been a serious health problem nowadays. WHO has provided the information that approximately 660,000 people died from malaria globally during 2010. Also, after estimating, there are 219 million cases of malaria infection in 2010 worldwide. In sub-Saharan Africa, being one the country that has the high rate of HIV, AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, had 90% of the people that...
Currently, there are a few different research projects dealing with malaria. For example, Dr. D. Lalloo is working on a project investing the effects of malaria in adolescents. Professor D. H. Molyneux is doing a research project on the effects of malaria on the HIV virus. Professor M. E. Molyneux is working on a project looking at diseases connected with malaria. There are also many other research projects investigating other aspects of malaria, such as a vaccine for this deadly disease.
In the face of media campaigns and political sanctions, the question about whether we owe the global poor assistance and rectification is an appropriate one. Despite television advertisements displaying the condition of the poor and news articles explaining it, the reality is the majority of us, especially in the Western world, are far removed from the poverty that still affects a lot of lives. The debate between Thomas Pogge and Mathias Risse regarding our obligation to the poor questions the very institution we live in. Pogge created a new framework in which the debate developed. He introduced a focus on the design of the institutional global order, and the role it plays in inflicting or at least continuing the severe poverty people are exposed to. Whilst both Mathias Risse and Thomas Pogge believe that the “global order is imperfectly developed. It needs reform rather than revolutionary overthrow”, they differ on whether or not it is just and entitles the global poor to assistance. Pogge believes that the global order is unjust as it “helps to perpetuate extreme poverty, violating our negative duty not to harm others unduly”. Risse believes that the institution is only incompletely just and can be credited to improving lives of the global poor. According to him, these improvements contribute to its justifiability and negate any further obligation we have to the poor. Through assessing their debate, it seems that one’s obligation to the poor depends on one’s conception of duty, their unit of analysis, and whether improvement rectifies injustice. On balance, it seems that we do indeed owe the poor, only we may lack the means to settle it.
...at researchers are doing to try to eradicate malaria in underdeveloped countries such as Africa.
Outside if politics, there are also groups called NGOs: (Non-governmental Organizations) that are not run by state or local governments that operate as nonprofits organizations; these groups have created a web of global development networks in response to governmental decision making dominated by the core (e.g., WTO, IMF, World Bank). A main point of NGOs is to have undeveloped and developing countries participate. Unfortunately, this is sometimes seen as counter-hegemonic, which is where nations dominate other nations, both economically and politically.
The non-charitable organisations objective embedded within its mission statement is to work with all its partners towards the attainment of the sustainable human development goals adopted by the world community and the realisation of the vision of peace and social progress enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. UNICEF was created with the purpose of working with others to overcome the obstacles that poverty, violence, disease and discrimination place in a child’s path, thus advancing the cause of humanity.
The other kind of International Organization (IO) is the NGO which are primarily non-profit private organizations that engage in a variety of international activities (Pease, 2012 p. 4). They are able to particip...