Images of their innocent, pleading eyes flashed across the screen, and a lump rose in my throat. The camera panned across the Kenyan slum. Crowds of emaciated children, each bone visible because of their near-nudity, shuffled along a single set of train tracks. Chaotically packed, one-room shacks of metal and wood occupied little space. Trash piles overflowed in every corner. Around me, sniffles and soft cries erupted throughout the room. The American notion of Africa conjures up images of a single continent of desolate poverty, tribal and uncivilized factions, and less-fortunate breeding grounds for AIDS. Upon viewing these conditions, we react with pangs of pity and compassion, as I did that day during a presentation about African populations. The African continent is often depicted as dependent, hopeless, inferior, incapable. The media markets off the misconceptions of many. Blogs surrounding the topic such as “One Dies and Millions Cry, Millions Die and No One Cries” gain popularity through basic human emotions: empathy, guilt, and desire for personal satisfaction. In fact, Grassroots Fundraising Journal lists “motivation by personal recognition and benefits” as one of the top five reasons people donate to charity and support foreign aid. We enjoy helping people by nature, and financial assistance seems like a convenient, beneficial method of support. But are all of our efforts to “make a difference” really changing anything?
Recent discussion of foreign aid has ignited the sparks of controversy. On one hand, some argue that sub-Saharan nations use donated money to improve economic conditions by establishing anti-corruption agencies. From this perspective, new and stable governments generate revenue, alleviating the populatio...
... middle of paper ...
...’s best” for US and African citizens. But how can we decide? Rejecters of aid aim for long-term, big-picture success, while supporters focus on the preservation of lives and short-term maintenance of quality-of-life. How do we satisfy the human desire for both?
Perhaps we should opt for non-monetary donations, or push for productive yet fundamental federal aid. Choosing a specific cause to support, such as medical research or clothing, would prevent political grafting while supporting people in need. The objectives should be essential and reproductive, such as education, agriculture, or marketing. These areas improve both short-term and long-term conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. To some extent, this compromise stands sound. Mother Teresa once said “Charity and love are the same. With charity you give love, so don’t just give money but reach out your hand instead.”
What would you say if I asked you to tell me what you think is causing the death of so many people in the horn of Africa? AIDS? Starvation? War? Would it surprise you if I told you that it all boils down to the women of Africa? Kofi Annan attempts to do just this in his essay “In Africa, Aids Has a Woman's Face.” Annan uses his work to tell us that women make up the “economic foundation of rural Africa” and the greatest way for Africa to thrive is through the women of Africa's freedom, power, and knowledge.
Probably one of the most recognized events of the 1980’s is the collapse of communism but first it is important to look at events that leading up to this collapse to provide a better context of events post collapse. One very significant period of time was the mid 1980’s when it seemed all eyes were on Africa in its entirety. The release of the song “We are the World” in 1985, the “Break the Chains” campaign of 1987, and the focus on the influential figure, Desmond Tutu, during 1986 are all examples of how the United States and other countries were focused on providing aid to africa. In her book, Enlightened Aid: U.S. Development as Foreign Policy in Ethiopia, Amanda McVety explains this aid and how United Sates foreign aid was a cold war project, “It offered a Cold War weapon that was not a weapon and promised peace through peaceful me...
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
... 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.
Imagine that you’re sitting at home one evening and your program cuts to commercial. One of the commercials that come on is a Unicef commercial. Before you have a chance to change the channel or move to another room, the advertisement is already telling you about the devastating living conditions of third world countries. But what if life in third world countries weren’t just melancholy music and sad eyes? What if these people have ways of finding joy despite the challenges of poverty? Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie warned during her TED talk: “the danger of a single story.” Even though some people in third world countries are living in extreme poverty, they don’t all live a life of constant depression. The people of Haiti, for example, can find
Every year, donors from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) give billions of dollars in foreign aid, with the United States contributing a large percentage of this sum (Eischen 2012) (Figure A). However, the amount and way in which this money is handled has given rise to heavy criticism. Books such as Dambisa Moya’s Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way For Africa and the innumerable news articles lamenting the state of the corrupt bureaucracies of receiving countries not only discuss the inefficiencies of foreign aid but also accuse these programs of being harmful (Ayodele et al. 2005). One such article claimed that, due to inefficiencies and corruption, at least twenty percent of aid is completely lost (Chakraborty 2013).
The way in which foreign aid is distributed is highly ineffective and fails to achieve its sole purpose. Corruption ravages the developing world; greedy diplomats and fraudulent officials are often known to embezzle vast amounts of the aid money given to help those most in need. As Lord P. T. Bauer of London School for Economics famously said, foreign aid is “an excellent method for transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” The money does not reach those who need it but is instead pocketed by dishonest members of government in foreign countries. Over the past years more than half a billion pounds have been invested in Africa yet there is little visual improvement in extreme poverty, deprivation and the child mortality rate. Evidently, Britain’s aid scheme is uselessly trying to combat poverty against a brick wall of bureaucracy. Without doubt this money would be better invested within the UK improving health and education and lowering the deficit.
In 2009, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization publicized that over one billion people globally suffered from hunger (Banerjee and Duflo 19) and economists estimate that at least one billion people live off of less than one U.S. dollar a day (Ovaska 1). With these facts present, recent scholarly debate has risen over recent years over whether foreign aid successfully works toward the removal of poverty. Two opposing viewpoints have arisen. Economists and philanthropists similar to Jeffery Sachs believe that a poverty trap confines countries with lower GDP per capita and higher rates of populations living beneath the poverty line which calls for the assistance of outside aid in order to free populations from perpetual poverty. Such economists promote foreign aid with the belief that the proper amount of foreign aid such as the implementation of schools, freshwater wells and subsidized food costs can free those stricken with poverty. However, many other economists such as Dambisa Moyo believe that foreign aid merely disrupts local economies causing more harm than benefit to developing nations. Since the 1970s, the real per capita income of Africa has dropped (Moyo 5) and similar drops have occurred in other developing nations worldwide. Foreign aid focused on reaching the specific needs of an individual more affectively fights poverty than aid projects aimed at large-scale economic progress.
As evidenced by the actions of the Ethiopian dictator, Meles Zenawi, aid can and will be used by rulers with unchecked power to brutally enforce their often antisocial autocratic policies (156-157). Even beyond overt usage of aid as a tool for repression, giving autocracies the opportunity to relieve the physical burdens of their peoples by administering aid can have the effect of appeasing and thus further silencing the impoverished receiving aid, only making the reform and overthrow of those regimes a more difficult, remote possibility. Providing aid to autocracies serves then to exacerbate and entrench antisocial authoritarian policy severely hindering the power of human symbiosis from solving economic problems and thereby generating growth in these
African governments have given in to the whim’s of international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) in social and health policies, and with this, has come a shift away from former emphasis on social justice and equitable market efficiency to public health services for all now being perceived as a major threat ...
There are no poor children in Africa; yet, there are billions of poor individuals over the world. According to the World Bank, “over one billion people live in extreme (or absolute) poverty, that is, on less than $ 1 a day. Extreme poverty occurs in countries in the Third (or developing) World” (Cannon 208). In comparison to other countries in the Third World, Africa has the greatest proportion of its popularity are children, who are living in extreme poverty. Due to the inevitable existence of poverty in their countries, many of the children are unfortunately deprived of their own human rights. In order to protect those children’s rights in such poor countries, the America citizens and the American presidents must not fail those hungry nations who are desperate for their help. Therefore, the American presidents must carry out their promises for those poor countries, and implement social transfer programmes in order to help Africa support its population’s involvement in education, and improvement in health care services.
Hunger is spreading in Africa including Niger where some 2.9 million people face food shortages. In 1970 sub-Saharan Africa had 18 million malnourished children. By 1997 there were 32 million, according to IFPRI. The global trend, meanwhile, moved in the opposite direction: 203 million hungry children in 1970 down to 166 million in 1997, according to IFPRI report (McLaughlin and Purefoy 1). It is impressive how many children are starving to death in Africa and the percentage just keeps increasing. So many people around the world are trying their best to help out but it is going to take a whole lot more than j...
In situations where $200 donations could save lives, “there will always be another child whose life you could save for $200.” (Singer). In Singer’s piece, the focus lies on the global community and what the $200 does for the child in Africa rather than the one across the street and this is where the responsibility is needed to be taken up. By focusing on smaller actions within the smaller communities, an individual who handles responsibilities in charity, should have the “main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves…to rise the aids by which they may rise; to assist” (Carnegie). This affect in the community becomes concentrated as a mass of successful individuals who have learned to pay it forward and than branch out to share experience.
Over the last few years, the issue of corruption--the abuse of public office for private gain--has attracted renewed interest, both among academics and policymakers. There are a number of reasons why this topic has come under recent inspection. Corruption scandals have toppled governments in both major industrial countries and developing countries. In the transition countries, the shift from command economies to free market economies has created massive opportunities for the appropriation of rents, excessive profits, and has often been accompanied by a change from a well-organized system of corruption to a more chaotic and deleterious one. With the end of the cold war, donor countries have placed less emphasis on political considerations in allocating foreign aid among developing countries and have paid more attention to cases in which aid funds have been misused and have not reached the poor. And slow economic growth has persisted in many countries with malfunctioning institutions. This renewed interest has led to a new flurry of empirical research on the causes and consequences of corruption.
50). The book also states that instances such as entrepreneurship leads to a struggling growth because these entrepreneurs will risk money investments where corrupt officials interfere, leaving their investments to struggle. Corrupt officials are also less likely to initiate projects that will help the greater good and public welfare of some of these African countries, but instead only interfere in ones that will benefit them as a leader. They deal with bribes and diverting funds, resulting in the countries inability to grow. If this corruption furthers on, then this will continually be a consistent struggle for Africa as it lessens their progression to a stronger