Should the Developed North Increase Aid to the Less Developed South?
The question at hand is not whether aid from the developed north should be given at all, but whether or not it should be increased to help ease the suffering of the developing countries in the south. Every country, whether rich or poor, should have compassion for the suffering. However, it is not the duty of the developed north to completely take care of every developing country. In the present, there are serious problems that need to be addressed dealing with how aid is given out: misuse of funds by governments, the corruption it creates, economies it destroys, lack of votes it buys at the United Nations, and finally the question of who has priority. Therefore, until these issues are dealt with in the near future, aid should be kept to a minimum.
· Response to Readings in Taking Sides
James P. Grant, in his article favoring the increase of foreign aid to the developing south, notes that poverty in this world is a large problem that has continued to rise for years. It wasn?t until the 1960?s that the mobilization of medical help, better sanitation, clean water, money spent on education, and other measures began to save lives and make the quality of living better for millions. However, he also states that even though aid is being provided, it is still not enough, and leaders like the United States and the European community should take the initiative to donate and assist more each year just like the Japanese have done. The only problem with this statement is that both the European community and the United States are pressed for money. The European countries, especially leaders like Great Britain and Germany, have devoted much of their aid b...
... middle of paper ...
..., but it makes sense if you look at the reasons why. Wealthier countries are more productive, stable, and offer a more educated workforce from which foreign investors have more to gain from. All of these examples together support the notion that aid is not always as useful as it could be and that lender?s should find more appropriate means for distributing resources before increasing foreign assistance budgets.
In conclusion, if only there was a way to prevent the misuse of funds by finding ways to control the use of money, increase support at the United Nations for US policies, and distribute aid according to need, then the increase of foreign aid would be acceptable. However, until that point, any increase in foreign aid is nothing more than a waste of money into the hands of the corrupt and a method to destroy the countries in which money is flowing into.
The United States continues to give around $550 billion in aid to other countries each year, making America the world's top donor by far (Richardson). While the United States government only supplies $252 billion to needy Americans each year. Former Assistant to the President for Communications, Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous" (Foreign Aid). The United States need to give money to support the domestic impoverished rather than supporting developing foreign countries because the poverty and homelessness in America is increasing faster than the aid necessary to reduce this trend. Part of the reason that the United States should aid the domestic impoverished is that some foreign countries cannot be trusted with the money given to them and in certain cases, the money intended to aid countries are harmful for that country’s well-being.
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... ...
Unlike the North – a term in vogue today, among others, for highlighting the difference between the rich, industrialised nations of mostly Western Europe, North America, Australasia, and the rudimentary economies of Latin America, Asia and Africa – underdevelopment, characterised by low income levels, poverty, low living standards and other socio-economic ills seem to be a defining feature of countries in these regions, collectively described as the Global South. Thomas (2003), Hershberg and Moreno-Brid(2003), and, Solimano(2005) suggest, for instance, that the socio - economic structure of most Latin American countries remains defined by vast inequalities in income and wealth distribution, poverty, volatile growth, high mortality rate and a high level of economic vulnerability. In Asia, a number of countries including the large economies of India and China have made improvements in the 21st century in terms of reducing poverty. Yet, 22% of the developing countries in Asia live on a dollar a day . The situation is bleaker in the South and Southeast Asia region where 38% leave on less than a dollar a day and over 48% of the population living below the regions individual country poverty line . Likewise, absolute poverty is on the rise in Africa - generally recognised as the world’s richest continent in terms of natural resources - despite a recorded decline in global poverty rates (Bhattacharyya: 2005).
Before extending aid to other countries, we should focus on our more prevalent domestic problems. Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous. Almost every American knows it, feels it, believes it." The topic of United States foreign policy is greatly debated, and a decision on how to handle is very hard to come by. It seems as if we are finally leaning towards less aid to foreign countries, as we try to cut wasteful spending. The American government is finally opening its eyes to the realization that all of the aid we are giving out may not be worth it. Our priority should be to help our homeless, instead of other countries' poor.
... 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.
During the Great Depression families hardly survived. People lived in shanty towns and lean-to’s. People would spend all of their money then not have enough to buy a place to live. Jobs were almost impossible to find and if you could find a job it would not pay enough to survive. The President could not anything else to the economy but what was already done. In situations like this, should the government help? Yes. The government should help people that are trying to get back on their feet, not sitting on the couch eating chips waiting for your monthly government check to come in.
poor towns which have had a lack of food sources due to the serious poverty,
“Africa is failing to keep up with population growth not because it has exhausted its potential, but instead because too little has been invested in reaching that potential.” Paarlberg backs this claim with evidence that India’s food issue was solved with foreign assistance in development and offers that the solution to Africa’s food shortage is also development and farm modernization endorsed by foreign aid.
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 ...
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.
Despite being one of the wealthiest areas in the world, the EU faces the growing problem of prolific inequality in wealth and competitiveness across the diverse group of countries. This is dramatically represented in the differences of income between Europe’s richest and poorest regions: inner London and Romania. Inner London’s per capita income is a staggering 290% of the EU’s average versus Romania with a per capita income of a meager 23% of the EU average. The European Union has recognized this problem and has taken action by implementing “Cohesion” policies intended to encourage economic convergence, competiveness and financial unity. To reach these goals the EU has allocated a significant part of the taxes levied on member nations to the “Structural Funds.” These funds are comprised of three financial instruments amounting to a total of around €308 billion: over a third of the EU budget. The Structural Funds are designed to help areas in need, generally with GPD’s of less than 75% of the EU average. They are supposed to direct the money in ways to capitalize on the economic comparative advantages of the different areas in the EU through the financing of projects ranging from: improving education to investing in infrastructure to environmental protection. Supporters of the funds define these projects as an “inherent part of the European idea and European project” (Hubner) and point to areas that have exhibited high growth, like Ireland, as proof of its success. To what extent, however, are these claims true? Looking past the glorified and falsely correlated successes in the EU, a careful observer can see the flaws in this policy and would question how much these funds actually improve the state of the European economy.
Comparison Between MEDC and LEDC The comparisons between MEDC- More Economically Developed Country and LEDC-Less Economically Developed Country are many and varied but are mainly related to finance which gives the MEDC a higher standard of living for its occupants than those of the LEDC. Geographically most MEDC are situated in the northern hemisphere were as the LEDC are mostly in the southern hemisphere. Most MEDC are well advanced or have completed their development period for example the United Kingdom were as the LEDC are still in the early stages. Development of a country can be shown in a demographic transition model; this model consists of four stages.
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.
Peter Burnell and Lise Rakner 2008 Governance and Aid Conditionality in a Globalizing World. United States of America: Oxford University Press
Through individual, national, and global aid, we can take steps to decrease the overwhelming amount of poverty in less-developed countries and even in our own lands.