Aid, Policy And Growth

Many skeptics challenge the reasoning for investing so much money into helping so many other countries when that money could instead help us improve internal affairs. After all, foreign aid spending has increased to $50 billion a year today, which could be put towards funding education to ensure that more kids go to college and possibly affecting the innovation of the future(Morris). Giving more than you receive is nice, but when it involves a country 's financial crisis, maybe it 's best if Santa cuts back some of this year 's presents. And although the argument may be valid, lending out a helping hand can create more allies than enemies to help us in return when we need it. In fact, foreign aid only accounts for 0.5 percent of the federal budget (Stearn). Compared to all the other matters at hand that the government is worrying about, the amount of spending put into aiding poorer countries is positive in both a moral aspect and a political aspect.

Ever had that one friend? The one who tries to help, but no matter how hard he tries, he just aggravates the situation. This friend, Steve, insists he is helping, and those around, too, would support that he is indeed helping. But Steve is actually worsening the circumstances. He is like countries who provide foreign aid to less developed countries. Foreign aid, defined as “the international transfer of capital, goods, or services from a country or international organization for the benefit of the recipient country or its population,” can be military, economic, or humanitarian (“Foreign”). It is often granted to less developed countries in order to evoke government reforms or to stimulate economic growth. However, foreign aid neither elicits government reform, nor does it consistently and reliably stimulate economic growth; therefore, the United States should discontinue providing foreign economic aid.

Whilst raising money for African charities at school I developed an interest in global inequality and alternative policies that can help low-income nations escape the poverty trap. Reading ’23 Things’ by Ha-Joon Chang, I was intrigued by his view on blaming free-market policies like SAPs that exposed sub-Saharan Africa to international competition, slowing economic growth. Hence, this extended my research to the other side of the

Riddell, Roger C. 2007. Does Foreign Aid Really Work? 1st ed. OXFORD: Oxford University Press, USA.

The foreign country receiving aid needs to receive the correct type of help for them to get out of poverty. If they received affordable education and studies, they will be able to obtain skills needed to improve and stabilize their country. When they receive certain skills, they will be more prominent to get jobs to help provide for them. With better education, they will be able to form a strong country and become wealthy. The United States has many resources already, so much that the government pays farmers not to grow crops.

This paper assess the positive and negative effects that peace and war, respectively, have on the distribution of foreign aid in the developing country Sierra Leone. Next I will analyze the specific actions that the leadership of the selected Sierra Leone has taken, through the use of its foreign aid from donor nations and international lending institutions, to relieve the severe problems caused by warfare. Lastly I will discuss whether or not the extension of foreign aid has successfully reduced poverty and the incidence of warfare in Sierra Leone.

The large cash injection would then create a “greasing the gears effect” and allow for the jumpstart of economic development. Between the years of 1948 and 1952 the U.S. granted $13 billion to revamp the European economy (Dambisa, 2009: 35). This particular method achieved great success in post-World War II Europe and was known as the Marshall Plan. Due to its effective and unquestionable success in this era, the model was applied to economic development in Africa with the confidence that the same outstanding results would ensue. However, the application of the Marshall Plan to Africa is problematic for three reasons. One, the Marshall Plan had a rigid duration period of five years while, the concessional loans and grants to Africa over the last 50 years have been unending (Dambisa, 2009: 36). Two, European institutions were already in place to receive the aid efficiently and effectively. In Africa, however, these same institutions are either non-existent or grossly ineffective due to corruption (Dambisa, 2009: 37). The vast amounts of corruption have been heavily documented. Mobutu Sese Seko, President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1965 to 1997, for example, stole an equivalent of U.S. 5 billion dollars from his people (Dambisa, 2009: 48). However, even the less corrupt rulers of many African countries had few options as to what to invest the aid money on. Consequently, the bulk concessional aid goes directly into consumption without a variety of investment outlets. This process does not solve the problem but instead, allows for the cycle to continue. Lastly, three, the money from the Marshal had specific targets to repair physical infrastructure such as, roads, communications, sewage, factories, and electric systems (Dambisa, 2009: 37) In Africa today, the scope of the

Although evidence does indicate that most foreign aid programs do ultimately hold back solutions to overcome complications in economic growth and to aid the

The main point of Banerjee and Duflo’s Poor Economics (2012) is that aid is neither good nor bad: there are instances where it can help greatly and instances where it can fail those it seeks to help(4). Aid is a powerful tool, therefore it’s imperative that we carefully select the right types of projects (Banerjee & Duflo, 2012, p. 4-5). Banerjee and Duflo (2012) present a few key points of action as a framework for approaching aid, with the broadest issue being the idea that too much responsibility is placed on the poor in making the most basic decisions (268-69). One example that Banerjee and Duflo (2012) offer is the fact that many of the poorest people don’t have sanitary water

The trouble with aid reveals, over time government in start to lose their sovereignty as they keep receiving aid. The aid created restrictions by the government because of the regulations of placed by those giving the donations. For they have a certain idea of how and where the money should be spent. This reduces the accountability of the government to its people and gives more agency in countries to while reducing the agency of the local government to intervene their rule of a state.

This piece of writing will provide evidences and determine whether trade is the key to economic growth in developing countries but not aid. While trade is the key to economic growth in developing countries, good governance also plays a vital role in economic development. Nevertheless, aid and trade are aimed at different goals. This assignment starts with investigating the connection between aid and development with providing an evidence of its negative impact. It also compares the effect of trade and aid. Secondly, it

Over the last 50 years, the world has struggled to maintain an economic balance and stability, while flourishing countries try to maintain a steady income to support its people and relations with other countries. Therefore, when a continent like Africa fails to maintain a stable government and economy, super powers such as America decide to intervene with its relations. Africa has great potential to become another pillar of the world’s economic structure with its mass amounts of uncultivated land. Unfortunately, corruption and irresponsible governments hinder that progress. Foreign aid while helpful should be limited to a yearly amount because it allows the government to repudiate responsibility and gives room for corruption; it creates a

Harvard Business School’s Case Study “Aid, Debt Relief, and Trade: An agenda for fighting World Poverty” outlines the steps, and missteps, that the world community has taken since World War II to address the efficacy of international assistance. The study focuses on international financial institutions (IFIs) and their ability to help poor nations break out of poverty and the possible obligations of rich, developed countries to assist the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs). Additionally, the study seeks to see if this assistance has been and can be parlayed into growth and investment for the HIPCs.

Dollar, D and Kraay, A; (2001), Trade, Growth and Poverty, Finance and Development, Volume 38, Number 3. Available on: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2001/09/dollar.htm Accessed on: 11 July 2001.

After over four decades of development aid being directed at developing countries, the general assumption of commentators around the subject is that the majority of these recipients have witnessed very little or no economic growth, apart from a handful of countries such as South Korea and Botswana (Easterly, 2006). Further highlighting this point, Clemens (2004) observes that only five countries saw annual growth of over 7% over a 15 year period whilst 21 other recipients actually suffered negative growth the same 15 year period, 1985-2000. To put this data in perspective, the Marshall Plan worked in a similar manner to Official Development Aid (ODA), yet spent a fraction of the amount given to developing countries and successfully rebuilt Europe after World War 2. There are differences between ODA and the Marshall Plan; the Marshall Plan promoted business sector development through economic functions, whereas ODA has primarily targeted government led growth and social service development. Yet, the point still remains that ODA can be regarded as a failure given the comparison with the Marshall Plan and the economic data observed from ODA (Gibson et al, 2009).