Disadvantages Of Foreign Aid

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.

On one side of the issue the supporters of developmental aid believe that the United States is doing more than a great job by offering economic assistance to countries that need help to develop. These individuals are aware of the unfortunate poverty levels in many countries abroad. They believe that it is the duty of the American people to help reduce the poverty levels in countries in which people live with less than a dollar a day. In fact, some supporters believe that the U.S. is not offering enough support to the poorer countries. Many have

Foreign aid is a term referring to resources and money lent out or given to a ‘recipient nation’ who is in need by a wealthier ‘donor country’. This can be given either in long term ‘humanitarian aid’, aimed at improving the welfare and development of the human population, or short term ‘emergency aid’ focused on providing the daily necessities to a population after a war, or natural disaster. Despite common belief, the purpose of foreign aid is not only to help countries which are in need, but also to achieve a range of social, economic, cultural and geopolitical goals that will benefit our national interest. Australia is currently the largest foreign aid donor of its nearest neighbour,

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

According the US Census Bureau, the United States spent $44.957 billion on foreign aid in 2009, in terms of total foreign assistance. Of that, just over $11 billion was military assistance. The nations that received the most foreign aid were Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel and Pakistan. Some aid went to financial institutions and to aid agencies, and therefore is difficult to classify by country. By regions, Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East were the biggest recipients of foreign aid. The recipients and types of foreign aid are indicative of priorities that the US government has with respect to foreign relations. As many people applaud high levels of foreign aid from the US to poor countries around the world, foreign aid also has its critics. From a domestic perspective, criticisms include the argument that this money would be better used in the United States, and the libertarian argument against all forms of foreign aid in general. It is worth noting that many critics of foreign aid still support aid to support military objectives, which includes the four largest recipient of aid (Traub, 2011). External critics of foreign aid argue that such aid has generally failed to achieve its objectives, for a variety of reasons ranging from rapidly increasing populations to corruption to the promotion of dependency relationships (Bovard, 1986). This paper will analyze US foreign aid in the context of its success and failures and make the case that the United States

An innocent child begs her mother for food, a single tear running down her cheek. The fires of life that once filled the girl’s eyes slowly begin to fade. The mother embraces her child, tells her the pain will be gone within a few moments. As she holds her, she feels the warmth slip away; her little girl’s body becomes engulfed by empty coldness. So much could have been done to save that life, from local government support to foreign aid, yet not enough aid was given. And so, society is posed with the question of “How much aid should wealthy nations provide for developing countries?” This paper will look at the philosophy behind this question by analyzing two articles.

The arguments on aid have been seen largely from two perspectives: idealistic and realistic points of view. The idealist arguments are normative, with no real possibilities of assessing their validity. In contrast, evidence can be gathered to test the economic consequences of aid although different interpretations of the evidence are always possible and disagreements over the conclusiveness of the test are

American foreign aid, when utilized appropriately and with a clear organization and planning, ultimately does help U.S. national interests. However, when the United States doles out foreign aid carelessly and with little prior planning and foresight of possible negative consequences, American foreign aid can also hinder U.S. national interests. Such an example of inadequate planning can be seen in the humanitarian relief given to Haiti, where much of the aid was utilized inefficiently and mostly spent on relieving Haiti’s debts and just barely keeping people alive. The United States’s mistake in this regard was that it had only planned for a short term humanitarian aid package to Haiti, while not considering how to map out a developmental aid

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.

   Many critics of America's policies on foreign aid claim foreign countries have used America to build themselves up to a position of self-reliance, then refused to make promised or implied concessions to the US, when they no longer see the need to cater to American interests any longer.  The aid is justified partly by a sense of charity and responsibility towards the world, but there were also political

cases, those resources can be used for a country to develop their economic, technical, or military status. Foreign aid could also be applied toward assisting a country in desperate need of help, for some reasons as serious as natural disasters, downfall in the economy, or even loss of jobs. The idea of foreign aid is to assist in getting countries to a position to support themselves and their people. Foreign aid has controlled discussion in recent years as demand and need for it has continually increased for countries all around the world. For years foreign

Foreign aid is given to selected developing countries, and is necessary in order to protect the people and build a stable society. Australia is part of the worldwide foreign aid commitment and plans to give $3.9 billion over 2017 and 2018. Australians believe everyone should live with basic human rights which is why we give aid, and help countries by contributing money, food and resources. The main types of aid are humanitarian aid, which is disaster/emergency relief and development aid, which is a long-term commitment between nations. Australian aid is mainly focused on development aid, and helps nations worldwide. Interestingly, 90% of Australia’s foreign aid goes to Asia-Pacific countries such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. This gives Australia a stronger relationship with regional nations, providing the country with a strong relation, trading partner and partner in defence. Aid is a polarizing issue that divides the nation due to the two differing views on Australia giving aid, should the country give foreign aid or not? A strong foreign aid program is vital for Australia to build successful relations and regional security.

The premise behind foreign aid is the desire of acquiring new allies by creating strong nations. By sending money to countries that are attempting to organize their government or infrastructure, the U.S. creates ties. Once these nations, that we helped, get on their feet they can pay us back in this argument. However, for some nations this is proving to not be enough. Much of the reasoning behind the foreign aid that goes to underdeveloped or troubled nations lies in the attempts to facilitate the process of westernization and modernization. By giving other countries the chance to become more like our nation gives us a greater understanding of them and greater power over them. It also provides the US with greater possibilities for allies. It is for these reasons that global peace is a goal that seems semi-reachable through the act of foreign

American bilateral aid, in the form of outright grants or low-interest loans, often comes highly qualified and redirects wealth back to the United States by design. The United States no longer keeps track of the level of tied aid, citing statistical difficulties, but USAID reports in 1996 estimated that “71.6% of bilateral aid commitments were tied to the purchase of US goods and services” (ActionAid 1). In 1993, USAID generated seven billion dollars in revenue from purchase of American goods and services and claimed it has created “thousands of jobs…here at home” (Hancock 156). Clearly, the United States reaps a handsome reward from its foreign aid policy. Is this what we want from a supposed exporter of development expertise and the richest country in the world?

It is also through foreign aid that friendly ties are strengthened between two or more governments participating in it. With this, countries have been able to trade with each other where most African countries’ GDP has tremendously increased. For instance, William Gumede of New African magazine states that