Essay On Aid Conditionalities

Many countries around the world receive foreign aid from the United States and other developed countries every year in large sums. This money is dispersed throughout the receiving country, it is the hope of the United States that this will help to create development economically and politically as well as promote the belief of democracy in these countries. The aid is intended to enhance infrastructure within the country so local institutions will be able to create policies to enhance their country. However, this does not always occur in the countries that receive this aid. This is specifically not the case in countries in sub-Saharan Africa that have won their freedom from colonial powers in the last 50 years. The issue of foreign aid in Africa is a major debate that is taking place in the world today most likely because of the lack of developed democratic regimes that exist on the continent today, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.

However, the aid has some drawbacks which include some of the policies not being practical and occasionally being too political which makes the targeted poor people more vulnerable. Also governments receiving the aid could be partial which can also result in uneven and biased distribution of the aid which doesn’t solve any problems.

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

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.

Since the turn of the century, the world has experienced various events that have rendered millions homeless, starving or even without a country. Such events may range from merciless persecution by a ruthless dictator to a furious tsunami that leaves destruction in its wake. In such incidents, it is human nature to help those affected rebuild their lives and find comfort again. As a result, governments spend billions on foreign aid projects aimed at helping populations rebuild themselves after a tragic event. Despite the funding and resources spent on these projects, their success rate is dismal. Coyne’s book explains the flaws of state-led humanitarianism. Using case studies that range from Afghanistan to Haiti, Coyne successfully argues against state aid proving that continuing with that approach is likely to remain unsuccessful. He further demonstrates that state aid fails to fulfill its mandate because the parties involved are either too arrogant or ignorant to acknowledge fundamental flaws of state-led aid. He says that the influence of agenda driven opinions of blurs the objectives of financial assistance from the beginning. Since governments focus on what they should, rather than what they can do, the goals of the most aid-funded projects in affected nations remain unrealized.

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

Governments and state agencies need to be more concerned in the obliteration of poverty through providing foreign aid. "As much as people think that America does its part in providing foreign aid, statistics from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development show that the U.S has been at the bottom of the list of industrialized countries as per proceeds that they give to foreign support." (Singer, 2009)

When I chose Brazil as the subject country for examining its foreign aid received, I ran into a bit of a dilemma. Brazil has evolved from being a foreign aid recipient and less developed nation of the past, to become a major foreign aid provider in recent years. This fact places this emerging country in a unique and interesting position as both a donor and recipient as of 2010 records reveal and Brazil’s donor status is on the increase since this new “middle-of-the-road” development status for this intriguing country emerged.

Originally, Canada’s aid policy (and aid policies in general) focused more on assisting the state in question with economic development, and giving them enough assistance to develop a stable and sustainable economy (Welsh and Woods, 2007). However, in the recent decades, Canadian aid policy has shifted focus towards supporting countries only if they either have, or

National development and foreign aid are the two word combinations have been competing on which has been uttered more frequently in the Presidential Palace. Presidents, advisors and even cleaning staff comes and goes but the eternal question remains – to collect or not to collect the international aid to facilitate national development. The ideas range on the spectrum from claims that foreign aid rarely translates into development or that such policies discourage government accountability

Charity, foreign aid, and mission trips are examples of overly publicized methods of helping the less fortunate. Money going into charities and foreign aid accounts do not reach their intended population. Government and community leaders have a history of stealing and misappropriating funds. Foreign aid can help to extinguish and eliminate diseases, burden weak bureaucracies, prop up dictators, and help prolong civil wars (Anonymous, 2016). Foreign aid is selective. The purpose of foreign money is to improve the lives of the poor people. However, some countries give large amount of resources to friendly countries. Nations would rather give aid to nations like themselves. The Misplaced Charity article states that donors often reward countries with well-run countries and aim to punish corrupt countries (Anonymous, 2016). The issue with this is that most of the well-run countries are not in

Ranging from the UN World Food Program to Oxfam, initiatives aim at improving conditions for those trapped in poverty, alleviating hunger and malnourishment, as well as enable individuals to become self-sustainable. Some of the programs and assistance provided to countries is not without drawbacks and criticisms. For instance, World Bank and IMF development assistance has been accused of interfering with countries’ ability to manage affairs sovereignly (e.g. conditions attached to the receipt of aid). Likewise, US AID assistance comes with foreign policy attachments that may not always be appreciated. Furthermore, even though NGOs are becoming more mindful of local conditions and cultures, they inadvertently promote western perceptions concerning human rights and values. Yet, despite differences in goals, approaches, and other aspects at appears reasonable to expect sustained, cooperative efforts to reduce poverty. The cynic may argue that nations pursue self-serving goals and aim to distract citizens from internal problems, while NGOs’ involvement justifies their existence…

It is widely held that the United States should give money to aid third world countries living in poverty because helping the less fortunate is a strong value in American culture. The U.S. has an interest in helping third world countries escape poverty and elevating them so they may contribute to the growing world-state. Therefore, America believes that sending a big fat check to the governments of these impoverished nations is the best way to help. However, all this gifted money does is create increased third world poverty by feeding corrupt governments and diminishing economic growth. This argument has been in the back of a lot of American’s mind for a while now, and people normally want one of three things. They want to decrease foreign aid, or they want to keep foreign aid the exact same, or they want to spend the same amount of money but distribute it different ways. The last viewpoint is what I want to focus on. Foreign aid needs to be changed into a more productive way for these developing countries to get out of poverty without corrupting their government or hurting their economic growth.

Our nation’s debt is currently at an all-time high as it approaches 20 trillion dollars. Many politicians have suggested ways of alleviating the debt such as taxing the rich more or cutting public spending; however one of the greatest possible solutions that has been suggested is the discontinuation of foreign aid. With our current National Debt, our nation’s focus should be on us solely before we can lend a hand to other nations. While foreign aid saves lives in many underdeveloped countries, the United States should learn to become more selective when it comes to foreign aid. Military foreign aid should receive cut whereas humanitarian aids should continue.

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