To What Extent Is Aid Effective? Essays

There are billions of dollars that developed countries give to the developing countries to say that they are helping the poor and that they are bring the poor countries up out of the dirt. But studies have shown that giving money alone does not help, it could actually make the country worse off. Foreign countries should not give money to developing nations because the developing countries become too reliant on the developed countries, it does not help the developing countries, and with money, comes corruption. The better way for foreign aid to work which is to give technological aid. A quote from Maimonides, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” This quote tells a tale of how society works and the importance of learning. This can be applied to a multiple of things like how a developed country needs to teach another country how to survive. The developed countries are just giving money and food instead of teaching the public about how to grow food and how to have a stable economy. Countries around the world that depend on foreign aid are now

Throughout history and present day times, many countries such as Germany, France, and Canada have provided assistance and aid to underdeveloped countries to help alleviate poverty. The United States itself issues aid to developing countries which include Israel, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia; this has been an American practice since 1947 after World War II. During the time period from 1947 to 1949 the United States, under the Marshall Plan, provided both financial and technical assistance to Europe and Asia after the war. As a result, Europe was rebuilt both politically and economically. Today the United States continues to provide aid to underdeveloped countries, helping them evolve and strengthen their economy. Many Americans believe that America is doing the right thing in issuing aid, while others hold the opinion that the United States should not issue aid, and that the issue of money to developing countries needs to stop.

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

Historically, aid has been viewed as a viable and effective response to natural disasters, post-war reconstruction and economic development. Aid has been successful in providing people with food, water, clothing, and medicines after tsunamis and relocating the newly homeless after hurricanes. After World War II, aid in the form of the Marshall Plan undeniably rescued Europe from the throws of economic fallout. For these reasons, politicians, citizens, famous rock stars and even some businesses have advocated aid as a method to increase economic development. Sadly, the results have been far from what was expected. The Africa Progress Panel reported that a 7 percent growth rate is needed to make any considerable progress in poverty reduction

As time progresses humankind seeks to better itself. We strive to make life easier, faster, and more efficient. Currently we have telescopes that can see objects light years away, satellites that can track you around the planet, cars that adjust the seat and steering wheel to separate drivers, and computers that fit in your hand and perform a million calculations a second. But not everyone in this world has this technology. In parts of the world there are people who are still advancing, they are hundreds of years behind the technological leaders of this world. They only have the simple hand tools we discarded decades ago. They might have cars and trucks but those are technologies developed

For many years, the U.S. has cut back on its promised obligations and responsibilities to help the cause of development aid. Between 1990 and 1993, U.S. exports to developed countries grew by 6.2%. In contrast, during that same period, U.S. exports to developing countries grew by a remarkable 49.8%, yielding 46 billion dollars more and 920,000 jobs in the United States (Atwood). Assistance cuts hurt America’s

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

Whereas the United States? budget deficit forces many government agencies, including the Agency for International Development(AID), to lose funding. Furthermore there is no reason to send billions of dollars over seas when northern countries like the United States and Great Britain currently face the highest levels of child poverty that either country has seen in over 25 years. In addition to poverty, other domestic problems such as rape, robberies, and murders in this country still exist. Until domestic issues are solved, any future increase in foreign aid should also be kept to a minimum.

More than 3 million lives have been saved every year through programs relating to foreign aid. In addition to, more than 50 million couples are using family planning because of the aid. Lives are being saved every day because of the little bit of money we take out of our paychecks. If we can as a country can help save lives, then that’s something we should be willing to do. Statistics continue to show that we’re saving lives, not hurting them. For example, “During the decade, under-5 child mortality declined from a mean of 109.2 to 72.4 deaths per 1,000, or 36.8 fewer deaths among those children in the countries that received the most health aid, the researchers found (a 34 percent reduction). In the countries receiving the least, under-5 mortality fell from 31.6 to 23.2 deaths per 1,000, or 8.4 fewer deaths per 1,000 live births (a 26 percent reduction), the researchers reported”(Richter). During this decade, we saved more lives than we caused harm to, therefor foreign aid is being put to a good use and it is being used for exactly what it should be. The more Aid donated to the health and well-being of other countries, the brighter future we can have as a

Glennie, Jonathan. "Giving Aid to Poor Countries Is Hardly a Great Act of Generosity." Poverty Matters Blog. Guardian News and Media, 14 June 2011. Web. 19 Dec. 2016.

After giving it some thought, I believe that there is not a way that aid can be given without disturbing the local economies, institutions, and natural resources of receiving countries. I think the purpose of aid is to disturb the status quo and push for it to be better than it currently is. Some of the ways that aid can be given without making too large of a disturbance would be through microfinancing. Microfinancing is where a small loan ($25 - $100), which is repaid at a later date, is made available to individuals who are attempting to provide for themselves. Organizations such as Kiva provide microfinancing options for individuals to buy something as simple as a cow so that the products from the cow are then a source of income for that individual. Another way to provide aid is through agriculture development, where volunteers teach individuals farming techniques to receive a better yield.

The less you have the better you do. Aid is not helpful because it is not planned or targeted. Not receiving aid teaches the political system how to deal with problems without other people interfering. Aid is inherently negative Giving foreign aid is detrimental

Western aid is known to fail to reverse poverty in poor nations for many reasons. The poor nations cannot continue to provide the aid that the western nations were able to give them. There is no real source of income from the poor nations to provide for the aid talked about in our textbook Think Twice such as pesticides for crops or contraceptives. These things were only ever able to be provided through assistance and donations. The aid provided by the westerners ultimately fails because it cannot be sustained. The aid also takes away the control of the poor because they are no longer able to provide for themselves. This causes them to feel helpless which has no positive effect on reversing poverty. Although the Western Aid only has good intentions

Under the general guise of assisting the poverty stricken areas of Ethiopia with food, water, and healthcare the nations involved in the donations are able to keep the Ethiopians dependent. It is similar to Beeghly’s interpretation, “public assistance programs function to maintain the economic status quo because people must remain poor in order to stay eligible for benefits.” If Ethiopians begin to make strides towards independence, they risk losing the aid before they are genuinely able to survive without it, placing them back at square one. The World Trade Organization delegate for Malawi states, “trade is more important to us than aid,” (Black Gold, 2006). He is saying that fair trade agreements that work for the good of all parties would allow African nations to stand on their own feet instead of being dependent on others for handouts.