Was Development Assistance a Mistake

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

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

Hardin informs us that the well- intentioned of helping is actually counterproductive. When the United States gives international aid to third world countries, we cause more suffering in the end. The poor country that receives aid is not growing wealthy or

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.

It fails at covering a lot of other major topics covered throughout the course of POLS*2080. The book either briefly acknowledges or will not mention at all many other issues in development outside of economics that also play a major part in why underdevelopment continues in parts of the world.

One of my main arguments being how people do not believe that foreign aid helps, meaning they stop donating all together, creating immorality. This idea is supported in Banerjee and Duflo’s Poor Economics; they discuss the general reaction when faced with a major issue like poverty. Generally, our first instinct is to be generous and then our second thought is that there is no point to our generosity. Banerjee and Duflo are able to describe the general feeling that “our contribution would be a drop in the bucket, and the bucket probably leaks” (Banerjee and Duflo, 2). Regardless of the fact Banerjee and Duflo are trying to fight the assumption that we cannot do anything to help, it does not change the fact that this is the common belief when it comes to large issues like poverty. While I still believe that the frustration with inequality and poverty breeds immorality, I now believe that the bigger issue is on the global scale. In his book Encounter Development, Escobar makes the point that “development was – and continues to be for the most part – a top-down, ethnocentric, and technocratic approach, which treated people and cultures as abstract concepts, statistical figures to be moved up and down in charts of ‘progress’” summing up the immorality created by development thinkers who are there to “help” eradicate poverty (Escobar, 44). The inequality between the first world and the third world

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.

According to William Easterly, the consensus on global development is an axiomatically wrong and ostentatious position. This is not new to Easterly, who spent a number of disenchanted years as a senior advisor at the World Bank. These tumultuous years would certainly help formulate Easterly’s austere perception of technocratic solutions to global poverty. Easterly’s contentious view of technocrats becomes a focused thesis in his book, The Tyranny of Experts. In this book, Easterly argues that poverty is not a “technical problem amenable to technical solutions” (Easterly 6). Instead, poverty is a manifestation of brutish leaders quashing the rights of individuals. While Easterly presents a cogent argument against top down development, the lack

The most convincing argument against development is the emergence of an authoritarian government which tries to trade individual freedom for material goods. Easterly shows that there is no evidence that even a benevolent dictatorship can increase growth of the economy. Since freedom is being traded for intangible benefits in a dictatorship, it seems that free development is the best option. As Easterly says, a democracy in which people can influence their outcomes will make a happier and more productive nation. However, this does not preclude the idea of external aid working through a democratic

In his book The Tyranny of Experts, William Easterly argues against what he calls the technocratic approach to development, in which expert economists advise an autocrat in how to best develop his country. Easterly instead advocates increasing the individual rights of the people in underdeveloped nations in order to catalyze free development. He uses 3 debates—the blank slate vs. learning from history, nations vs. individuals, and conscious design vs. free development—to support the free development side of the overarching debate of the novel: authoritarian vs. free development. Easterly comes to the conclusion that individual rights are the most important factor in development, saying,

All human beings regardless of their background require a set of resources to survive. These are food, water, shelter and clothing in addition to this, healthcare, education and sanitation are also essential for a person’s wellbeing. In 1949 Truman’s Inaugural Address “we must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas” raised awareness of the fundamental belief that countries that are far more developed should be assisting underdeveloped countries to improve their living standards. Aid is the giving of money, goods and advice by one country to another. The principle of giving and supporting others through “foreign aid” blossomed during the 1960’s, technological advances provided opportunities for televised reporting in the United States of inhumane situations in other “underdeveloped” countries. The idea of tackling poverty took hold and the UN and Bretton Woods Institutions (originally formed for post-war reconstruction) became mechanisms for action on development.

Economic challenges are another encounter that Africa has faced. Some may see the help of foreign aid accommodating because it’s a granting of aid to needy countries. According to Moyo, “Africa’s broad economic experience shows that the abundance of land and natural resources does not guarantee economic success, however” . Still, Moyo initially argues that the help of foreign aid has just created a master-servant relationship that creates lobbying for the foreign aid through borrowing. Conditionalities are a set of “rules and regulations set by the donors to govern the conditions under which aid is disbursed” which can ultimately lead to the master-servant relationship. The foreign aid is just flowing in to Africa so much that it develops “aid-dependency” . Moyo closes his argument stating that aid is not helpful or a solution, it’s actually the problem and increasing the aid in Africa is not the answer either.

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