What Is Meant by Developmentalism: What Is Its Impact on Global Politics?

There are two main perspectives on foreign aid in Australia – are we giving too much or not enough? Foreign aid is given to developing countries, and is necessary to build an environment where policies and infrastructure can be in place to support other sources of finance. Australia is part of the worldwide foreign aid commitment as we value that everyone should have a fair go, and the country plans to give $3.9 billion over 2017 and 2018. We help countries in need by contributing, food, resources, providing financial assistance, exchanging goods, personal time and knowledge. The main types of aid are humanitarian aid, which is disaster relief and emergency aid and development aid, which is a long-term commitment between nations. Australian aid is strongly on development aid particularly focused on the Asia-Pacific region, but it also has a strong commitment to African and South Asia. Interestingly, 90% of Australia’s foreign aid goes to Asia-Pacific countries such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, because if they build into a developed nation, then we can build trade relations, regional security and partner in defence. This is a polarizing issue that divides the nation due to different views on Australia giving aid, however, a strong foreign aid program is vital for Australia to build successful relations and regional security.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Some people speak against U.S foreign aid being sent to Africa for humanitarian reasons. Others speak out in favor of such actions. All of us have seen the news tickers with vital headlines about “people being devastated by droughts in Zimbabwe and unhygienic water in Sudan”, but what is their government doing about it. Personally, I’ve asked myself several founded inquiries about where is this foreign aid going to and what are some of the achievements being made. I’ve acquired over time well-built knowledge in relation to the United Nations and the work they perform globally to promote stability and development. I will be bringing in several valid arguments to get to the bottom of this controversial subject of

Prior to doing the readings for this week, I did not know very much at all about foreign developmental aid. I only ever figured that foreign developmental aid was money that we provided to developing nations to help soothe poverty. After reading these articles, however, I now know that the intended goal of developmental aid is to alleviate poverty in the long-term, rather than as a short-term response. I also saw developmental aid as purely humanitarian, and never paused to consider that consequences of such aid, nor the possibility of the aid failing.

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

When one person sees another person struggling, the human response is to try to help. People helping people is what the institution of foreign aid is built on. Ideally, foreign aid is a way for people in developed nations to help people in developing nations. Unfortunately, foreign aid does not always bring a positive outcome. In many area where foreign aid is abundant, economic development slows. Foreign aid has become a controversial topic because in some way it saves lives, but in others it keeps undeveloped nations undeveloped. Foreign aid helps the developing world by bringing vaccines, and helping to advance healthcare systems, but at the same time, foreign aid cripples the developing world by halting the growth of local businesses, undermining government responsibilities, and promoting corruption and dependence. The goal of this paper is to find the balance of where foreign aid should start and stop to promote thriving societies.

International food aid is largely driven by donors and international institutions (typically influenced by the interests of the donors). In 1967, the Food Aid Convention (FAC) provided a set of policies for the donor countries, and is monitored by the Consultative Sub-Committee on Surplus Disposal (CSSD). The CSSD’s primary purpose is to ensure that food aid does not affect commercial imports and local production in recipient countries. In effect, the CSSD ensures that food aid does not displace trade. And so it is criticized for serving the interests of donors, because when accepting food aid, recipients commit to pay for imports of commercial food along with food aid as Frederic Mousseau notes in a report titled Food Aid or Food Sovereignty? Ending World Hunger In Our Time.