What Role Does Foreign Aid Play? Developing Countries?

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

The JSTOR Review by Kristian Hoelscher on the book Dead Aid elaborates how Moyo “half-right” in her critique of foreign aid nonetheless Hoelscher mentions how “her review is unfortunately shallow and lacking nuance” in the areas of acknowledging the successes of aid in Africa. Additionally, another review of JSTOR by S.U. Fwatshak reiterated how “aid could not have been the fundamental reason why Africa poor… African’s problem are rooted in a mosaic of a factors (157).” These two reviews provided to be good sources to shed light on the issues of foreign aid and to counter-balance the Moyo’s critique on aid. Lastly, the book is quite short with only one-hundred and eighty-three pages therefore it seemed so like some concepts needed to be elaborated more but were not. On the other hand, the reason I choose this as a source because it does a suitable job in showing the history of aid, speaking on aid effectiveness, and exemplifying the stagnant economic growth (e.g. ten percent Africans are living in poverty in the 1970s compared to seventy-percent now (Moyo 33)). While, I wished the book concentrated more in a section of Africa, such as Sub-Saharan, it was an insightful and factual

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.

The large cash injection would then create a “greasing the gears effect” and allow for the jumpstart of economic development. Between the years of 1948 and 1952 the U.S. granted $13 billion to revamp the European economy (Dambisa, 2009: 35). This particular method achieved great success in post-World War II Europe and was known as the Marshall Plan. Due to its effective and unquestionable success in this era, the model was applied to economic development in Africa with the confidence that the same outstanding results would ensue. However, the application of the Marshall Plan to Africa is problematic for three reasons. One, the Marshall Plan had a rigid duration period of five years while, the concessional loans and grants to Africa over the last 50 years have been unending (Dambisa, 2009: 36). Two, European institutions were already in place to receive the aid efficiently and effectively. In Africa, however, these same institutions are either non-existent or grossly ineffective due to corruption (Dambisa, 2009: 37). The vast amounts of corruption have been heavily documented. Mobutu Sese Seko, President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1965 to 1997, for example, stole an equivalent of U.S. 5 billion dollars from his people (Dambisa, 2009: 48). However, even the less corrupt rulers of many African countries had few options as to what to invest the aid money on. Consequently, the bulk concessional aid goes directly into consumption without a variety of investment outlets. This process does not solve the problem but instead, allows for the cycle to continue. Lastly, three, the money from the Marshal had specific targets to repair physical infrastructure such as, roads, communications, sewage, factories, and electric systems (Dambisa, 2009: 37) In Africa today, the scope of the

"Between 1945 and 1983 the U.S. gave away $321 billion in foreign assistance, concessional loans, military aid, and humanitarian assistance." (Cato Policy Report, 1991) The Clinton administration task force admitted that, "Despite decades of foreign assistance, most of Africa and parts of Latin America, Asia and the Middle East are economically worse off today than they were 20 years ago." (Conservative Chronicle, 1994) United States financial aid does not help the problem it stabilizes it until it's withdrawn.

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 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.

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

Every year sub-Saharan Africa receives around $134bn in loans, foreign investment and development aid, according to the UN. Nonetheless, sub-Saharan Africa is still the poorest region in the world. For many years the international community has debated over the reasons why every year billion and billions of dollars are not taking sub-Saharan Africans out of poverty. Three major groups have prevailed in the discussion. First, the people who totally blame Africa for not doing its job right, completely forgetting that most of the funds are not administrated by Africans. Second, the people who believe that even though aids are not working, the international community should keep investing funds in Africa even if is failing; one day they will work.

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.

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 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

The actual definition of Foreign Aid is money, food, or other resources given or lent by one country to another, but it is a broad topic that looks different for every country that receives it. While it is a great thing in concept, it often runs into problems when it is put into practice. The country that gives the aid (the benefactor), usually doesn’t realize or try to fix the problems that these problems cause the other country (the beneficiary). Like everything in this world, it has benefits and drawbacks and although it does impact the country that provides aid, ultimately, the bigger concern is the country who receives it.Is it actually helpful, or is it a waste of time? What is the difference between helping and harming? Foreign Aid often walks a fine line, and there are many factors like corruption, poor planning, greed, and ulterior motives can do more harm to a country than good.

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

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