Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and disadvantages of foreign aid
Advantages of foreign aid
The benefits of foreign aid
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Advantages and disadvantages of foreign aid
Introduction
This essay will argue that the current British policy of trying to meet the target of spending 0.7% of British Gross National Income on foreign aid is flawed. It will be split into three sections: the first will establish that foreign aid is an important and contentious area of policy, the second will show the problems of the 0.7% target whilst the final one will propose solutions to the problems inherent in current policy choices in the area. The main conclusion of the essay will be that, if the United Kingdom is committed to delivering effective foreign aid, it ought to stop considering whether it has spent enough on developing countries but instead focus on whether its expenditure is having effect. Throughout, discussion will be made harder by the fact that current academic commentary on foreign aid ‘anarchy’. Considering this, the essay will try to illustrate as broad a range as possible in the various approaches taken to the topic, before reaching its overall conclusion.
Section A: The Importance of Foreign Aid
Foreign aid policy has been selected as the topic for this essay as it is an important topic that has impact on British politics in the international and domestic sphere. An example of the contentiousness of the area is the fact that a petition to divert foreign aid back to British flood relief managed to gain two hundred and thirty thousand people within a manner of days. Such a petition would not be significant if it was not backed up by evidence of overall British opinion on foreign aid but the fact that this is a divisive issue is illustrated in a selection of polls. The Department for International Development (DfID hereafter), for example, found in an independent and weighted poll conducted i...
... middle of paper ...
...ut a set of goals that includes a quantitative element. This will return the 0.7% figure to what it was originally intended to be, a figure to make countries donate more to aid, as opposed to an almost venerated figure. This essay therefore concludes that the UK, if it wants to further its aims of both international recognition for its foreign aid alongside granting effective aid, needs to adopt a target that consists of three elements instead of one by using a quantitative figure, evidence from developing nations and a figure that represents the targeting of aid.
Peter Nunnenkamp and Rainer Thiele, ‘Financing for Development: The Gap between Words and Deeds since Monterrey’ (2013) 31(1) Dev Policy Rev 75, 76.
United Nations, ‘Monterrey Consensus of the International Conferenceon Financing for Development’ (United Nations Department of Public Information 2003) 7
The United States continues to give around $550 billion in aid to other countries each year, making America the world's top donor by far (Richardson). While the United States government only supplies $252 billion to needy Americans each year. Former Assistant to the President for Communications, Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous" (Foreign Aid). The United States need to give money to support the domestic impoverished rather than supporting developing foreign countries because the poverty and homelessness in America is increasing faster than the aid necessary to reduce this trend. Part of the reason that the United States should aid the domestic impoverished is that some foreign countries cannot be trusted with the money given to them and in certain cases, the money intended to aid countries are harmful for that country’s well-being.
Before extending aid to other countries, we should focus on our more prevalent domestic problems. Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous. Almost every American knows it, feels it, believes it." The topic of United States foreign policy is greatly debated, and a decision on how to handle is very hard to come by. It seems as if we are finally leaning towards less aid to foreign countries, as we try to cut wasteful spending. The American government is finally opening its eyes to the realization that all of the aid we are giving out may not be worth it. Our priority should be to help our homeless, instead of other countries' poor.
Singer argues and concludes in his weaker argument that those more fortunate have a duty to donate significant amounts of money to foreign aid agencies. If Singer’s conclusion is to be rejected, it seems one must provide a satisfactory argument for denying the second premise, for the following reasons. Firstly, premise one is beyond challenge, as from an intuitive level, denial would be morally callous at best. The third premise would only be refutable insofar as the efficacy of aid itself is refutable, however the scope of this essay will not examine this considering the relative security one has in trusting aid’s efficacy on an increasing basis. The second premise of the argument is by far the most ambitious and controversial, and therefore in need of enquiry. *Refine and exclude third premise as beyond scope
... aid across the world. As we have established that we do have an obligation to redistribute globally in a cosmopolitan perspective, distributing wealth however we may need to rethink what the best assistance is. Amaryta Sen conveys that before sending aid to the third world state, we would need to fully understand the limitation of freedom in the country. Redistributing wealth to global countries requires it to be evaluated by the economic shortage that they are suffering and to see whether it will be efficient in the long run. The more effective ways to contribute would be to international relief agencies or NGO’s that would pursue international development projects to help those in poverty or the alternative option by Tom Campbell’s idea of a ‘Global humanitarian levy’ which suggests a more appropriate taxation on all citizens to collectively aid those in need.
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it." This is one of Mitt Romneys famous quotes. The scary part about this quote is that he is right. About half of our country is dependent upon government assistance, and some are passing this way of life on to their many children. This is the main problem, if the future generations begin to think this is a good way of life our government will crash, again. Government assistance is a problem due to the fact that; there is no incentive to work, people get handed money with no enforced restrictions, and there is no constant supervision for people, “needing” this assistance.
Berg, Andrew, and Jonathan Ostry. "Finance and Development." IMF. Equality and Efficiency, Sept. 2011. Web. 06 May 2014.
I chose this topic because education is all around me. I am literally surrounded by illiteracy. From the moment I leave my door, to the moment I return, I am able to witness illiteracy in my society. Therefore, I could connect well to this particular topic in detail. So many children younger than me, of my age and also people elder to me do not have access to education. Even though 86.1% of the world is illiterate (CIA World Factbook), the other 14.9% have absolutely no access to education!
There is no static or perfect definition that can encapsulate all that may fall under the theme of humanitarian intervention. Philosophically speaking, humanitarian intervention is the idea that individuals have the duty to prevent human rights violations from occurring. Furthermore, the legal basis of humanitarian intervention is derived from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Lecture 11/15/16). As decided by the UN in 1948, all nations have a responsibility to protect, or to prevent crimes against humanity, and while it was an important milestone for the recognition of human rights, not all those experiencing the crimes of genocide
Entering the 21st. Century – World Development Report 1999/2000. World Bank 2000. Oxford University Press. New York, NY 2000.
...m having an authoritarian leader even if he is trying to help the country grow. Also, the authors don’t believe in foreign aid and they explain that usually only 10% actually reaches the helpless. However, even if only 1% of the intended aid was going to the actual recipients, than that would still be an accomplishment over nothing.
Although wealthier students who work hard to achieve their academic goals should earn financial aid, less fortunate students who struggle financially, but also work hard in school should be awarded more financial aid. People may argue that the students who don’t try in school, but don’t have the money to attend college shouldn’t get more money than the students that try. Need-based college aid is awarded based on your family’s financial need. The Department of Education and the colleges and universities look at your parents income and taxes, they look at your expected family contribution (EFC) from the cost of attendance (COA) at each college or university. ("Need-Based Vs Merit-Based Financial Aid").
Anderson, M. B. (1999). Do no harm: How aid can support peace—or war. London, England: Lynne Rienner Publishers
Poor countries have been receiving aid from the international community for over a century now. While such aid is supposed to be considered an act of kindness from the donor nations or international bodies, it has led to over dependence among the developing countries. They have adopted the habit of estimating and including international aid in their national budgets to reduce their balance of trade deficits. It is believed that foreign aid is necessary for poor nations in order to break the cycle of poverty that ties their citizens in low productivity zones and so their economy will not be weak. However, some critics view the extension of aid to poor countries as means of keeping the nations in economic slumber so that they can wake up from only by devising ways of furthering self-sustainability. Because of these two schools of thought concerning the topic, debate has arisen on which side is more rational and factual than the other. The non-sustainable nature of international aid, however, leaves the question of what may happen in the event that foreign aid is unavailable for the poor nations. After thorough consideration on the effects of the assistance to poor countries, it is sufficient to state that giving international aid to the poor nations is more disadvantageous than beneficial to the nations. This point is argued through an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of giving international aid to the poor countries with appropriate examples drawn from various regions of the world to prove the stance.
Globalization’s history is extremely diversified and began during the beginning of civilization. Now we live in a world that is constantly evolving, demanding people to use resources in locations that are very difficult to obtain certain resources. This could make it completely impossible to operate in these specific parts of the world. However, globalization allows people across the world to acquire much needed resources. Globalization creates the opportunity for businesses to take advantage and exploit the ability to take part of their business to a different country. Nevertheless, globalization is part of today’s society and will be involved in virtually all situations.