Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The benefits of foreign aid
The benefits of foreign aid
Foreign aid and international relations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The benefits of foreign aid
Foreign aid is financial help given by a country to another for purposes of economic stabilization, poverty and living standard. This essay will elaborate an issue that it is necessary to spend money on foreign aid. There are three premises supporting the main conclusion, the first reason is that aid saves lives, while the premises that aid improves education and aid reduces poverty rate both can be objected and rebuttal are also given. Furthermore, there are also two objection given which can be rebutted.
The first reasons to think that foreign aid should be spend is that “Aid saves lives” which is clearly illustrated by the researches conducted. Compare 1990 to 2010, as a result of aid in vaccines and health, there was a decrease in number of children who died from illness of pneumonia and diarrhoea (BBC). For example, in Botswana, the foreign aid fund had provided a test of HIV for pregnant mothers and therefore decrease the amount of newborn babies which catches HIV. Furthermore, in Bangladesh, there is a 62% drop in death rate for the under five children, the aid fund allows the government to be able to afford “vaccines and trained the midwives”.
The second reasons to think that foreign aid should be spend is that it improves the quantity and quality of education in ways of learning environment and data which is clearly illustrated by the increased enrolment (Recom). There are more than 50 million children are educated in the last ten years time (BBC). For example, in Malawi, as a result of aid disbursement for education, the primary enrolment rates has dramatically increases up to 66% in 2010 although it was only 22% in 1975. On the other hand a consideration against the idea indicates that aid for education is inefficie...
... middle of paper ...
...aid is inefficient and prodigal as most foreign aid program fund are paid into the irresponsible government, the mismanagement of fund and embezzlement makes the aid program become wasteful (BBC). However, this objection is not convincing because nothing is perfect, the politicians are kept on working hard to make aid program become more efficient as there are regular reports have been produced on whether the foreign aid program are carried out effectively, and, therefore imposes pressure on those government decision makers. (BBC)
Based on the reasoning above, the clear conclusion of this analysis is that we should spend money on foreign aid. Aids are helpful because it saves lives, although aid are sometimes inefficient to improve standard level of education and eliminates poverty rates, but aids are necessary for the government to be able to work on those issues.
Jamieson, D. (2005). Duties to the Distant: Aid, Assistance, and Intervention in the Developing World. Journal Of Ethics, 9(1/2), 151-170. doi:10.1007/s10892-004-3324-9
Developed countries should not simply hand money to third world countries, as this gives no incentive to develop responsible government or fiscal policies. Dambisa Moyo, an international economist from Zambia, comments on foreign aid, stating that “aid is easy money” (Collier). If a person were to give a man in need a small sum of m...
The way in which foreign aid is distributed is highly ineffective and fails to achieve its sole purpose. Corruption ravages the developing world; greedy diplomats and fraudulent officials are often known to embezzle vast amounts of the aid money given to help those most in need. As Lord P. T. Bauer of London School for Economics famously said, foreign aid is “an excellent method for transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” The money does not reach those who need it but is instead pocketed by dishonest members of government in foreign countries. Over the past years more than half a billion pounds have been invested in Africa yet there is little visual improvement in extreme poverty, deprivation and the child mortality rate. Evidently, Britain’s aid scheme is uselessly trying to combat poverty against a brick wall of bureaucracy. Without doubt this money would be better invested within the UK improving health and education and lowering the deficit.
It addresses how aid to Africa increases the cycle of poverty and diseases because the nation becomes more dependent on others and will not work to improve their health problems. Although the Aid for AIDS as of 2003 has increased the amount of people on ARV treatment from three hundred thousand to over three million the rate of transmission is still high and treatment is not the only cure. The paper says if Aids increase, the disease will not go away and western donors will lose interest in a cause that is refusing to stop despite their
Despite these benefits, the present level of control that funding bodies and donors have over priorities limits the input that global health need has in the decision-making algorithm. Although there are a multitude of global health players, if calculated by resource allocation, a small number of wealthy donors set the majority of global health priorities (31) which reduces the opportunity for empirically determined need for a program to be factored into the discussion. The major disparity between the priorities set by global health actors and need is exemplified in Rwanda where the local government highlighted the disproportionately high funding targeted at HIV/AIDs when the nation only had a 3% infection rate (2, 32).
Another reason why foreign aid is ineffective is that it leads the inhabitants of the poor, ran-down country to believe that they simply cannot do it on their own. They have to rely on our money to get anything going, which is a dangerous game. We’re not letting these countries stand on their own feet, and that isn’t good for them, and it damn sure isn’t good for us. What if one of these countries that we’re pouring money into becomes powerful and acquires nuclear weaponry? If we cut funding, they might become belligerent towards the United States, and then what? We give them more money, like some kind of hostage with a knife to our throat? As Bauer wrote in his book, The Development Frontier in 1991: “Economic achievement depends on personal, cultural, social, and political factors… and the policies of rulers. It diminishes the people of the Third World to suggest that unlike the people of the West, they cannot achieve it without subsidies.”
... political institutions is key to the success of a nation, using existing sources of foreign aid to facilitate the development of these would be most beneficial.
One of the Global Fund’s guiding principles is that of “Country Ownership”. It isn’t a matter of the Global Fund entering into a country and trying to “run the show’”, but rather a manner of assisting countries to do that which they already know how to do. The solutions to battling malaria, TB and AIDS are determined by the countries being assisted and they are responsible for carrying them out to fulfillment. In addition to country ownership, the Global Fund is committed to partnership between various entities including governments, civil societies, and faith based organizations, among others. The best way to overcome these deadly diseases is through a collaborate effort of organizations and individuals working together.
The allocation of foreign aid in international society is not predicated by notions of necessity and development, but rather by self interest and power. Foreign aid’s altruistic façade can often serve to mask a vehement power struggle between the super powers of global politics. In such a struggle aid is used as a currency to purchase power and influence. These powerful gains can be broken into three different categories, the first and most tangible of these gains is the economic dominance that foreign aid grants the donor nation, this is then followed by the security and stability that accompanies strategic aid allocation and finally the gain of soft power through the spread of norms, values and ideologies is prevalent in this ostensibly
Foreign aid critics, noble laureates Friedman and Bauer (1950) argue that aid strengthened and enlarged central governments and as a result aid did more damage than good, these critics see aid as being used as a political tool that distorts incentives and increases corruption. Brautigam and Knack (2004) concluded and found evidence that suggested that foreign aid has a negative impact on growth. They argue that it helps corrupt dictators and large business corporations to take advantage of the poor, uneducated and helpless population and environment of the developing countries. This is enforced by showing how despite 4 decades of aid there has been an increase in poverty in Congo, Haiti, New Guinea, Ethiopia and Sudan.
“ Foreign aid has long been one of the most unpalatable dishes on the federal plate ” (Gaouette, 2014). Developed countries have been considered to provide foreign aid for improving poor countries from misery. In addition, some rich countries give money away to help others on purposes because they expect to obtain the many benefits themselves such as growing the economy, creating more power, and having more security borders. There are many problems that may cause negative effects. For example, foreign aid can be wasted because of corruption, since it is hard to verify how how the government manage expenses. However, wealthy nations should provide foreign aid in order to decrease the number of starving population, but financial aid can be corrupted by the government, so they should give specific supplies to poor countries such as food aid, military aid, and loans.
When seeing both sides of the argument if whether or not foreign aid is beneficial for African countries, we can see strong and weak parts. In the case of seeing the advantages of foreign aid we can some what see that giving more money to devolving nation leads to dependency and causing problem mainly corruption. Same goes for Easterly that he should also realize that more money in fact may help the poor and escape poverty trap. Overall, aid coming through in any forms foreign aid lenders should mandate reform and requirements to take out loans. Finally, nation’s government should be hold check and balances and accountability so that the aid is dispersed to countries needs.
As said earlier, a country can be extremely wealthy, but if they did not gain this wealth on their own, the money will run out and they will be stuck back at square one again. Aid is about deciding where the money needs to go. In America’s donations to assist sub-Sahara Africa, it was said that “most of this aid has come in the form of “technical cooperation” (which goes into the pockets of consultants)” … “little of this support has come in a form that can be invested in systems that improve health, nutrition, food production and transport” (Sachs 64). Although the money sent was a step in the right direction to aid and care for famine victims and those in debt, there must be some sort of maintaining a suitable lifestyle. Money cannot always be sent and it shouldn’t have to be. Celebration of Hope is an organization that packages fruit and vegatable seeds to send to African villages. These outside organizations are able to supply the necessary materials to ensure a long-lasting form of work that will allow the impoverished countries to maintain a healthy economy. One can argue that a healthy economy is largely due to good governance including transparency in actions. Examples of this are seen in Germany, Denmark, etc.. There is the argument that “extreme poverty persists because governments fail to open up their markets, provide public services and clamp down on bribe taking” which emphasizes the idea that donations alone will not aid
According to the goal, the UN intends to make sure that there is equitable and inclusive quality education for all. However, the UN has noted that there are hindrances to this being achieved. First, there is a shortage of trained teachers in most places. It has been discovered that in most places, there is an inadequate number of teachers and for those who are there, most of them are not trained. Because of this situation, the children are not able to learn the basics such as language and math skills. The United Nations has estimated that about 2 million additional tutors are needed to acquire the common primary education by the year 2020. In addition, there is aneed for an additional 4.5 million extra teachers to acquire the universal lower secondary education by the year 2030 (Fukuda-Parr& Lopes 48). The aspect of poverty also has an impact on quality education. Since some of the families are poor, education has remained a costly affair, and the children are compelled to remain at home. In places such as in Africa, much as education is notionally free, parents will still pay for some ‘necessary items’ such as extra lessons, uniforms, stationery and infrastructure
Lipton, M. and Toye, J. (1990) Does aid work in India?: a country study of the impact of official development assistance. London: Routledge.