Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Research paper on demographic transition theory
Research paper on demographic transition theory
Research paper on demographic transition theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Research paper on demographic transition theory
In today's world, billions lack the goods of healthcare, of rapid transit, of modern communication technology, and of ease of access to basic necessities often taken for granted in industrialized nations. William Easterly in his work, The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor, addresses the responses of industrialized society to this gross inequality and contends the "technocratic" approach of advising (and funding) technical autocratic development policies the development community has historically claimed to be the most effective approach to development produces at best little to no economic benefit for the peoples of those nations being aided. Easterly argues the development community has erroneously …show more content…
While the efforts of developers have aided the lives of billions, none would claim the amount of humanitarian aid administered has raised the living standards of the vast majority of the poor even close to that of industrialized nations and for a large proportion of the poor even to a state of adequately possessing basic necessities including food, clean water, and clothing. Even wealthy nations must struggle to finance the consumption of crucial modern goods such as healthcare and information technology. It is doubtful then the small fractions of wealthy nations' income being donated to the impoverished will be sufficient to fill a significant share of this material gulf of inequality between rich and poor nations. The goods humanitarians wish for the poor can only be produced in satisfactory quantities by the currently poor peoples themselves in economies in which they are valued, productive participants. The question then is whether sending aid to autocracies controlling destitute nations serves this greater goal of economically enabling the impoverished or does little more than prop up the level of development in poor autocratic nations. To answer this question, we again invoke Easterly's …show more content…
As evidenced by the actions of the Ethiopian dictator, Meles Zenawi, aid can and will be used by rulers with unchecked power to brutally enforce their often antisocial autocratic policies (156-157). Even beyond overt usage of aid as a tool for repression, giving autocracies the opportunity to relieve the physical burdens of their peoples by administering aid can have the effect of appeasing and thus further silencing the impoverished receiving aid, only making the reform and overthrow of those regimes a more difficult, remote possibility. Providing aid to autocracies serves then to exacerbate and entrench antisocial authoritarian policy severely hindering the power of human symbiosis from solving economic problems and thereby generating growth in these
Ethiopia is one of the most unique among African countries for maintaining its freedom from colonial rule, with the short exception of an occupation by the Italians from 1936-1941. A socialist state was established in 1974 with the overthrow of Emperor Selassie, who had been in control since 1930. A junta or group of military officers called the Derg was responsible for the coup. Yet, this corrupt administration has lead only to warfare and wide scale public suffering. In 1991, the junta was finally brought down by a combination of revolutionary forces who called themselves the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. In 1994, a constitution was drafted and 1995 marked Ethiopia’s first multiparty elections. Recently, a boarder feud with Eritrea, that lasted over 2 years, was ended in December of 2000; yet recent objections by Ethiopia have delayed a final declaration of border.
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
Today there is a split in American politics on how to combat poverty. Throughout history, how America combats poverty has changed depending on what party is running the government. There has been a number of different parties however, Republican, Democrat, The Bull Moose Party, and other various ones. However, these views can be put into two main categories: The Liberal ideology and the Conservative ideology.
In the face of media campaigns and political sanctions, the question about whether we owe the global poor assistance and rectification is an appropriate one. Despite television advertisements displaying the condition of the poor and news articles explaining it, the reality is the majority of us, especially in the Western world, are far removed from the poverty that still affects a lot of lives. The debate between Thomas Pogge and Mathias Risse regarding our obligation to the poor questions the very institution we live in. Pogge created a new framework in which the debate developed. He introduced a focus on the design of the institutional global order, and the role it plays in inflicting or at least continuing the severe poverty people are exposed to. Whilst both Mathias Risse and Thomas Pogge believe that the “global order is imperfectly developed. It needs reform rather than revolutionary overthrow”, they differ on whether or not it is just and entitles the global poor to assistance. Pogge believes that the global order is unjust as it “helps to perpetuate extreme poverty, violating our negative duty not to harm others unduly”. Risse believes that the institution is only incompletely just and can be credited to improving lives of the global poor. According to him, these improvements contribute to its justifiability and negate any further obligation we have to the poor. Through assessing their debate, it seems that one’s obligation to the poor depends on one’s conception of duty, their unit of analysis, and whether improvement rectifies injustice. On balance, it seems that we do indeed owe the poor, only we may lack the means to settle it.
... 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.
In the late 1960’s and into the 1970’s, the South Asian region of East Bengal (then East Pakistan, now the country of Bangladesh) was undergoing a severe famine, due to rampant poverty, a civil war and frequent cyclones. The lack of overseas help to this impoverished region was probably what triggered Peter Singer to write the article Famine, Affluence and Morality, wherein he claims that world hunger and famine can be prevented and possibly eradicated if everyone in the wealthy nations did their bit to help the sufferers monetarily. Singer further claims that duty and charity should not be as distinct as they are now, and hints at uniting the two. Upon careful analysis of Singer’s paper, one can find multiple loopholes in this proposal, and can conclude that Singer’s idea, while crafted out of good intentions, is neither feasible nor correct.
I believe that the wealthy Americans have moved farther away from the poor then in past generations. James Fallows in ”The Invisible Poor” clearly shows how the new technology millionaires awareness of the poor has diminished greatly. I believe that this is due to several reasons the most important being the young age in which wealth and success are reached.
According to Schwartz-Nobel, America will lose as much as 130 billion in future productive capacity for every year that 14.5 American children continue to live in poverty (Koppelman and Goodhart, 2007). Sadly the seriousness of poverty is still often clouded by myths and misunderstandings by society at large. This essay studies the issue of poverty and classism in today's society.
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 ...
Hardin likens a developed nation to a lifeboat and I feel that he is the author with the most compelling argument about global poverty and how other countries should pitch in. Hardin’s symbolic lifeboat floats in the water, and its wealthier citizens are the passengers, and the world’s poor metaphorically swim around the lifeboat and wish to get in the lifeboat. However, there are only so many people who will fit in the lifeboat. If too many poor people get in, the boat will sink, and everyone will perish (Hardin, 1974, 16). He suggests that there is a limited capacity for generosity.
Poverty has conquered nations around the world, striking the populations down through disease and starvation. Small children with sunken eyes are displayed on national television to remind those sitting in warm, luxiourious houses that living conditions are less than tolerable around the world. Though it is easy to empathize for the poor, it is sometimes harder to reach into our pocketbooks and support them. No one desires people to suffer, but do wealthy nations have a moral obligation to aid poor nations who are unable to help themselves? Garrett Hardin in, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor," uses a lifeboat analogy to expose the global negative consequences that could accompany the support of poor nations. Hardin stresses problems including population increase and environmental overuse as downfalls that are necessary to consider for the survival of wealthy nations. In contrast, Peter Singer's piece, "Rich and Poor," remarks on the large differences between living conditions of those in absolute poverty with the wealthy, concluding that the rich nations possess a moral obligation to the poor that surpasses the risks involved. Theodore Sumberg's book, "Foreign Aid As Moral Obligation," documents religious and political views that encourage foreign aid. Kevin M. Morrison and David Weiner, a research analyst and senior fellow respectively at the Overseas Development Council, note the positive impact of foreign aid to America, a wealthy nation. Following the examination of these texts, it seems that not only do we have a moral obligation to the poor, but aiding poor nations is in the best interest of wealthy nations.
...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.
The first distinction is between states that fail because of a lack of relevant capacities and those that fail to promote the interests of all their inhabitants through political choice, often with the intention of benefiting the incumbent regime and its supporters at the expense of another group within the state. Robert Mugabe’s ongoing manipulation of ZANU—PF and state power in Zimbabwe is a paradigmatic example of a regime, choosing to deny basic rights to certain segments of its population in an attempt to bolster regime security. The dynamics in this case are somewhat different from instances where a regime may well want to restore order to part of its territory but lacks the relevant capacities to do so. These dynamics are apparent in, for instance, the Ugandan control of formal and/or informal markets. In this view, weak or failing state institutions provide an environment from which such warlords and ‘spoilers’ can profit. The third set of contingent factors concerns the political economy of state failure, especially the adoption by governments of ‘bad’ macroeconomic policies resulting in fiscal deficits and balance of payments crises, and the paradoxical effects of structural adjustment policies encouraged by a variety of international donors. As Nicolas van de Walle has argued, both of these factors encouraged a ‘hollowing out’ of the state which, in turn, increased ‘the chances that minor political incidents and disputes could cause the descent into failure.’ Such political economies did not, however, automatically produce failed states. Hence, although Zaire/the DRC
Anderson, M. B. (1999). Do no harm: How aid can support peace—or war. London, England: Lynne Rienner Publishers