Arguments Against Foreign Aid
It is no mystery that today we live in a society in which some are less privileged than others. It is clear and apparent to us everyday when we see the homeless and the diseased. On an international scale, however, it is also an issue as we find countries with lower standards of living and conditions of suffering and turmoil. We see these situations on the news and hear of "developed" countries offering aid to assist and fix some of the issues facing these nations. It is important to realize, however, that while this seems an action of goodwill it is often ineffective and has in some cases worsened the situations for these nations. Problems that plague the aid administration for example, include corrupt politicians who mishandle funding, worsening
…show more content…
This means that half of the money that governments are spending in these countries are coming from abroad, which is a staggering statistic because it shows how unbelievably dependent on foreign aid these countries have become, despite large donations that have already been made.
Grant based aid is assistance of a gift like nature, because it is a monetary distribution with essentially no strings attached, meaning no payback required at all at any given time. This benefits developing nations with low budgets because it means that they can put the money to use where it is needed without worrying about returning it. In the past aid has been given to countries in a tied form where lower developed countries are tied to first world nations through debt as a result of demands for returning their money . This worsens situations greatly because countries can no longer use money for their own issues but must instead concentrate on taking their revenue and giving it back with an interest charged to them. With a grant system countries can hold on to their money they make along with aid that they are given and it is an obvious fact that the more money you have the more developments you can accomplish. However this adjustment alone is not …show more content…
This hypothesis is supported through the incidents in Asia where it was efficient economic policies and not aid that lifted millions of people out of poverty and advanced the nations in terms of economic aspects. In contrast, problems in African countries can be blamed on poor economic decisions made by the ruling institution. The Asian governments opened up their borders to trade and encouraged more direct investment. What followed was the creation of what came to be known as the "Asian Tigers" which is what the countries of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea became known as . These countries were found to be at similar levels of wealth in comparison to African countries during the 1960s, but a dramatic increase in trade saw them experience rapid growth over the next thirty years . Naturally, this is because if businesses are booming then more money is flowing throughout the countries and governments get pieces of it through taxing which they can then use to implement reforms of any nature. This creates higher standards of living and generally uplifts and benefits the people of the nation . African nations have been timid to venture in this direction for fear that their
This means that half of the money that governments are spending in these countries are coming from abroad, which is a staggering statistic because it shows how unbelievably dependent on foreign aid these countries have become, despite large donations that have already been made.
Grant based aid is assistance of a gift like nature, because it is a monetary distribution with essentially no strings attached, meaning no payback required at all at any given time. This benefits developing nations with low budgets because it means that they can put the money to use where it is needed without worrying about returning it. In the past aid has been given to countries in a tied form where lower developed countries are tied to first world nations through debt as a result of demands for returning their money . This worsens situations greatly because countries can no longer use money for their own issues but must instead concentrate on taking their revenue and giving it back with an interest charged to them. With a grant system countries can hold on to their money they make along with aid that they are given and it is an obvious fact that the more money you have the more developments you can accomplish. However this adjustment alone is not …show more content…
This hypothesis is supported through the incidents in Asia where it was efficient economic policies and not aid that lifted millions of people out of poverty and advanced the nations in terms of economic aspects. In contrast, problems in African countries can be blamed on poor economic decisions made by the ruling institution. The Asian governments opened up their borders to trade and encouraged more direct investment. What followed was the creation of what came to be known as the "Asian Tigers" which is what the countries of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea became known as . These countries were found to be at similar levels of wealth in comparison to African countries during the 1960s, but a dramatic increase in trade saw them experience rapid growth over the next thirty years . Naturally, this is because if businesses are booming then more money is flowing throughout the countries and governments get pieces of it through taxing which they can then use to implement reforms of any nature. This creates higher standards of living and generally uplifts and benefits the people of the nation . African nations have been timid to venture in this direction for fear that their