It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It is true that aid is rarely given for motives of pure altruism. However, it is important to look at where aid goes. For example, “only about one fifth of U.S. aid goes to countries classified by the OECD as ‘least developed.’” This “pro-rich” trend is not unique to the United States. According to Collier, “the middle income countries get aid because they are of much more commercial and political interest than the tiny markets and powerlessness of the bottom billion.” What this means is that, at the most basic level, aid is not targeting the most extreme poverty.
The form of aid must also be considered. The World Bank, until recently, issued only loans, meaning that the country must repay both the loan and the interest rates. In contrast, the European Commission issues grants, which countries need not worry about paying back. This means that “loans have been going to the poorest countries and the grants to the middle-income countries."
Furthermore, consider the breakdown, where aid goes and for what purposes. In 2002, total gross foreign aid to all developing countries was $76 billion. Dollars that do not contribute to a country’s ability to support basic needs interventions are subtracted. Subtract $6 billion for debt relief grants. Subtract $11 billion, which is the amount developing countries paid to developed nations in that year in the form of loan repayments. Next, subtract the aid given to middle income countries, $16 billion. The remainder, $43 billion, is the amount that developing countries received in 2002. But only $12 billion went to low-income countries ($15 billion for all developing countries) in a form that could be deemed budget support for basic needs.
As a result of these numerous criticisms, other proposals for supporting developing economies and poverty stricken societies. Some analysts, such as researchers at the Overseas Development Institute, argue that current support for the developing world suffers from a policy incoherence and that while some policies are designed to support the third world, other domestic policies undermine its impact, examples include:
encouraging developing economies to develop their agriculture with a focus on exports is not effective on a global market where key players, such as the US and EU, heavily subsidise their products
providing aid to developing economies' health sectors and the training of personnel is undermined by migration policies in developed countries that encourage the migration of skilled health professionals
One measure of this policy incoherence is the Commitment to Development Index (CDI) published by the Center for Global Development . The index measures and evaluates 22 of the world's richest countries on policies that affect developing countries, in addition to simply aid. It shows that development policy is more than just aid; it also takes into account trade, investment, migration, environment, security, and technology.
Thus, some states are beginning to go Beyond Aid and instead seek to ensure there is a policy coherence, for example see Common Agricultural Policy reform or Doha Development Round. This approach might see the nature of aid change from loans, debt cancellation, budget support etc., to supporting developing countries. This requires a strong political will, however, the results could potentially make aid far more effective and efficient.[
Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by Dionisius
This just is very heart wrenching. I wonder...where does all the money (really go)...to help these children?
Originally posted by WickettheRabbit
If you can't feed yourself, don't have children.
If you have 1 child and have problems feeding that 1 child, don't have more.
There are areas of the world that people are just not meant in inhabit. The people in those areas should migrate. If they can't, that is just...uh...too bad.