MYTH: More Foreign Aid Will End Global Poverty

[praetorian6]

I keep hearing that we need to do more, or that "only you can end world hunger," or "or only a few cents a day you can feed an entire village" or whatever. While I sympathize, I always felt that everything given just goes to their dirtbag government and that if anything was ever going to get better they would need a new government. I came across this article earlier (it's a few days old) that touched on a few interesting points.

By JOHN STOSSEL AND PATRICK McMENAMIN



May 12, 2006 — This myth may really rattle your brain. Lots of well-meaning people believe foreign aid will cure poverty.
U2's lead singer, Bono, stops almost every concert to tell his fans that Western governments can end poverty.
"We have the resources, we have the know-how to end extreme poverty," he said last year in Chicago.
Angelina Jolie visited a model village in Africa to promote what she believes would be possible if our governments would just give more. The village she visited is the creation of Jeffrey Sachs, director of the U.N. Millennium Project and author of the best-selling "The End of Poverty." He's also America's most vocal promoter of giving more foreign aid to Africa.
"How can we go another day when 20,000 children are going to be dying of these stupid reasons that are utterly preventable," he asked.
Sachs helped persuade Western governments to double foreign aid to Africa to $50 billion dollars. And the people in his model village were thrilled about getting all this help from Sachs and Jolie.
But journalist June Arunga doesn't think this will really help in the long run.
"You look like an angel if you have all these poor people behind you," she said. "Of course, they'll be smiling. Who wouldn't be smiling if they've just been given stuff? But that's not real life."
Arunga grew up in Kenya, and she wonders why Americans waste money on foreign aid to Africa … when many politicians just steal it.
"Africa is full of governments that steal money," she said.
Billions of dollars are hidden by African politicians in Swiss banks or spent on mansions, lavish trips and luxury cars.
Even food aid gets stolen. When "20/20" went to Kenya a few weeks ago, Kenyan farmers said bags of food aid from their government never arrived.
"You find most of it is getting lost on the way," farmer Joseph Nthome said. Lost, but then found … for sale in street markets.
So much is stolen because we rely primarily on governments to administer foreign aid, and many African governments are kleptocracies.

Continued

Rest of the article:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=1955664&page=1

[signatory]

I read the entire article. There's not a word of constructive criticism in there. Just that their govs' are bad and wessie aid is keeping the African man down.

"What's holding down Africans is actually the bad governments, the bad policies that make it difficult for Africans to make use of their own property," Shikwati said. "What the aid money is doing to Africa is to subsidize the bad policies that are making Africans poor."

duh.

Besides alot of the aid does come with demands for progress and quite often aid is withdrawn for failure to move forward with agreements.
But ok, since aid doesn't work then what do they propose ? That article certainly didn't answer that question.

[budgie]

This guy has just created a myth and refuted it so he can pretend to have someone to disagree with. The argument against giving to the poor to get them out of poverty is moot: most agencies only do giveaways in extreme humanitarian crises. The bulk of foreign aid goes into education and economy building and training communities to pull themselves out of poverty. There are hundreds of cases where this has worked. The majority of 'failed' aid cases are those humanitarian disasters which by definition were a long shot in the first place.

[Greek soldier]

End global poverty?

1) Get rid of the corrupted politicians
2) Open the markets (say what?)
3) Expand micro-lending policy
4) Decrease global population (we do not have infinite resources and raw materials)

Foreign aid cannot end poverty. Local economies need to be self-generated first (create local demand) and then seek exports (foreign demand)

[Bert]

Open the markets? ZOMG IMPERIALIST ZIONIST CAPITALIST INVASIONIST EVILIST!1

[Greek soldier]

Yeah, I am a liberal who favours the Anglo-saxonic (with a bit of Scandinavian taste, for the shake of the society) economic system...

[Count Lippe]

The only way to help the poor is to teach them to help themselves! Givin them food doesn't tech them how to grow food themselves! Giving them money doesn't help them to build dams, bridges, schools... They need someone to support them with knowledge. The work has to be done by themselves!

[Mastermind]

It is a conundrum. If we give aid, the food prices in the country receiving the aid crash, driving the farmers into disaster situation and forcing them off their land... thus requiring more aid and more disaster. If we try to give "teaching and food growing implements" we are accused of spreading subversive doctrine...If we administer medical aid, we are accused of witchcraft. A great many war loerds do not want their people fed and happy. Inf act, they have casugh on that staring people immediately brings the attention of world assistance groups that can then be hijacked for cash in exchange for "helping" the poor starving people...it is in the interest of the petty dictators to keep folks starving. Look at Somalia and Mugabe's kingdom as prime examples of this behavior.

I really don't know what the solution might be to solve this other than a "let them starve" policy..which I find equally abhorrent.

[RobertStacked]

MORE AIDS! and by aid I mean the HIV. A country needs to want it, needs to suffer and pull itself up from the britches. DIAGNOSIS- not enough natural selection. Let them sort it out... That, and I dont feel like deploying to Africa anytime soon! at least they have good brew and broads (cheap and sexy) at the 10th. THANK YOU JESUS.

[Belrick]

End global poverty?

1) Get rid of the corrupted politicians
2) Open the markets (say what?)
3) Expand micro-lending policy
4) Decrease global population (we do not have infinite resources and raw materials)

Foreign aid cannot end poverty. Local economies need to be self-generated first (create local demand) and then seek exports (foreign demand)

You are missing the single most key ingrediant. e.g. Many lottery winners end worse off financially after winning than prior. Why? Because the average Joe Bloggs from any nation doesn't have a clue on how to look after there dosh.

ps:On a side note i heard a claim that if wealth was distributed evenly there would be enough for $3 million US for every single adult in the world.

pps: Opening markets is the biggest BS ive ever heard. How on earth can a factory hiring 40K plus benefits staff members compete with companies that hire workers from a dollar a day?

ANSWER: They couldn't.
RESULT: The middle class lose jobs, the poor gets exploited and the rich, well they get richer.

[Greek soldier]

The rich are getting richer and the poorer fewer. Never forget that. And don't hear the leftist stupidities about gloabalization. Yes, it has many drawbacks, but also gives opportunities for any individual.

As for the wealth distribution, it all depends on the type of taxation. Progressive taxation is currently the most efficient one.

And as for the factory example, you must divide them into two categories: "capital intensive" and "labour intensive".

The 40K plus benefits workers can produce quality (capital intensive-The Western World), while the $1 per day worker quantity (labour intensive - China)

[Turhapuro]

pps: Opening markets is the biggest BS ive ever heard. How on earth can a factory hiring 40K plus benefits staff members compete with companies that hire workers from a dollar a day?

ANSWER: They couldn't.
RESULT: The middle class lose jobs, the poor gets exploited and the rich, well they get richer.

So basically it is better to keep markets closed so that poor countries stay poor? What do you care if someone starves somewhere as long as rich western middle class can have time of their life?

If you think this way, say it. Don't lie that all you want is good for people.

[Esszett]

So basically it is better to keep markets closed so that poor countries stay poor? What do you care if someone starves somewhere as long as rich western middle class can have time of their life?

If you think this way, say it. Don't lie that all you want is good for people.

I don't think it's that easy.
I'm with Belrick here.
Western markets being closed (to a certain degree) towards poor nations is not the (only) cause of the poors' poverty.
The real and most acute problems lie elsewhere, and until they are dealt with the (further) opening of western markets will not result in anything but in more abuse of the poor as slave-like workers and the decline of the western middle-class. So all in all a lose-lose siuation, if you don't count in the super-rich on both sides.
The only ones who'd become richer and richer would be the leaders of the corrupt and criminal regimes of the poor countries and the industrialists of the western nations who could afford to "outsource" all the construction and thus reduce the cost of construction significantly.

If you ask me I would say that the steps to be taken to increase world's wealth would be (in this order):
1. Help getting rid of criminal and corrupt regimes whose only goal it is to get richer at the expense of the own population and help establishing governments which at least care a bit about the people.
2. Help establishing political and juristical stability in the poor countries to make it easier and securer for foreign investors as well as for homegrown business.
3. (Optional, if you are THAT good) Help the poor develope own products by educating them (scientifically).

As soon as the poor nations would have developed to a certain degree (for example by trading with each other) the western nations would have no choice but to open their markets.
Just look at the development of China since all the Maoist craziness (with culture revolution and all that idiocy) has settled a bit.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Screw wasting aid on corrupt nations, Zardoz instead!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zardoz

[Mastermind]

if you work out a model of "One world Economic Law", you find an evening that takes place...vastly reducing the people now living to acceptable standards of comfort into something that is far less appealing to those of us who are 'there"...however, the poor and the very poor and the very darn desperate folks come into something that might be considered expansive luxurey...like having a real bowl of food every day or sleeping in a shady spot or not having to carry water and cooking fuel more than a mile. Think of that. To me, it is not so much that folks around the world don't have air conditioning and a TV in every room...but, some necessities of actual life.

Having said this...there is a quality of life that really should be administered to some degree, regardless of wealth or lack of it. Everyone should be free of hunger and free of fear of losing life and limb. How, exactly, to accomplish this escapes me, considering the dismal political circumstances around the world. I think, almost certainly, one place to begin to make things better is to abolish the United Nations and start over with a much more serious organization. One that takes these conditions seriously and makes realistic efforts to remediate them.