Foreign Aid For Development Assistance???

[innocentbee]

In 1970, the world’s rich countries agreed to give 0.7% of their gross national income as official international development aid, annually.
Since that time, billions have certainly been given each year, but rarely have the rich nations actually met their promised target.For example, the US is often the largest donor in dollar terms, but ranks amongst the lowest in terms of meeting the stated 0.7% target.


Furthermore, aid has often come with a price of its own for the developing nations. Common criticisms, for many years, of foreign aid, have included the following:

Aid is often wasted on conditions that the recipient must use overpriced goods and services from donor countries
Most aid does not actually go to the poorest who would need it the most
Aid amounts are dwarfed by rich country protectionism that denies market access for poor country products

[yayayo]

What do you mean to say? That "rich" countries are evil? That rich countries fulfilling their agreed target quota of development aid would solve poverty problems in the world?

In my opinion the leadership of every country - regardless if poor or rich - has its own motives. Doing what's best for the home country by saving money is not evil but often expected by the countries' population. Also I think it is pure daydreaming to think that structural poverty problems can be solved with donating money. In my opinion these problems can only by solved by initiatives of the people themselves. Many "poor" countries have severe administrative problems with extremely high corruption on all layers of governance. Many don't even have a culture of justice like we know it. It's pretty much survival of the fittest using all means (extortion, theft, fraud, and violence). Donating money to these countries leads to no avail.

I neither see that market protectionism is really the main problem for "poor" countries gaining market access (besides that this is an unproven claim). In my opinion the simple truth is that apart from commodities most "poor" countries don't have any real products to export for which would be demand on the world market. The manufacturing and industry sector in "poor" countries tends to be nonexistent.

ya.ya.yo!

[rphk]

In 1970, the world’s rich countries agreed to give 0.7% of their gross national income as official international development aid, annually.
Since that time, billions have certainly been given each year, but rarely have the rich nations actually met their promised target.For example, the US is often the largest donor in dollar terms, but ranks amongst the lowest in terms of meeting the stated 0.7% target.


Furthermore, aid has often come with a price of its own for the developing nations. Common criticisms, for many years, of foreign aid, have included the following:

Aid is often wasted on conditions that the recipient must use overpriced goods and services from donor countries
Most aid does not actually go to the poorest who would need it the most
Aid amounts are dwarfed by rich country protectionism that denies market access for poor country products

now every country is growing up , and there lot of countries helping other countries also , but it depends on the country how they co -operate with each other, if one country helps in economy ,the other country something in another way , that's how relationship between country works, it is not poor or rich.

[HabBear]

You should check out the documentary Poverty, Inc. -> http://www.povertyinc.org/

The doc highlights the challenges with Western charity toward impoverished countries. Often the impact is great in the first year, but then causes further problems as it eliminates opportunity for real businesses started by locals in the impoverished country to start to build their economy. The idea of giving is great, the application or implementation is challenging. The goal should be to enable people to start or participate in their economy, not to replace their economy.

Seriously, watch the doc!