Okay, so we dont drift further off topic in another thread, should we contributing more aid, less aid or a different form of aid to third world countries?

It would be pretty difficult to argue for less aid, given the imbalances in wealth, between rich nations and poor nations which have got worse over the years if anything.


I think the issue isn't that it is different aid as such, i.e. there is already aid for development as well as aid for emergencies etc, but the issue is the politics involved, and has been historically. (which is no different to domestic matters in fact, too much money is wasted and political agendas get in the way of what is common sense)

International Politics (and self interest) is determining how the money is spent, and this can never be good. Indeed forcing rich nation's own capitalist structures and ideals etc is certainly not the answer. Even the transnational NGOs that disperse Aid have their own agenda and spend their time being accountable to the donors of aid (which is understandable) but this doesn't mean their actions are always the right ones for the receipients of aid.

Bottom line, rich countries, who control the organisations that have the most power, need to back off, they do need to contribute more, but they need to work with local governments better and allow countries to develop their own way out of poverty instead of practically dictating what gets done.

So, it's not a different form of Aid that is needed, it is a different form of governance.

It's all very well to send aid in the form of education or organisations who support and facilitate devleopment but if you're not allowed to trade as freely as those countries that are supplying the aid what is the point of developing?

Hard to disagree with either of your points. I do not think we should be sending more aid at present but largely for both the reasons you state above. The problem I suppose is as Helen states, while the West determines what aid is given were, countries will progress along Western ideals. I am not sure I like this as cultures lose their identity and end up like Japan, were traditions are something that you only rarely see in more rural areas.

I do believe in spreading the wealth but have an issue with sending aid abroad when we are not able to distribute aid effectively to the people who need it in this country.

But even in developed nations such as ours, while there is certainly poverty, we do not have depressingly high mortality rates in children under 5 simply because they do not have access to clean water, or high instances of Aids and other illnesses. Not many of us have to walk ten miles a day to get a bucket of dirty water. we don't have to feed that water to our kids, or wash in it, spreading yet more disease.

Poverty here is a different thing entirely (for the most part). It might mean a struggle for some to keep up, afford a house etc, but flawed as they are, welfare systems and labour protection ensure that the large majority of those who are not deemed as "well off" are not living on the street and surviving on a dollar a day or less (even though they might not be living in desirable areas and enjoying luxury items - which are things as simple as TVs and fridges to people who really are in poverty)

Arguably some of the true root causes of those who get left behind in developed nations in the wealth stakes might be the same though.