Is development-aid even detrimental to poor countries?

THR

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
1,010
The EU has committed to a target that by the year 2015 every member-state will donate the UN-recommendation of 0.7% of the national GDP to development aid. Thus far Norway, Sweden and Denmark have been the only countries which have met that target.

Is development aid then a good thing? In the short run yes but perhaps not in the long run. According to a Zambian doctor of economics, Dambisa Moyo, even on the contary, development aid has destroyed the economies of Africa and has hindered any development.

Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and ... - Google-kirjat

Of course, there is a lot of attention-seeking involved in her view but also a grain of truth.
 


A Time for Every Purpose

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
391
Totally agree with the idea that TOO MUCH aid of any kind is corruptive of human endeavour.
All people must struggle to learn,must Want to solve problems ,to help themseves .
Strategic AID, whether it is to Africa or the unemployed, or aid seekers is part of Helping those weho want to help them selves ,those who have correct attitudes to others ,and society as a whole.
But to allow people to become dependant scroungers,demeans both the giver and the taker. For one is eventually incapable of independant honest action,
and the giver resents being deprived ,of his hard won money etc.

There is of course the power hungry bureacratic mind,which enjoys the power it has over both givers [tax payers] and the corrupted reciever.
These are the unelected European Bureaucrats.
 

Éireann go Brách

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
1,546
The EU has committed to a target that by the year 2015 every member-state will donate the UN-recommendation of 0.7% of the national GDP to development aid. Thus far Norway, Sweden and Denmark have been the only countries which have met that target.

Is development aid then a good thing? In the short run yes but perhaps not in the long run. According to a Zambian doctor of economics, Dambisa Moyo, even on the contary, development aid has destroyed the economies of Africa and has hindered any development.

Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and ... - Google-kirjat

Of course, there is a lot of attention-seeking involved in her view but also a grain of truth.
I will comment on effectives of development aid later if I get a chance.

but
what annoys me is this 0.7% of GDP target
Our leaders and the professional AID industry are lying to the people
when they use this target. I think Ireland is currently is at about 0.5% now
People hear this and they think "0.5 ah Sure thats nothing thats only 50 cent out of every hundred euros we have."

The reality is we in time of a depression in 2009 transferred 2% of all the taxes rasied out of the country to regimes like Uganda and Ethipioa
671 million thats 2% of the tax take in 2009
http://www.politics.ie/foreign-affairs/141170-roi-overseas-development-2011-2014-a.html

In times of defiect and expanding National debt surely this target is erroneous and gives a false picture of what we are spending as a ratio to the National wealth.

The 0.7% of GDP target is an erroneous target in times of debt
This lie at the heart of the ODA industry needs to be exposed
I wonder what the people would think if eduated as to the scale of your giving.
 

b.a. baracus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,203
The elephant in the room is population growth. Ethiopia had c35m people during the major famine in the mid 1980's. Think Live Aid etc.

Ethiopia now has c70m people only 25 years later. Completely unsustainable population growth is literally killing any chance of these countries getting themselves out of the horrendous situation they are in.
 

Aristodemus

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
3,693
Just throwing good money away
 

THR

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
1,010
Very few people say that all development aid should be scrapped altogether. However, what is needed is some sort of accountability how the money is used so that the old cliche about poor people of rich countries funding rich people of poor countries wouldn't turn out to be the truth.
 

junius

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,675
'Development Aid' is a farce from start to finish! If the globalised 'developed' world did not steal the resources of so called 'third world countries' and did not impose 'western (so-called) civilisation' and values on the native people of those countries, then they could get along very nicely all by themselves. If western greed and grubby power mongers did not exist, the world would be a much better, much more diversified and much more interesting place for everybody. All development aid is pure unadultered greed from 21st century humans who unfortunately are ignorant, ill educated and greedy as hell to exploit, even if they have to pretend they're helping 'third world' countries.
 

Panopticon

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5,575
The elephant in the room is population growth. Ethiopia had c35m people during the major famine in the mid 1980's. Think Live Aid etc.

Ethiopia now has c70m people only 25 years later. Completely unsustainable population growth is literally killing any chance of these countries getting themselves out of the horrendous situation they are in.
You are saying:
1. Ethiopia had 35m people and famine.
2. Ethiopia now has 70m people and no famine.
3. Large populations are unsustainable and stop countries improving.

I suggest that your argument is unsound.
 

THR

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
1,010
When you have time, watch these six episodes of the supposed famine in Niger which did not even exist but a lot of money was poured in there:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4SYM8JsDg4]YouTube - "The Famine Scam" part 1 of 6[/ame]
 

Éireann go Brách

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
1,546
You are saying:
1. Ethiopia had 35m people and famine.
2. Ethiopia now has 70m people and no famine.
3. Large populations are unsustainable and stop countries improving.

I suggest that your argument is unsound.
Its called demographic disentrapment
Demographic.disentrapment



A community is demographically trapped if there are too many people for the land to support [they have exceeded the carrying capacity of their ecosystem], AND they have nowhere to go, AND they have too few goods and services to exchange for food and other essentials. The result is the severest poverty, stunting, starvation, and commonly violence.


note the following graphic AID is continous and how ethiopia is dependent on it.
Untitled Document
Ethiopia has the reputation of being demographically trapped. Here is a preliminary attempt to document it.
The continuing need for food aid is a good indication of entrapment. Ethiopia shows this particularly clearly.

Population and food aid in Ethiopia. In 1900 Ethiopia's population is estimated to have been 5 million, it is presently about 70 million and is projected to be about 170 million by 2050.

FAO first record food aid it as having been required in 1970. There was a dramatic increase in 1984 with the Live Aid initiative, and an irregular increase subsequently. In 1991 about a million tonnes were required for about 50 million people. Since 250 kg of grain are required per person per year, a tonne feeds four people for a year. A million tones therefore feeds 4 milllion people. So food aid supplied about 8% of Ethiopia's food requirements in that year - without taking account of the unmet needs of much chronic malnutrition. More recent data are not available.

Ethiopia's total fertility is still 6.14 (2000 - 2005), having been 7 in the 1970s. Its population growth rate is 2.69
%
Ethiopia - Population




 

Panopticon

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5,575
Its called demographic disentrapment
Demographic.disentrapment
I am quite amused by the large red arrows you marshal in support of your argument, but you still don't see that Ethiopia is perfectly capable of supporting more people today than it was during a famine! The lesson is that technology, not mere human numbers, determines the ability of a country to sustain its standard of living. I see no logical argument, only scare-mongering about a world full of lots of Africans.
 

jcdf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
3,738
Africa's problems are severe and endemic. Development Aid contributes to exacerbating the symptoms but it is not the under lying cause. In a practical sense I do not think that altering or terminating development aid will change anything. Continual rapid population expansion will not help Africa either.
 

Éireann go Brách

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
1,546
I am quite amused by the large red arrows you marshal in support of your argument, but you still don't see that Ethiopia is perfectly capable of supporting more people today than it was during a famine! The lesson is that technology, not mere human numbers, determines the ability of a country to sustain its standard of living. I see no logical argument, only scare-mongering about a world full of lots of Africans.
Its not my graph and its not my Ideas its Maurice Henry Kings.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic.disentrapment/curriculum.htm
If so, there must be something else to be done? What was it? I like to think that I passed my 20 years in Africa usefully, but I still felt that something was missing. I only found my life's work a few years before I was due to retire - demographic entrapment, or rather disentrapment, a term which I had to invent, and in which it seems, most curiously, that I am almost the solo practitioner!
Yes you are correct technology plays a big role. For example technology
has allowed Japan to Fish for its food all over the world on a massive scale
but thats not sustainable in the long run as wild fish stocks fall.
Its not technology thats the critical factor but its the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. Japan accounts for nearly 15% of the global fish catch
Japan is the world's second biggest economy but it struggles to produce enough food.The government says only 39% of the food the Japanese need is grown in Japan. In contrast Britain produces 70% of the food its population needs and France more than 120%.

Why then did Iran, China and India (just 3 examples)
introduce population control mesures. Why Asia but not Africa.
Its the Hardinian taboo.

If you read my post and read the links and studied the graph;)
You would see that for example that ethiopia is dependent on food aid
to feed a siginifcant part of its population every year.
This AId is continous and massive so in practice The famine never stopped
The food shortages never stopped. Ethipoia is not feeding itself.
What will happen when and if OIL gets to 200 dollars/Barrell combined
with climate change events like the recent wild fires in russia
which stopped it exporting food -> mass death.
There's also the environmental cost.

Read please.
Untitled Document
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic.disentrapment/
 

jcdf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
3,738
The demographic argument is used too often in these discussions. I am not convinced by the Demographic 'disentrapment' hypothosis. However if Africa's population growth does not slow then any economic growth that occurs will be continuously negated and many of the Africans will continue living in poor conditions, thus changing nothing.

Also remember that other parts of the developed and developing world are going to increasingly demand more raw materials and food as time passes. More for them will mean less for the powerless like the Africans. This will occur even if there are massive increases in productivity.

When you have time, watch these six episodes of the supposed famine in Niger which did not even exist but a lot of money was poured in there:

YouTube - "The Famine Scam" part 1 of 6
Doctors Without Borders, I received a letter from them recently, looking for money predictably. I question the meaningful impact of organisations like these.
 

Éireann go Brách

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
1,546
There are 4 variables at play.

Disentrapment

Disentrapment is removing *entrapment in any possible way - getting out of ‘the demographic trap’. Theoretically, this could be done by suitably adjusting any of the four variables that determine it. Variable (a) would need to be decreased, and the others increased. All are difficult.

Variable (a) is population growth. Although it is argued that everything possible should be done to improve all the entrapment variables, so as to promote disentrapment, this is the most neglected one, and the one that is potentially most amenable to change, as with the Chinese experience. Since most trapped communities have not yet reached the definitive stage with starvation and violence, it is particularly important to reduce population growth in the warning stage, especially since mothers in Middle Africa commonly have six children.

Variable (b), carrying capacity, is largely dependent on soil fertility. In Middle Africa the problem is less how to increase it, than how to stop it falling further. In the hot thin soils of Africa the organic matter, on which soil fertility depends, is quickly oxidised away by the soil biota, and the nutrients washed out of it by heavy rains, so that soil fertility is falling almost everywhere. (22) The surest way to restore this fertility is to leave fields fallow for 20 years, so that trees grow again, their roots can return organic matter to the soil, and can mine the subsoil for inorganic nutrients. During this time no crops are grown, so that carrying capacity for man is low. Unfortunately, increasing population pressure has meant that there are usually no fallow periods, and when there are any, they are always short.

Although there are technical difficulties in defining carrying capacity exactly, depending, for example, on the difference between good seasons and bad ones, it is only too real in our villages. For example, at an annual maize consumption of 250 kg per person, and a maize yield of 1 tonne per hectare, which is typical for Malawi, its carrying capacity is four people to the hectare. The common argument that carrying capacity does not apply to man is Demon 40. (23)

Variable (c)
, migration, includes migration into the land of neighbouring tribes, and migration northwards into the EU - the concern of Demon 24 (see above). Although the Congo DRC, for example, may seem to be vast, it is in reality 200 little ‘Congos’, each language group seldom being willing to share its land with its neighbours. Although its central rain forest may seem to be under-populated, it is unsuitable for permanent agriculture.

Variable (d), economic development, sufficient to procure the necessary imports, puts Africa in competition with China, which now floods the world, including Africa and India, with cheap manufactures, combining as it does, a high-tech sector, with a hinterland of labour at third world wages. Economic development cannot therefore be seen as being sufficiently fast to ‘disentrap’ Africa on a wide scale, where indeed it is occurring at all.

Untitled Document
 

Panopticon

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5,575
The demographic argument is used too often in these discussions. I am not convinced by the Demographic 'disentrapment' hypothosis. However if Africa's population growth does not slow then any economic growth that occurs will be continuously negated and many of the Africans will continue living in poor conditions, thus changing nothing.
Economic growth is not separate from population growth. The extra people seem to be able to feed themselves.
 

jcdf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
3,738
Éireann go Brách Asia's attempts at population control have been far from uniformly successful. Iran, India and particularly west Asia's populations continue to grow at a substantial pace.

I do not buy into the carrying capacity of the ecosystem thesis. Humans have and continue to become increasingly independent of their immediate ecosystem.

Japan and England might not be food independent but they are technologically, economically, industrially and militarily dominate nations.
 

Éireann go Brách

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
1,546
Éireann go Brách Asia's attempts at population control have been far from uniformly successful. Iran, India and particularly west Asia's populations continue to grow at a substantial pace.

I do not buy into the carrying capacity of the ecosystem thesis. Humans have and continue to become increasingly independent of their immediate ecosystem.

Japan and England might not be food independent but they are technologically, economically, industrially and militarily dominate nations.
Yes but India and Iran have attempted population control.
I think the new guy in Iran is trying to resevere it as he wants muslims
to take over world.
The Chinese government estimates that it had three to four hundred million fewer people in 2008 with the one-child policy, than it would have had otherwise.

Carrying capacity?
No-ya Jose we need Nature. The assumption that, although carrying capacity may apply to other species, it does not apply to us
is a fallacy.

Japan only grows 39% of its food
Japan catchs 15% of the worlds fish catch
Now watch this film
The End of the Line :: Home Page
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bedirwk95Oc]YouTube - The End of the Line Trailer[/ame]
Japan (and other countries) are outstripping the carrying capacity of the
oceans to provide them with wild fish stocks.

and bear in mind international trade can be disrupted
by an energy shock(peak oil) or a climate change or war.
What will Japan do when the OIL is 200 dollars /Barrall and the Oceans are dead?




Importance of Biodiversity
one billion people

At the end of the day, biological diversity is undoubtedly one of the most important components of the ecosystem. That being said, the onus is on us to understand the importance of biodiversity conservation, and implement wildlife conservation measures to save our ecosystem. A rubber band tends to stretch as long as we pull it, but there comes a point of time when it snaps and hurts our own hand. The behavior of nature is not much different, and the more we try to stretch it, the more severe will be its impact on our lives when it snaps.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top