Aid or Economy? (1 Viewer)

[katie_tully]

For RFTG I've been doing heaps of research on globalisation. Anyway I came across this neato document giving a pro for globalisation. Anywho, it says:

"If poor countries could get access to just one percent more of the value of world trade, it would lift well over 100 million people out of poverty through the economic growth and jobs created"

Okay, that said...Would money being spent on aid, be better off directed to building and lifting up an economy for these countries? Nations dolling out a heap of money every year to third world nations so far isn't helping.

So would it make sense for larger nations to help strugging nations by kick starting an economy, so that they can gain benefits from world trade?

 

[Jesus!]

There is quite alot to support pro globalisation. It's hardly new to suggest that those nations who are the poorest need to open up their economies.

Is globalisation reducing poverty? The answer is a BIG FAT YES.

Ill attach some journal articles.

 

[Rafy]

Well, aid imho tends to put a country into a pepetual cycle of reliance on aid, which is not desirable

However, globalistaion can do great things for and economy, and if the economy of a nation is stregthened the they have a greater opporttunity to escape from povety.

 

[jumb]

Its good for holiday-ers that our money is worth more then theirs.

 

[katie_tully]

Yeah I realise globalisation is reducing poverty.
Corporations account for 75% of growth in developmental countries with the other 25% from Aid.
I think it's fruitless to keep handing out billions in Aid, when if we structure some sort of economy for them they're not going to need handouts... to an extent.
I'm not saying abolish aid completely, but perhaps redistrubute the funds.
That said, is it exactly clear where all the money goes to? Billions is handed out each year, but the problem only ever seems to get worse.

 

[katie_tully]

I gotta print that off and highlight it so I don't forget it... and so I understand it.
Reply pending.

 

[Generator]

Though some, such as Cooper (2001), may disagree with the implicit notions of globalisation, it is clear that contemporary transformations within our societies are taking place, with Jackson (2004: 165) preferring the phrase ‘globalising world’ to one that is already globalised. However, the scope of such change remains in question. Despite this, Amin (2004: 223) notes that ‘there is growing recognition that one of the distinctive achievements of contemporary globalisation is the routinisation of a new spatial ontology based on network forms and flows of varied geographical composition, reach and duration’.

One section of an essay that I pulled out of my arse back in October... The important bit, anyway.

 

[katie_tully]

Yes.... But, do we agree that constantly giving Aid perhaps isn't the best way, and that if we can get these countries on their own feet it will be far more beneficial for the people?

 

[Generator]

The most 'successful' developing nation-states of recent years have been those in Asia (the tigers and the geese) and it should be noted that their level of economic success is almost entirely dependent upon striking a balance between opening up to the global market and maintaining governmental regulation in order to ensure effective growth.

Effective aid is required, and so is ensuring that global or world trade is as fair or effective as possible... There isn't much point in opening up to the world when the trading networks are far from global in reach and when the larger economies retain protectionist policies despite their stance on 'free' trade.

 

[MuffinMan]

Do the countries who recieve the aid have to pay it back when their economy gets better

 

[katie_tully]

So why isn't this happening on a broader scale? Surely it has to be more economically viable for the nations giving out billions in aid every year? Is it because giving out aid is a quick fix solution, and would not take as much energy as a long term solution would?

Can somebody tell me where the money goes to when it is given out? Is there an audit available for governments to see where their aid money is going? So much is given out but it looks as though it is doing so little for these nations. An economy is going to be twice as effective for eradicating poverty, disease, etc than constant cash hand outs.
This is something the UN should focus on, unifying the wealthier nations so that they can assist in atleast jump starting an economy for the poorer nations.
The main problem with these nations is that the produce mainly raw materials which are susceptible to price swings, but surely there is a way that the impact can be reduced?

 

[katie_tully]

The most 'successful' developing nation-states of recent years have been those in Asia (the tigers and the geese) and it should be noted that their level of economic success is almost entirely dependent upon striking a balance between opening up to the global market and maintaining governmental regulation in order to ensure effective growth.

Effective aid is required, and so is ensuring that global or world trade is as fair or effective as possible... There isn't much point in opening up to the world when the trading networks are far from global in reach and when the larger economies retain protectionist policies despite their stance on 'free' trade.

Ah yes, is this because they're going from no economy to global economy and have no protection? They're expected to be able to perform at a global level without having an established local economy?

 

[Generator]

Often jumpstarting an economy is far from a priority... You only have to look at Africa in general to see that despite its more than obvious levels of commodity-based wealth the political situation is just far too 'messed up' for any level of economic investment to be worthwhile.

Many developing nation-states are also corrupt (against Australian standards), so aid donations may well be diverted from their intended target.

Australia's recent aid package to Indonesia seems to be an attempt to head towards what you are suggesting.

 

[katie_tully]

Ahh yes, our aid effort.
Call me skeptical, but I don't see the majority of that money going to where it is needed. I see it going to adminsitration

I was thinking about Africa when I was reading the stuff. I don't know what the solution is over there. Zimbabwe? had a fantastic agricultural economy, and now look at it. I guess it really depends on whether the named government of that country wants to better their country, as to whether they'll co-operate.

 

[Generator]

Ah yes, is this because they're going from no economy to global economy and have no protection? They're expected to be able to perform at a global level without having an established local economy?

In my eyes, it isn't a case of no economy to global economy, but rather of weak to strong (or strong enough) on the global/world stage.

 

[paper cup]

the economy, definitely. I have battered my legal studies teacher to hell and back with my economy is the backbone of everything theory. once you get the economy fixed up everything should fall in place, more or less. it won't be a perfect jigsaw puzzle but it will work.
aid often lands in the hands of corrupt govts who spend the money on things other than their people's welfare.