I have been planning to publish my first post after researching and talking to many people about different topics related to development. Since I am more of a journalist than a blogger, I decided to take the time in preparing my blog posts and to research the topics as much as possible until I am confident they represent the points of view of different stakeholders. And this is what I have been doing since the launching conference of TH!NK 3!
But last week there came something that struck me: I was moderating a workshop on what should be the position of the European Union in the world for the next ten years. The participants were all young Europeans from nine EU countries having with one thing in common: their year of birth. 1989.
At a certain point, we came to the conclusion that the EU should continue to offer support to developing countries in the next ten years. And then the argument for this item was the thing that struck me: "Africa has resources, therefore we need to be there and to offer this continent support. We need their resources". So everything I heard before about the reasons of providing aid to African countries came back to my mind. The young participant who said this didn't mention the kids dying of malnutrition on the African continent. She didn't say anything about the young girls like herself in need of attending school and be given the chance to develop their potential just like she did. No. We need their resources. That's it. Providing aid is what keeps the EU Member States close to the source of these resources, according to the 20 year old girl.
Was she trying to shock the others? Maybe! Was she being realistic? Probably! Didn't she really care about the kids and the young African girls? Who knows?
And this brought me to a few questions that I heard before and have been thinking about before:
- Why are countries using a part of their taxpayers' money on other states from the developing world?
- Is this a humanitarian gesture? Is it because the governments of these states have a vision? Or is it maybe just an issue of being selfish and being close to the resources, as the young girl stated today in the workshop?
- Are we being realistic when we talk about financial aid given to developing countries? Is that aid really helping the countries it goes to?
- What do people from the developing countries think about foreign aid?
These are all questions that I will be exploring in some of my future posts. Coming soon on your computer's monitor!
credits: "Dora Benko"/ http://www.youthmedia.eu, CC-License
Interesting blog topic, and one that you will find is very complex and hard to find a conclusive answer.
Maybe instead of ‘help’, you could change it to ‘co-operate’. Aid is normally a one way thing, the EU simply gives financial aid for specific projects, if the focus changed to co-operation, where Africa gains knowledge from the EU, through technological transfers in agriculture, through accepting differing cultures and political systems, there will be a clear benefit for both.
There is a lot of literature on aid, Africa has received more in aid than the Marshall Plan, and there is still not one country on the continent that doesn’t have big developmental problems, or is classified as a Developed Country through income.
This article is so very insightful and really makes me think and wonder are we really helping in these countries to help those so desperately in need, or because we need what those countries have! I really hadn’t thought about any of this until I read this article! You are a very bright and talented young journalist and I can’t wait to see how far you go!
Hello Carmen,
“Africa has resources, therefore we need to be there and to offer this continent support. We need their resources”
Let’s assume that this would be the only reason. Nothing wrong with that is it?
What is wrong though is if we want to have it against unfair prices and by doing harm to flora and fauna.
As long as there is a fair profit in it for Africans, I don’t see why this would be bad.
Thank you all for your comments.
@Stanley: I agree with you that aid is normally unidirectional. I tried to keep the words of the young girl as unaltered as possible. That is why I left “help”.
@Lottie: I guess that’s why we are all in this competition Lottie, to wonder and to explore some issues that, as Stanley says, are very complex and hard to find a conclusive answer to.
@Johan: Yes Johan, if it’s the only reason it’s not nothing wrong with it. What I feel it makes it wrong is that we sometimes put it under the principle of “solidarity”, “humanity”, “vision to end poverty”. I would appreciate if we could be more sincere about it, just like this young girl was. And then again, aid seems to be a way to get access to the African resources in a privileged way. These are the 2 problems that I see.
“What do people from the developing countries think about foreign aid?”
I come from a developing country (Mexico) where aid arrives to different areas, almost all the time to indigenous regions. And in the same country, from big cities they give aid to the southern states.
From my perspective, foreign aid is welcome as for the people, it might not have “second interests”, contrary to what you mentioned in your article. Sometimes because of politics and politicians wanted to be liked, people do not trust their own national aid and prefer international aid. But in most of the cases, any help is well-received.
Dear Andrea, thanks for your input. I think aid is very connected to politics since many times it comes to the politicians that run a country to spend the (financial) aid they are getting from foreign donors.
I have explored the topic of what people think about foreign aid their country receives and I will come back with a special post on it.
In the same time, I am very interested to hear your point of view on the international aid Mexico is getting, how it’s being spent, by how and what’s the impact.
The concept of foreign aid is a complex issue. In developing countries like the Philippines, foreign aid is taken with guarded optimism as this is usually tied with policies that are not always “friendly” to ordinary consumers—such as say, for example, higher taxes.
How is foreign aid generating the increase in taxes, Cecilia? Can you explain this a little bit more in detail?
Mexico gets international aid for two main issues:
- Narco: Drug dealing. Security assistance, especially from the United States. Mexico is the bridge between Latin America and the US, this makes it difficult for the country as all of the drugs, and black markets, that come from the south have to pass the frontier to the to the US.
- Poverty: Indigenous regions, in the south, live in very poor situations. (I wrote a little article on education and mayan indigenous: http://development.thinkaboutit.eu/think3/post/mayan_children_and_education_in_mexico ) I have seen different NGO’s working with education, free-trade programs, empowerment of women, etc.
The impact is BIG. As I said before, all help is well-received and it changes lives! If at least one family gets help, and gets out of poverty, it all matters so much!
Interesting… while we might like to think otherwise, I’d say the young participant was being pretty realistic, at least if she’s talking about aid from governmental agencies. There can be little doubt that countries seek to use international assistance to further their own objectives. It would make no sense for the UK, US or wider EU to invest tax payers money into Africa if it directly undermined their own position. Whether it is directly aimed at getting resources, or stabilising a region, improving international standing or fulfilling obligations it’s unlikely it’s to be motivated by pure altruism. Like Johan says however, as long as it’s achieving positive outcomes for the recipients then the motivation doesn’t necessarily matter.
I agree with you Jodi. But then speeches that say the governments of 189 “had a vision to end poverty” make me mad. Because I think we should quit this nice but shaddy rethoric and put things into perspective in a very realistic way.
Foreign aid, whether it is given militarily, financially or through humanitarian support, is strictly tied to a nation’s agenda. If it is not beneficial to that nation, support will not be given. Every country in the world has the “give and take” policy, what would we gain if we do this? If the action improves your country’s international reputation, military advantage, or economical situation among other issues, then it is definitely a reasonable action. All these factors are prioritized; it all depends on a country’s overall strategy on pursuing its own interests.
@Stanley- There are several factors why nations in the African continent are still developing. The one factor that stands out the most is corruption, it has a crippling effect on the economy, and most countries in the world have this problem, developed or undeveloped.
@Johan- If you think about what’s fair and what’s right when dealing with economics, you’ll never prosper as a nation. Every country wants to have the advantage, to be rich and powerful. Think about how many other nations are in competition to acquire resources for a cheaper price. If you back out of that deal, you just lost that opportunity and somebody else is taking that spot no matter if it’s unfair or it will harm the environment.
Are the countries giving aid interested to combat corruption in the countries they’re giving aid to?
It depends if corruption is working for or against their interests in that specific country. If it is working against the supporting nation’s interests, then logically it would be necessary to provide support in suppressing corruption. But if not, the supporting nation will not intervene because there are more important and urgent issues that need to be dealt with than something that has no impact on their interests at all. There is also a limit on the degree of intervention that countries providing aid cannot exceed.
hi Carmen,
To address your question—for example—in the Philippines, some of the multilateral lenders give aid on the condition that the government would implement policies that would improve its fiscal situation such as an increase in taxes.
Everybody should know that you cannot effectively improve your fiscal situation solely by increasing taxes; you will also have to reduce government spending in order to alleviate some of the burden on the people. Higher taxes generally leads to the majority of the people spending less money, which then causes a slight slowdown of the economy. If it is not handled carefully, it will have a tremendous negative impact on the economic growth of that country. It will just attract unwanted protests and opposition against the government, that is why that option is not feasible in most countries. So I seriously doubt that it is the only condition presented and offered for providing aid. It is smart to offer alternative conditions that are more viable than requiring a state to improve their fiscal situation solely by increasing taxes. Those “alternative conditions” are usually presented behind closed doors and not shared with the media, especially issues dealing with regional or national security.
I am glad that my post has somehow generated a debate that brought in topics I didn’t get to touch in my entry. I must say I don’t know much about fiscal policies and the way to improve them, so the inputs of Iris and Paul are really valuable for me as I am learning new things.
Welcome to the platform, Carmen.
Thanks Clare. I was already in, just not visibly active. But the time has come! Looking forward to some great 4 months of debating about the world most challenging issues!
On my side there are a lot of reasons, some are pure humanity, some are business related. There are still discussions why EU keep enlarging and who lobbies that, for what reasons?
Good questions, but I guess any country or group in need would ask them!