Question: When dealing with poverty, should aid be administered to those at the bottom, or used to build long-term economic infrastructure?
I think most modern economists would agree that charitable money is best spent on building up a country’s infrastructure. You can spend all the money in the world on individual needs, but those needs will still exist tomorrow. The best course of action is to take some losses and work to develop a stable self-fueling market that allows its participants to fulfill their own needs, and not rely on marginal payouts from others who have perfected the system.
Abiding by Social Darwinist concepts, a nation that wishes to remain a player on the world stage must look after its own interests. Nations are inherently self-interested, and the only nations that exist today are those that remained strong enough to survive until the present day. If a nation loses the ability to take care of itself, it has lost the right to survive. Framing the issue in a humanitarian context is not a sufficient excuse to keep such a country in existence – if it cannot survive naturally, it should not be kept alive at the cost of others. Now, if a country wants to keep another alive by investing in their infrastructure, then that’s their prerogative. But looking after their every need and feeding their people one-by-one is undeserved, illogical, and uneconomical. It takes away national pride through labor, and does nothing to create individual workers or a working environment. If aid cannot be used to promote growth, then there is no use in giving any aid.
All this being said, I hearken back to one of our original questions, whether or not powerful countries should even consider assisting less-powerful countries. As I stated before, there must be incentive present. If a country receiving assistance could become a sort of client state to the country assisting it, then it may well be worth it. However, if the state in need of assistance poses a security threat, such as North Korea, or is a burgeoning political or economic force, such as India or Brazil, then aid should be administered in return for major concessions, if at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What do you think about foreign aid from the private sphere? Should they be allowed, as individual organizations to deal with indviduals' needs? I understand your realist approach, even if I don't necessaryly think the humanitarian aspect should just be thrown out. Perhaps you would allow individuals to cover that aspect?
That's an acceptable alternative. It's anyone's right to decide how to spend their money, and if they don't expect anything in return, then good for them. Private groups are welcome to contribute however they please, since they don't function on quite the same level as nation-states.
Post a Comment