Ending poverty does come at a price: 70 cents

Adam Diver says:

04:21pm | 29/04/10

Also is the $1.25 adjusted for inflation? I sure hope so or the picture may be must worse.

Nate says:

09:58am | 30/04/10

I can’t agree more, RT. We see that restrictions on trade, restrictions on liberty, corruption and despotism all go han-in-hand with extreme poverty. One need only look at Chavez in Venezuela and Mugabe in Zimbabwe to see which follows which. Zimbabwe is much further along, but Venezuela is fast catching up. The global numbers are being heavily skewed by China and India who have both seen their dividends being returned only after they began participating in the global economic marketplace. Hooray for capitalism!

Lucy says:

10:14am | 30/04/10

It used to be $1 per day but has been adjusted for inflation

Laura says:

10:20am | 29/04/10

Improving living standards has been proven to lower birth rates therefore slowing population growth.

Better educated women are more likely to marry later and have less children.  Lowering infant mortality rates, improving maternal health and ensuring that the children born receive food, clean water and an education reduces the number of children parents in developing countries have.

Just look at Australia where 1.78 children are born per women.

Eradicating extreme poverty will not lead to overpopulation.  Doing nothing will.

Jenni says:

01:20pm | 29/04/10

“Overpopulation is at the heart of third world problems, and increasing the number of children is only going to make things worse. ” Could not have said it better myself! While I would not be infavour of forcing contraception onto Third World countries, it would be excellent if the people there at least had the choice.

Eric - you have posted on a few topics this morning (as always) and i find myself *most* uncharacteristically agreeing with you on most counts :| whatever is the world coming to??

Eric says:

02:41pm | 29/04/10

Jenni, you’re just coming over to the Dark Side^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H learning the truth!

d'Arcy says:

07:27pm | 03/05/10

Education, opportunity and less poverty = less children and if I need to spell it out… ‘less overpopulation’. I have the stats on it if you need but for now, Poverty = more children.

Bertrand says:

10:22am | 29/04/10

I think the Catholic Church spends more time saying “Don’t to have sex with people who have aids” then they spend preaching against condoms.  I think it is a bit difficult to blame them for aids.

Bernice says:

04:58pm | 29/04/10

“Could 20c of that 70c go towards closing the health, education and life expectancy gap for indigenous Australians?”
If we gave 70 cents out of every $100 of our GNI, that still leaves us with $99 and 30 cents. Surely that’s enough? Australia certainly has issues with indigenous poverty, but Australia’s “poverty” is nowhere near as bad as poverty in developing countries. Having been to a developing country myself (Zambia), I can assure you that the scale of poverty is far worse. Remember that Indigenous Australians still have access to healthcare, education etc. but in developing countries going to a doctor or school is just not feasible.
“Furthermore, making people feel guilty about their morning coffee is not the way to win them around; poverty and philanthropy are complex issues.”
No one is trying to make you feel bad about buying a morning coffee. It is simply being put into perspective. If someone can afford to spend $3.50 a day on coffee (which they are more than entitled to do) another 70 cents is not going to hurt.

John A Neve says:

05:15pm | 29/04/10

Bernice,
Are you suggesting our social security system is lacking?
Just how much more social security do you want?

SkepDad says:

01:30am | 30/04/10

@Bernice:

“If we gave 70 cents out of every $100 of our GNI, that still leaves us with $99 and 30 cents. Surely that’s enough?”

If you earn $50,000, and you currently donate $145 (29c/$) of that to charity, and you’re being asked to up that to $350 (70c/$), how do you feel about that?  That’s an additional $205 that comes out of your kids’ education that will be mostly misappropriated or wasted or spent on salaries for the charity organisation staff.

The money doesn’t come from nowhere.  It comes at the expense of something else you value.  It’s not 70c - it’s 70c of *every single* $100.  The coffee analogy is bogus.

Emilie says:

05:00am | 02/05/10

Skepdad, if you were living off $1.25 a day and had no way to educate your children and were barely feeding your children… how would you feel about that?

“That’s an additional $205 that comes out of your kids’ education that will be mostly misappropriated or wasted or spent on salaries for the charity organisation staff” = small minded assumption of the minority ruining it for the majority. The charity organisation staff still need to live and have income too you know!

If Bernice is arguing that 70 cents out of every 100 dollars is not going to hurt, then from her perspective it is not going to hurt! If she wants that amount if foreign aid to occur then she is willing to donate that from her tax too.

Alicia says:

12:38pm | 29/04/10

“More funding means more babies means more suffering…”

I hope I’ve got this terribly wrong, but you’re not *actually* suggesting that the way to help the developing world is to cut aid and therefore let people die?

I mean sure - if most of the population dies off, there’ll be “less suffering” because there are fewer people to suffer. Still a pretty callous and short-sighted argument in favour of ingoring our commitment to aid.

Ando says:

03:00pm | 29/04/10

Nice point, but where is it going Marvis? Foreign aid doesn’t just equate to more babies. 

Typically, modern funding improves education, local opportunities and lifestyles.  Aid doesn’t only arrive as truckloads of food and bottled water - we’ve progressed from that.

It has assisted in developing these parts of the world creating opportunities for a better life.  There are even positive offshoots, such as giving commercial alternatives to tribal hunting of endangered animals at the point of extinction. 

Yes you heard correctly, even the wildlife get to have more babies.

Adam Diver says:

04:27pm | 29/04/10

“Still a pretty callous and short-sighted argument in favour of ingoring our commitment to aid.”

Foreign aid is the short-sighted solution to this problem and always has been. With a government unable to spend our money on us with any moderate success, I fail to see why they are responsible for spending aid overseas. As I see it there is just not enough targets, measures, checks and balances on money spent (here and) overseas.

Also Aid addresses the symptoms and not the causes of these issues. Let charities fund the aid and governments work on solutions (which won’t happen) so this argument goes around and around.

Gina says:

07:16pm | 29/04/10

It’s easy to point the finger at ‘Overseas aid groups’ because it eradicates the responsibility for wealthy nations to act against poverty.

Can’t be be above that sort of petty finger pointing?

More funding does not mean more babies. Improved health care and education reduce family size and increase self-sufficiency, meaning less need for aid.

But honestly, what if it did mean more babies? If they’re healthy, educated babies who are able to participate in a more just global economy is there really a problem? Personally I think the ‘oh no we’ll make them healthy and they’ll breed like rabbits’ brigade are driven by their own bigotry and not any real concern for the state of the world and the people in it.

Jenni Downes says:

11:12am | 29/04/10

Aid agencies are very open about this sort of information - every year, their Annual Reports contain precise and detailed information about exactly how all money is spent, and these reports are all easily available on their websites.

For example, if you go to Oxfam’s website and click ‘About Us’ the answer to your question is displayed prominently right at the top of the page. If you click through for more details, this is the answer you get:

For every $1 Oxfam spends:
* 73c is used to directly support our development, advocacy, and humanitarian programs around the world
* 16c is invested to generate future income
* 11c is spent on essential administration

World Vision, in their annual report for 2009, reports their breakdown as being:

* Administration is 7.3% of all money spent
* Fundraising is 8.7% of all money spent
* The remaining 84% goes to overseas programs.

(Note that the difference between WV and Oxfam is not ‘waste’ on Oxfam’s behalf - World Vision is much bigger and therefore acheives greater economies of scale than Oxfam)

AusAID also has a department setup specifically to monitor and improve the effectiveness of the the Australian Government’s spending. You can get lots of useful information here: http://www.ode.ausaid.gov.au/

Its easy to think that aid money gets wasted because the media are always very quick to pounce on any single occurence, but as the article says, what we don’t see are all the positive stories - things like the figures that I just found in 5 min on the internet, showing that more than 3/4 of the spending of Australia’s biggest charities goes to overseas development and advocacy work.

Eric says:

11:32am | 29/04/10

“Advocacy” in this context basically means “left-wing propaganda”.

No thanks.

Mavis says:

12:24pm | 29/04/10

“Development”, “advocacy”, “essential administration”, “programs” “Administration”? Are you winding us up Jenni?

There is nothing transparent about your fine sounding waffle. It is just middle class jibberish to hide the fact that aid agencies steal the money before food comes into the equation.

superdry says:

12:46pm | 29/04/10

Seriously Mavis?

I hate the implication of your comment - that aid organisations should turn over 100% of their funding to people in need. Aid organisations run off the scent of an oily rag at the best of times - you think that World Vision or Oxfam would be able to exist if they didn’t pay for the operations of the organisation.

It just kills me that there is still a perception that the best way to help people in developing nations is to fly over and build mud huts. Or throw food in their faces. This kind of ‘emergency-style’ aid, is nothing but a short term-solution which encourages total dependency on the part of the recipient.

I find your assertation that “aid agencies steal the money before food comes into the equation” utterly ludicrous. But then again - you probably think that hiring the best human rights lawyers to advocate for people in need is “stealing from the mouths of hungry babies”.

Mavis says:

01:48pm | 29/04/10

Superdry, Brilliant blog. I hope its not lost on the readers.

TC says:

05:13pm | 29/04/10

Superdry.

I live in a 3rd world country in SE Asia and see the employees of those aid organisations running off the scent of an oily rag. They appear to do so very well and are particularly generous to those who have been reduced to prostitution.
One particular gent from a major NGO arrived at a school for blind and deaf street kids in a swanky suit and a nice new Merc.  That will be that 73cents being directly spent on advocacy etc.
These organisations appear nice but are frequently hiding places for the truly evil in my experience

Mavis says:

12:12pm | 29/04/10

7%, you live in wally world. International aid never has and never can get people to the point where they slow down population growth. Ingrained factors underlie population growth. They include propensity to wage war, attitudes to women all lead to a populate or perish attitude.

International aid ALWAYS gets syphoned off by do-gooders such as yourself. Your high minded self-aggrandising comment “I won’t accept things as they are.” means you will lobby to make other people pay for your feel-good. I bet you won’t be stinting on yourself though.

Jenni Downes says:

03:00pm | 29/04/10

Hi Mavis, any possibility you can provide any evidence for your statement that “international aid never has and never can get people to the point where they slow down population growth” ?

Its just that information provided by international organisations such as the UN Population Fund, World Health Organisation, UN Development Program, etc. produce research demonstrating the link between reductons in poverty and the consequential drop in birth rates, particularly the effect of increased basic health, decreased child mortality rates and increased education rates particularly for girls on reducing birth rates. All of these things are assisted by foreign aid.

It appears from the way you labelled the statistics I provided above as “fine sounding waffle” (even though they came from published annual reports, which are public documents and audited not only by the charities’ accountants but also the ATO) that there is little point in actually finding and providing some of the statistics, but I would be very interested to know how you do come to your opinions?

Mavis says:

04:03pm | 29/04/10

Hi Jenny,

You seem like a decent well intentioned person. But it is your lot spruiking for our money. The burden of proof is for you to demonstrate where aid has slowed down population growth. Bet you cannot.

Your fine sounding figures are waffle. They do not demonstrate that aid money given actually reaches its goal, then having reached its goal has any lasting impact.

Conversely, I just did a simple google search and got 10,900,000 hits for “aid corruption.”

[“Public audited documents”, gee whizz you mean like the ones issued by Bear Sterns, Worldcom, HIH. Anyone in the know can assure you that they are rubbish.]

Sorry, but there is a GOOD reason to suspect people spruiking for aid.

AdamC says:

11:08am | 29/04/10

I agree, JJP, why is this 0.7% figure constantly bandies about? It seems quite arbitrary to me. I hadn’t been aware of where it came from, but it is little surprise it emanated from the UN General Assembly!

Martin G says:

11:11am | 29/04/10

It’s the magic number for the UN money grab. It’s always 0.7% for whatever cause. You may have noticed the latest one was AGW.

Jenni Downes says:

11:28am | 29/04/10

You’re right that the 0.7% aid target was first agreed to along time ago - 1960 to be precise. It was then reaffirmed in 1970, 1980, 1990 by the UN General Assembly, and then also at the 1992 Rio De Janeiro Conference on Environment and Development, the 1995 World Summit for Social Change and Development in Copenhagen.

However the really important moment for 0.7% came in 2000 as part of the Millennium Summit - the same summit at which the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were developed. (The MDGs are 8 specific, measurable goals with a series of targets and indicators that if met, could halve world poverty by 2015.) For the summit, leading world economists came together to calculate how much money would be needed for developing countries to meet the MDGs, how much of that the developing countries themselves could provide, and what the gap would be - ie. how much money would be required in aid to meet the MDGs. The figure that was arrived at was 0.5% of national income of rich countries. However the calculations did not take into account aid that was given from rich countries to meet their own interests, or aid used to maintain regional stability/security, so further calculations were done to estimate how much aid was needed so that the right amount was directed specifically to alleviating poverty. The second figure that was arrived at was so close to 0.7% that they left it at the figure that has been agreed to by world leaders so many times (the Aust. Govt included).

Also, to put into comparison rich country aid verse poor country resources, before the global food crisis and the other GFC (global financial crisis), the estimatedamount of money needed each year by 2015 to reach the Millennium Development Goals was $604 billion. Developing countries were estiamted to provide $450bn and rich countries to provide $154bn - so poor countries are actually providing 75% of the money needed to reach the MDGs.

superdry says:

01:15pm | 29/04/10

But individuals in Australia take so much personal responsibility! We’re the second most-generous personal givers to charity. If we have a culture of love and generosity, surely the government should pick up on that and lift their game?

Jeff says:

06:50pm | 29/04/10

Right with you superdry, they are spending our money in the end though. I think Australians are very generous and I would prefer for the balance to remain that way and continue on the same trajectory. Lower taxes would help!

Cat says:

09:56pm | 30/04/10

Vietnam and China - communism helped them to lift millions of people out of poverty AND YES IT WAS BEFORE THEY OPENED UP THEIR MARKETS.

Free trade is never free trade by the way - the US forces its agenda down the throats of developing nations and then stuffs up Doha because it isn’t willing to piss off its farmers by removing protectionist barriers from the agricultural industry - and agribusiness is one of the only inroads that the third world has for success with this ‘free trade business’ you talk about. Aid AND trade need to be used is a comprehensive plan to eradicate extreme poverty.

Also, Mavis, you sound like a Tory. Good luck with that.

Eric says:

02:43pm | 29/04/10

Other Eric, please use a different name. This one is taken.

Mavis says:

03:34pm | 29/04/10

A great analogy Eric.  Aid agencies are the church before the reformation.

They have cornered the spiritual market and their clergy dispense indulgences to the gullible flock to gain favour for the afterlife (ie feel-good). Luther and others protested that this was a con to subsidise the lifestyle of corrupt clergy in 1516.

In a similar way, ... do-gooders are able waste aid money without any sense of remorse. Just as the clergy depicted themselves in 1516, aid agencies perceive themselves to be on the higher moral ground and resent questions such as “what happened to the money”.

Bono and Sting and many others are conning us ... but don’t people love to be conned?

Jeff says:

07:03pm | 29/04/10

I have to disagree with you Eric, we have the choice to help address the needs of others or find a reason to do nothing.
The Bible says salvation is a free gift that can never be earned or achieved. Any good works I manage are a reflection of God’s love for me.

Will says:

10:56pm | 29/04/10

Whoa! Religious argument from nowhere! But if you’re saying that Australia increasing its budget for international aid and development doesn’t line up with Christianity there’s a few verses you should look at.

God loves everyone in the world (John 3:16), regardless of race or religion (Acts 10:34-35). Followers of Jesus are called to love (1 Cor 13) others. It’s not about being a do-gooder and making yourself feel good. (the rest is Matt 25:31-46) The reason christians are called to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick etc etc is the love that God has for every person and that christians should also have love for every person. We should treat every person as if they were Jesus himself because being a christian is first and foremost about loving other people, regardless of what situation they’re in.

how is limiting investment into third world aid and development going to do this?

ok, now that that is sorted out, i just want to say that i find your argument totally repugnant. you say that because you go to heaven if you are a christian, there is no point trying to improve life on earth. wtf? how is death and suffering ‘god’s will on earth’? how is being a ‘do-gooder’ , ie somebody who does good things, anything less than admirable? yea, good works alone can never get you into heaven (Rom 6), but good works are what god called christians to do.

you’re using terrible theology to misrepresent God’s salvation message and support a judgemental ‘holier than thou’ attitude so that you can rip on people (christian or otherwise) who are doing exactly what God has called christians to do. Loving people, working together and trying to make God’s kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven (lord’s prayer).

Sorry this is a bit off-topic guys, but as a christian i think that comment really needed a response.

Jeff says:

08:35pm | 30/04/10

Will, you’ve misunderstood me. It’s important that Australia is helping less fortunate countries, whether the money comes from individuals or the government it really comes from the same place - taxpayers. I would not want to see our contribution go south but I’d rather do the giving myself, to what I feel is the most important cause.
Of course God’s mandate for believers to carry out His will (feed the poor, clothe the naked and free the oppressed etc) and try to do it to my best ability. I don’t know how you’ve read the exact opposite from my comments.

Will says:

12:31am | 05/05/10

Not replying to you jeff, replying to eric’s original post. yea, it seems pretty clear that you and I are on the same page

TC says:

05:22pm | 29/04/10

Right on the money Marley. Charity is more about us feeling better than any lasting solution.

it feels nice to give and helps us rationalise our excesses but its ultimately unsustainable and has the potential to exacerbate the problem. However, it does have its place in providing emergency health relief and education as you say.

The provision of opportunity toward self betterment and entrepreneurship is the key to this.

Willy K says:

05:22pm | 29/04/10

So true.  Charity begins at home.

What is it with chardy types jetsetting off to help out nations no one has heard of when Aussies here are doing it really tough too?

Is it an ego thing or simply ignorance about ones own country?

Gina says:

01:11am | 30/04/10

And how do you propose we help out the “Aussies doing it tough” without ‘breeding bludgers, corrupt governments and propping up unsustainable populations’?

Shouldn’t Aussies doing it tough ‘lift their own game.  Life was not meant to be easy and they centuries behind Europe, in culture, ettiquette, democracy, respect for law and life, and technology.  How about they all put the effort in that the first world has done in the past and invent things and work hard?’

Why not just ‘stop the nannying and let them help themselves’?

What’s good for the goose needs to be good for the gander.

I don’t condone neglecting anyone doing it ‘tough’, but I have to say ‘tough’ is relative and it can’t hurt to be decent human beings and actually help out people in need regardless of background rather than simply call them lazy and leave them to die. What’s violent and uncultured is your opinion of people who have been largely forced into poverty by the greed of the ‘first world’.

Paul says:

04:48pm | 30/04/10

Tom I agree with your point that the countries that have advanced in the past 20 years are the ones that preferred to use their own resources instead of international aid.

I have just two points/questions:  What is targetted assistance if it isn’t aid?
One of the main problems of international aid from my perspective is that it is tied to the objectives of the donor, not the objectives of the developing country.  Often the objectives of the international community are not in the best interests of the targetted country.  For example, reduction in bureaucracy (often the only form of social wlefare/income) and reduction of international debt rather than expansion of the economy.
These are some of the reasons the countries you mention did not request help from the international community.

One thing that you did not mention is that none of them were democracies until after they had achieved their development objectives, and two still aren’t.

The determining factor is not receipt of international aid, but strong, benevolent (in the sense of having and achieving development targets) governments.

Tom says:

05:02pm | 30/04/10

Paul, you are absolutely right in saying that aid is often tied to domestic political objectives in wealthier countries - witness the battle for Africa during the Cold War where the Soviets and Americans would send aid in order to curry the favour of the various despots on that continent.

Your point on democracy is well taken, certainly I don’t think anyone would doubt that it often results in indecision and policy paralysis, which is harmful when implementing development strategies which will more often than not result in the disenfranchisement of some groups in the community, and hence electoral backlash, which does not exist under authoritarian regimes.

Tom says:

10:02pm | 29/04/10

Just a couple of problems here - we spend a bit under 2.5% of GDP on defence (~$24 billion a year), not 30% as you claim. And again, there is little to no evidence that such aid will actually do anything. As I said above, no country has successfully developed using foreign aid. Throwing money at the problem certainly won’t make it go away, whilst material programs such as the UN World Food Program have had the effect of dumping cheap subsidised agricultural products onto 3rd world countries, and in doing so destroying local agricultural producers. Same thing goes for a lot of basic manufactured goods - even well intentioned UN programs to provide people with anti - malarial mosquito nets have driven local villagers making nets out of business.

I don’t think anyone argues that wealthy nations could afford 0.7% of GDP, it is just that there is next to no evidence aid is beneficial, but conversely much literature claiming aid is actually harmful to developing countries - entrenching despotic regimes and slowing down the process of political change.

Emilie says:

02:18pm | 30/04/10

Tom, what do you suppose we do rather than give aid? Just bathe in our luxury and hope that they pick themselves up? Just increase the polarisation between rich and poor? Continue to develop 3D technology and hope that they’ll start to swim on their own? If you see someone drowning, don’t you jump in to save them, rather than watch and hope they learn? First you help them, then you teach them how to swim OR then they are able to teach themselves, either/or.

Please refer to my comment below as a reply to Chris for further information.

I think I meant 30 as the monetary amount, rather than the figure. Apologies - I was on a tangent.

Emilie says:

02:52pm | 30/04/10

Just like to rephrase, I didn’t mean either/or I meant and/or. I don’t agree with just shoving our ways onto them, I am all for self-sufficiency believe me. But I just don’t think they can achieve self-sufficiency when they can’t feed themselves… call me crazy.

Tom says:

05:28pm | 30/04/10

Emilie, so essentially what you are saying is we should give aid because it means we aren’t doing nothing, even if it won’t do anything? That is a pretty weak argument. Development aid has a terrible empirical record. And I already addressed the point you made below regarding non - monetary aid, as it often destroys local industries producing competing products, and hinders the development of other industries. It also potentially hinders the process of political reform, as aid can act to shield leaders from criticism.

On your call for ‘better aid’, how exactly do you propose that we ensure that aid reaches its desired targets? Ultimately third world countries still have sovereignty over their land, and attempts to enforce conditionality of aid programs in the past have proven fruitless.

As for what we do, I would promote the methods used by countries that have developed - such as the Asian Tigers. We can provide assistance such as technical know - how (following strict conditionality), but ultimately it is up to the countries themselves to manage and implement these processes. It may sound cold and heartless on the part of developing countries, but that is not an argument to implement a policy - development aid - that has been a demonstrable failure.

And on your comment that it is hard for these countries to achieve self sufficiency when they can’t feed themselves, South Korea in 1960 had a lower GDP per capita than Ghana, and now it is considered a developed country. South Korea was a desperately poor country prior to development, just like much of Africa today. Development is possible when suitable policies are implemented.

Just finally, so we are clear I have no objection to humanitarian aid, e.g. in times of disaster.

Emilie says:

06:33pm | 30/04/10

Tom,

Is providing technical know-how not a form of aid?

And is 1.4 billion people living on less than $1.25 a day not a disaster? What other form of “disaster” (i’m guessing you mean environmental, i.e Haiti earthquake) should we put them through before we say we can do something? Helping in times of out-of-character disasters, is still a form of developmental aid. All of it is a disaster, and all of it requires attention.

Just to clarify as well - I am not all for just throwing money at them. I also want projects implemented like the technical know-how you suggested.

I was not arguing that we supply aid just because then we’re actually doing something. I am saying that there is no alternative, because the alternative would be worse. We have to be informed, and conscious consumers ourselves, which is why I support Fairtrade (and before we get into this argument, I know that Fairtrade can be improved but I also know it is better than what we have without it). Fairtrade is helping to support their own industries. And I argue, that Fairtrade is also a form of non-monetary aid. I do not think of aid as a pointless money oriented endeavour. I do not think it is acceptable to get carried away with arguing against aid merely because we’re stuck in a discourse of band-aid, short-term, aid-giving as a solution. That’s not practical because in the meantime nothing is happening.

I am not simply saying that aid is the be all and end all, it can be improved. It needs to be allocated (and by this I mean into projects such as providing technical know-how) and it needs to be transparent (so we know it is actually doing it’s best).

It seems we both have the same intentions but are arguing over the means; this has happened for decades….

But additionally, just to be clear once more - I am talking about extreme poverty here. Extreme poverty - so yes, those that don’t know where their next meal is coming from. I cannot see how those in extreme poverty can develop their industries without getting out of extreme poverty first. And how do you argue that they get themselves out of that without a form of international aid? Continue to develop industries vulnerable to environmental changes? Because if they don’t receive education then this is most likely the industry intended. This relates back to how i’ve already mentioned that it needs to be allocated aid….. so yes, international aid would be directed here to first feed and educate and to second, provide technical know-how so they can develop their industry.

Emilie says:

08:46pm | 30/04/10

Tom, i’ve had time to think and realised I missed a couple of your points which i’d like to respond to.

What were the suitable policies South Korea implemented? Did these policies come from any international involvement? Has South Korea never utilised nor experienced any outside help - whether it be time, resources, goods, services, or money even, from international developed countries prior to it’s developed classification?

Referring to my reference to better aid… I propose that we ensure aid reaches its desired targets by the strict conditions which you mentioned for the Asian Tigers. It would be a monitoring system through a transparent organisation (for example I could use AusAID although this needs tougher transparency) which means that all information gathered is related back to the public for direct knowledge of results. I think you will find that although countries have control of their land through state sovereignty, in current times and trends of globalisation this is consistently being broken. For example. TNCs such as Walmart, McDonalds, BP etc, have broken through the barriers. Walmart has achieves a higher GNI than nation states alone. The reason why they are almost invited into countries is because of the economic advantages, to achieve the economic advantages governments lower laws and regulations to increase competitiveness. In order to establish better aid it is undoubtedly most critical that we have public support, show our governments that yeah it is better policy to follow our aid. Through this I think we will find that we are able to break through these barriers. We can show public support by buying Fairtrade products, increasing awareness of extreme poverty, talking to our political leaders, supporting the 0.7 campaign and the list goes on. By increasing public support the government knows that its people want to help, and this means that its intentions for economic advantages can shift away from exploitive big businesses to humanitarian business. I have mentioned the advantages of this on the world’s political stage in my previous discussion on defence.

While it is a big ask, I reiterate that the key to better and more targeted aid is support by the public. If we continually criticise aid, with no alternative offered, the public becomes confused and wonders where their money is going and what their government is doing. This is why I argue that if we do not give aid, then what will be doing? My argument is not weak, it is substantiated on the basis that criticising aid with no alternative (and I have explicitly informed you of aids various forms) sends a negative message that we can’t do anything. That anything we try will be met with criticisms.

As long as we are improving then we are creating action. Aid has come a long way; the facts are noticeable in Nick’s article. We just need to shift the focus on to better aid, transparent aid. To do so the figure needs to be 0.7% to allow for fundamental logistics and also to supply the means for international support.

I agree that the destruction of the mosquito net industry by providing mosquito nets is an error. But to send people to the specific countries of necessity and to have them learn from the land, learn from the people, and see what can be done that will be helpful for them (as per your mention of necessary strict conditions and suitable policy) - that requires money too. That is where aid can go to, too. So it is not just money, it is not just empty money, and it is not money which causes further destruction.

We must be careful with criticising aid, people can be quick to jump on the negative if it means their way of life does not need to be shifted.

Eric says:

08:59am | 01/05/10

If they want us to pay for their overpopulation, then we have a right to tell them we won’t.

Emilie says:

04:12am | 02/05/10

Eric, have you not noticed what is happening through the media about Sydney’s trends of overpopulation? Have you not noticed that we have appointed our own Minister for Population recently? It is hypocritical to assume that we are paying for their overpopulation, and that we have a right to tell them we won’t, as it effectively states our overpopulation is okay in comparison - and who gives us that right?

Eric says:

10:22am | 04/05/10

What gives us the right, Emilie, is the fact that we can support our existing population by our own efforts.

Other countries, which cannot feed their own people, have no right to demand that we feed them and thus support the worsening crisis.

Emilie says:

10:42pm | 05/05/10

Sorry Eric, you must have missed the post where I discussed Colonisation. You must have missed the post where I discussed extreme poverty and how they don’t even know where their next meal was coming from. You must have missed how I asked if a persons right to life is alright to be determined by postcode. Just because you were born in to a wealthy country does not give you any right to say that those who weren’t have no right to demand that we feed them - they have no choice, Eric.

Emilie says:

02:13pm | 30/04/10

Aid comes in different forms chris. It’s not all money. The 0.7 call comes with ‘better aid’ and transparent aid - so following it through and making sure it gets to the right areas. If you think that the solomon islands require the aid, then make sure it gets to them yourself.  If like what you say, we can’t rely on labor….. But, if you don’t have time to do this due to supporting your livelihood with work committments, then how about supporting those who are doing it - like Nick who wrote this article.

I don’t think it’s okay to sit back and know this is going on without doing something about it. Being silent is as much a political act as speaking out, in this area especially. At least with aid, it is happening all the time. If we didn’t have aid, in all of it’s terms, I believe there would be a lot of people being silent, sitting back and doing nothing - including our government. It’s time we did something to improve productivity. The 0.7 campaign is more than simple money going to corrupt governments. It is trying to improve the system, and establishing projects like the temp work scenario you mention, this seems like one way to do that to me (even though we’d probably get the ‘go back to where you came from’ and ‘if you don’t like it leave!’ situation going on, which is disappointing). So hence - aid will go towards working with that project. Do you see what i mean? We can’t think of aid as just money, it is what it goes towards that counts. Maybe you can argue it goes to corrupt governments, but it still trickles down to the people. They may not get 100% of every dollar, but if we gave nothing then they’re not getting 100% either. I would prefer them to get even 2% rather than nothing at all! ! And if we follow the aid through, we can try and bypass the corrupt governments so we increase the potential of every dollar - which, as I have said is not a dollar. Money is a bartering system to trade goods and services, not something alonge by itself and separate from us. Not something we need to be solely protecting and filling up the bank and going nowhere.

In summary: there are ways of working with aid. What else is there if we didn’t have aid and it’s forms…? The problem isn’t with the donating of aid, the problem is with the undestanding of what it actually is.

Emilie says:

05:00pm | 02/05/10

Whoops, that second ‘Chris’ comment was from me… but intended for Chris.

chris jones says:

03:15am | 03/05/10

OK, so we comprehend that the bleeding hearts dollar feeds the problem. What remains is your need to ‘make a difference’ or ‘do something’. Well read carefully, the only successful times these places have moved beyond the nightmare is when confronted by force. For example - RAMSI, East Timor, the international intervention in Bosnia, the US Marines in Sierra Leone, Panama and Haiti and God help me when the mercenaries stepped in when no-one else would during the 1950’s Congo conflict. Sometimes it works fabulously well, like RAMSI and Timor, sometimes it well - just works, like Bosnia. Sometimes it just falls flat on its face(you have already started writing the examples to rebut me so I will leave that list to you). Note here I have included world wide examples. My point is that there is NO example of success by the ‘aid group’ alone that has worked at all and every example you intend to write failed because of interference from the ‘bleeding hearts’ who either didn’t know better or wanted failure iot facilitate political changes of their own at home.
Education is more than just school books too, it is the enforced rule of HUMANE law for which your aid agencies cannot provide. Education includes showing responsibility, authority and accountability can work together which most certainly only ever work with official force.
Lastly, if you would try to send aid via agencies rather than via Ramsi style intervention then yes we should abandon those who do not use guns. Sick as it sounds these people stand a better chance when noone has guns (funded via siphoning as prev stated). If you need an example then try this. Some years ago a small contingent of military doctors with light armed escort were sent to one of the many African refugee camps, they managed to operate on and save dozens of needy people BUT many thousands only a couple of hundred meters away were murdered by a handfull of loons with AK rifles. The light escort was grossly outnumbered and was ordered to ignore the carnage. Had our army been allowed to send a proper intervention those many thousands of murdered civilians would still be alive. This means, Ramsi and its like usually work in spite of their flaws, whilst the feel good emotionally pleasing aid attempts never have(sorry Bono) they just stop being reported about.