These outflows strip developing countries of an important source of revenue and finance for development. Poor countries are facing crime due to inequitable growth. There are many reasons for helping poor countries. These are the genuine times of need when people are already in havoc.
The traditions of poor countries might be disposed of to make more for more modern and developed methods. Huge amount of capital is needed for poor nations to develop infrastructure, open more educational institutions and impart adequate health care. A further reason why many countries help poorer ones is for economic reasons.
In the interests of social justice, it is important that rich countries should be able to provide loans that are easy to repay. If rich countries give loans without interest to needy countries, they will be able to provide their debtors with better growth opportunities and protect them from insolvency.
But the idea that aid is generous is absurd. Loans that are accompanied by interest are counterproductive for poor countries. It is vital that money should not be wasted on ineffective projects or corrupt practices. And these figures only cover theft through trade in goods.
The kind of cuts being made in the UK at the moment are both economically illiterate and ethically unacceptable. But these problems existed long before the financial crisis.
The donors may want to control the supply of commodities such as oil, water, or wheat. Opening up trade barriers, so that poor countries can sell their goods is one way.
It is beneficial for improving the status of the nation as well. Furthermore, companies in rich nations also benefit through expanding consumption markets in abroad easily, opening new branches, production and assembly factories to take advantages of redundant natural resources and cheap-labor source that receiving countries possess.
But the World Trade Organisation claimed that this made trade inefficient, and since customs officials have been required to accept invoiced prices at face value except in very suspicious circumstances, making it difficult for them to seize illicit outflows. Recipients of international loans will only benefit if they are able to pay back the money without the added burden of hefty interest rates.
Meanwhile, opponents claim that on account of their possibilities of financial distress in the future, they should not do so. The notion that giving away our loose change is embarrassingly generous would be an odd one to poor people around the world trying to scrape together a living under the unfair system rich countries have established to work in their favour.
However, aid is not necessarily the best way to help a country. Recipient nations should also take aid in the form of grants for making improvements in key fields. The story holds that the rich nations of the OECD give generously of their wealth to the poorer nations of the global south, to help them eradicate poverty and push them up the development ladder.
The needs of the poorer countries may seem obvious.
Equitable growth and development is necessary for the world to become a better place. To some people, rich nations should lend aid to poor ones because of its economic, diplomatic, politic and military advantages.
Many nations that are poverty stricken lack adequate food security, sanitation, infrastructure, health care facilities and educational institutions.
Well, some poor countries are certainly growing faster than us, which is as it should be — they are catching up to our standard of living. Conclusion Poor nations should be given loan in a way that does not handicap them.
Rich countries have benefited from unprecedented economic growth due to a fortunate combination of resources and favourable social, economic and political conditions. Moreover, poor countries that learn the methods of rich nations might be viewed as followers with inferior capabilities.Sep 21, · Why a Nobel-winning economist argues against giving aid to poor countries.
for example -- have been hugely beneficial to developing countries. Should rich countries help poorer ones? Does foreign aid work? Or does it only help the rich country by keeping the poorer country dependent?
Today, the world is becoming more and more closely linked. Trade has increased and the movement of people between countries is greater than ever before. However, billions of people still live in poverty. SHOULD RICH NATIONS LEND AID TO POOR ONES? Globalization is one of culprits causing greater development gaps among countries over the world, and the act of lending aid is remarkable behavior of rich nations to assist poor ones.
To some people, rich nations should lend aid to poor ones because of its economic, diplomatic, politic and military advantages. Aid in reverse: how poor countries develop rich countries Jason Hickel New research shows that developing countries send trillions of dollars more to the west than the other way around.
Mar 13, · Whether or not rich countries should lend aid for poor ones is an issue that has aroused considerable debate.
Some people think that aid brings many advantages for recipient countries, such as developing economy, reducing unemployment, improving the lives. I agree with the idea that rich countries should lend aids to poor countries. The first advantage of this aid is to support poor countries in implementing large projects.
Without a lot of money, poor countries can not build big schools, hospitals, entertainment areas or roads.Download