Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should the West give development aid?
Development aid has had little to no effect in many of countries which have been allocated a significant amount of it.
Development aid is very ineffective. Millons of dollars have not changed a lot in the past.
Economists support this statement.
Development is a complex process, not a linear one (e.g. just because you build a school does not mean you will have students attending).
Development aid fosters corruption within the recipient country and strengthens local elites.
A quarter of sub-Saharan countries are
poorer now than in the 1960s
, despite large amounts of aid being provided to the region.
The best examples of rapid development during the 20th century, e.g. Korea and China, did not base their growth on development aid.
There are no better alternatives for the majority of these countries, due to lacking meaningful capital which is required for development.
The traditional forms of development based on exports and manufacturing are no longer an option due to rapid automation replacing the need for cheap labor. As such, developing countries have fewer avenues available and need to be supplied with enough capital to retain or create basic services.
Effectiveness of aid should not solely be measured in monetary or economic terms. Instead, improvements in other sectors, such as education and health, should also be used as metrics.