English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

6 answers

This short interview with a Kenyan Economist assesses it best.
Decades of failure should demonstrate that it does not work.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

.

2006-11-27 03:30:32 · answer #1 · answered by Zak 5 · 0 0

Aid does work in the short term, it helps starving people to eat and stops them dying there and then. In the long term it appears to be a waste of money in as much that it is a `catch 22` situation. Of course they must be made to help them selves, but how can they when they have continuing drought and famine? What do we do allow them to starve because they can`t make it rain? Until such time that we can make rain, I really see no end to the drought and famine. Perhaps it was never intended for people to live in the arid areas of the world, perhaps the people themselves are in the wrong places. Very few people live in the outbacks of Australia, because it is so hostile for human beings. Perhaps there should be a re-think on where populations should live.

2006-11-27 08:54:59 · answer #2 · answered by Social Science Lady 7 · 0 0

Western aid has consistently caused stagnation in the Third World. We think we are helping but we are not - we are just salving our conciences.

Without Western aid, the Third World would do one of two things - evolve or die. Neanderthal man died out, Homo Sapiens evolved into modern man. Third world people would likely need to evolve into nomadic tribes in order to feed themselves and find water - or they would die. As it is they just stay where they are because the West feeds them in the end. I don't think this is kind, or as kind as many imagine. Better for them to find their own way and keep some dignity.

2006-11-27 03:38:44 · answer #3 · answered by nellyenno 3 · 1 0

Too ambiguous,It would depend on what the phrase"better off"means.To conclude having food and a house so you don't freeze or starve to death is "better off" than no.To conclude that having Sony PlayStation's and Ipods is "better off" then yes.There is enough in this world that there shouldn't be any third world countries at all.

2006-11-27 04:48:20 · answer #4 · answered by bluesman999 2 · 0 1

Yes, indeed. Only if the West would stop milking the cashcow they are trying to fatten.

2006-11-28 06:13:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

TO MANY IN A COUNTRY THAT CANNOT SUSTAIN THEM
LET NATURE SORT IT OUT LIKE IT DID IN THE PAST
NOT ENOUGH FOOD THEN DEATH
6 BILLION IS TO MUCH FOR THIS PLANET

2006-11-27 10:16:38 · answer #6 · answered by SH1T 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers