Can one country solve global problems?
When many organisations work together on one problem, who should be most responsible for the final outcome?
In this video, Ashvin explains that most global problems cannot be solved by one country or one organisation alone. He argues that foundations can make a real difference when they work in coalitions, bringing together governments, businesses and community groups.
Watch his video and share your thoughts in the comments below.
Video not working? Follow this link: https://vimeo.com/teef/ashvin-dayal
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I think [donor governments / local governments / charities / businesses] should be most responsible because [your reason]. One example is [from the video or lesson]. However, others might argue that [a different point of view].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers to see whether you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (12)
I agree with the statement; while it is tempting to imagine a "superpowered" country stepping in to fix all the world's problems, the world's most pressing issues are too complex, interconnected, and geographically diverse for one country to handle. For example, some problems don't respect borders; problems like climate change, pandemics, and economics don't care about the border of a country, and they will cause as much havoc as long as they are there. Another point is limited resources; even the wealthiest country in the world has its own budget and its own people to take care of, and the cost of some of the aids to help against these problems is very costly. These are my points on why one country cannot handle all the world's problems but can only help one at a time.
I think everyone involved in the development of the project should be held accountable and should be given credit. As was said, one man, business or organisation cannot solve a global problem on its own, therefore it would need multiple hands and ideas. So, I think that anyone involved should be remembered and honoured.
For example, the discovery of the structure of the DNA of human beings was discovered by James Watson and Francis Crick, both were amazing scientists and both are still remembered for the discovery today; no one was left behind or forgotten. All hands on deck means progress only happens when every person's effort is valued and acknowledged, and therefore, no ones work goes unseen.
I think local governments should be the most responsible for the final outcome because they understand their communities and are directly accountable to the people affected by decisions. But what’s different about local governments is that unlike large corporations, foundations and businesses, local governments are aware of what the difficulties and struggles are in their area.
One example is Ashvin explains that he disagrees that one country can solve a problem or crisis on its own, but if many foundations and organisations come to contribute in this problem it can make a huge difference. Without the local governments in this corporation and mission it would be a fail, as local governments know what their area and place is like, so are most suitable in the mission as they provide information, which they certainly know is correct.
However, others might argue that donor governments are more important because they provide funding for low and middle income nations to support stability and economic growth in the country. Donor governments fund education, health, infrastructure and governance. I believe that local governments are primarily better because imagine the donor is a wealthy neighbour who assists you money to fix your broken bathroom, but they don’t shower or do anything in that bathroom. The local government is the person who uses that bathroom and are aware of where the leaks and broken pipes are, and they’ll still always be there to fix it again if it breaks.
In addition, I think local governments are most responsible for the final outcome.
Thank you!
i don't think that any of the mentioned parties can be most responsible.international aid is a global job.It needs so much coordination .These parties should share the responsibility and celebrate the success of aid and bear the responsibility if the outcmes were not as expected.yes,some may argue according to the video that this party should be in charge or that party.However,I still support the point that it is a no one-man job.It has to e divided equally among all those particpating in the aid process.The donner government should follow te flow of the aid and make sure it reaches those who deserve it.The local governments should report to the donor government and make sure that the aid reaches the worthy ones. Charities should contact the previous parties and provide accurate information on the needy. Businesses should provide support to the charities to facilitate this process and suprvise the work of charities.We say everybody's job is nobody's job.Such integration is needed to guaranteee the flow of the aid so as to make the world a better place.
the principal of the idea somewhat makes sense and could be achieved under the right circumstances but recently this idea has been somewhat of a disaster. this has worked before for example in 1995 canada solved the trubin war with spain where they made a law with the european union to protect turbin stocks and fishing in international waters. another example while yet not technically by itself during the cold war the Soviet Union and the U.S.A calibrated on the World Health Organization which helped to eradicate disease like small pox and the polio vaccine keep in mind they were in the middle of a war at that time. Yet more recently this concept has in a word sabotaged by the donald trump recent presidential election. for example he tried to use this principal for the russia ukraine dispute yet he failed. in his election he said that he would be able to end the conflict within 24hours he failed and ukraine and russia still hasn't made an agreement. another example of this is trump bombing iran on june 22 2025 because they were expanding they nuclear arsenal. donald trump in a way is making us closer to world war three then we ever have.
in conclusion this principle has worked before yet with current events USA etc this principle would have to have a precise management and out of the box solutions for this to work yet history has shown us that this is a very possible and achievable feet for not just america. thank you for reading my case.
I think local governments should be the most responsible and I will explain how.
1- First of all, it must never be a donor government because the local government and the people of this city are the ones who know their needs, issues and local obstacles best and they should be the ones who manage and build their own future with their own interests not outsiders deciding what should happen which to me seems like some kind of soft occupation
2- Second it can't be charities or businesses because they are not governments. They don't have the full responsibility, legitimacy or deep understanding of what is going on or what the country needs for its future.
One example is that after the war in Gaza there was massive destruction. The USA government announced that it will be responsible for rebuilding Gaza strip in calibration with Qatar, UAE and Egypt and they ignored the people of the Gaza to manage their internal affairs which seems to me as a hidden occupation ,and the proof is that Gaza people were able manage their issues over two years of war and siege, but the only need was funds.
However, others might argue that the donor governments should be responsible because they are the ones who pay for aids and without these funds the people of the city wouldn't be able to do anything.
I think donor governments should be most responsible for solving global problems, but only if they work together with local governments, charities, and businesses. One country alone can’t fix big issues like climate change or poverty because these problems happen in many places at once. Donor governments have more money and power to support big projects, like building schools, hospitals, and clean water systems. For example, in the video, Ashvin says that foundations can help more when they work in coalitions with governments and businesses, and I agree because teamwork makes solutions stronger.
Global problems like climate change, disease outbreaks, and armed conflicts can’t be solved by one country alone. These issues affect many countries, so international cooperation is essential. For example, when refugees flee from war, like in Syria, the global community must work together to provide aid and help them rebuild. Similarly, with climate change, no country can solve it alone; the world must collaborate. If one country reduces aid or acts alone, the problem only worsens. That’s why donor governments need to work with local groups to address global issues more effectively.
Some people might say charities or businesses should be most responsible because they are closer to the community or can move faster. But I think without the money and influence of donor governments, charities and businesses can only do small parts of the job. Global problems need big teamwork, not one hero.
I agree with you that donor governments should be most responsible because from word donor governments it means more than one government coming together, with the pooling of their collective resources, they can afford to invest in long time projects that don't have immediate profits. I also believe no one country can fix the problem alone just like Ashvin said in the video a coalition of governments and organisations will go a long way in solving issue. These government are able to provide the stability that these projects need. Someone might argue that businesses are in a better place at turning researches into real products people use since they are non profit organisations.
I think donor governments should be most responsible because they possess large financial capital and foreign aid required to provide solutions for global issues. One example is what Ashvin says about coalitions, governments can act as the anchor and they are also able to attract other organisations or partners. I think some people might argue that local government know their own people and their needs better than a foreign donor will ever do.
I think donor governments should be most responsible because they can use trade agreements to get other countries to adopt better environment and labour standards. One example is what Ashvin says about coalitions countries can invite others to join through economic incentives. However others might argue that the grassroots and local government will be the ones to suffer from such fallouts from such trade deals.
I think that doner governments should be more responsible because richer countries or governments are richer than others. However other people might say that if the richer countries give out too much they are going have to go to other governments for help.
i think donor governments should be responsible because once the donor governments meet together because they all have the same goal then they will be able to help other struggling nations and at that they will be able to achieve their goal with efficiency and speed.
I think all parties involved should get credit for the final outcome, because they all contribute in different ways. You could say that donor governments are the most responsible for outcomes because they provide most of the resources to make changes happen, but you could also ague that local governments are responsible because they are the ones actually making the decisions that affect people, and on the other hand, charities are the ones who raise awareness and some of the money, so changes couldn't happen if it weren't for all these sides working together.