Does giving international aid sometimes cause more harm than good?
This post was written by a student. It has not been fact checked or edited.
I believe that aid, as it is currently given, causes more harm than good.
Theoretically, aid is wonderful; it saves lives, helps countries get back on their feet and strengthens international relations. The reality however, is that it causes things such as dependency and loss of autonomy, which leads to countries being unable to run themselves effectively.
Countries that receive aid, especially large amounts, become reliant on the provider. This leads to loss of their autonomy, as the country receiving aid is controlled by whoever provides it. Countries lose the ability to run themselves, as their leaders are not the ones in control, and their country will not develop as it should, because the aid temporarily minimises the issue before a real solution is required. This shows the long term issues with short term aid.
Haiti, known as the 'NGO Republic' shows this damage. In 2010, Haiti was struck by an earthquake, and received aid from many NGOs. Haiti lost control over their government, and now doesn't have the ability to start or support a more local long-term solution. If the aid was retracted, their country would collapse, thus showing how disruptive aid can be.
Another example is the US NGO, Zipline, which provides aid to many African countries. The issue is they have started enforcing some US laws on these countries, meaning the leader is not making the decisions with their peoples’ best interests in mind.
I do however believe that aid is important, as it saves lives in times of crisis, helps fortify international relations and when used correctly, can improve the economy and overall development of a country. Aid can be more effective for the country giving it, rather than dealing with issues that are a result of the lack of aid. For example, South Africa has many many people immigrating due to economic issues (such as Malawians in search of jobs), and they have seen a rise in xenophobia. Instead of having to adjust for immigrants or cause social issues within the country, South Africa should send aid to help fix the economic issues in countries from which they receive many immigrants.
So currently, aid is detrimental to a country’s overall running, but if we changed how aid is given, and only provided it for shorter periods (in times of desperate need) or to fix root issues rather than just a plaster, it could make a huge difference.
Comments (1)
Your post makes some really strong and thoughtful points. I like how you explained both sides of international aid instead of only focusing on one view. The example of Haiti after the 2010 earthquake clearly shows how aid can sometimes create dependency if it is not managed well. You also raised an interesting point about autonomy, because countries should be able to make their own decisions and develop long-term solutions. At the same time, I think it is important that you mentioned that aid can still save lives during emergencies. This makes your argument balanced and realistic. I also agree that aid should focus more on solving root problems instead of only giving short-term help. Overall, your explanation is clear, thoughtful, and it really makes people think about how aid should be improved rather than simply stopped.