Has aid failed?
Discussion statement | This is for ages 14 to 16
Trillions has been given out through aid across the world for decades.
But some countries still have lots of issues that haven't been solved through aid. Is it time to try something else?
Do you agree or disagree with the statement below? Explain why.
Aid creates dependency and is often ineffective. It's time to try something else.
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I agree / disagree because [your opinion]. One reason for my view [the reason for your opinion]. I believe this because [a piece of evidence].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers to see whether you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (62)
I partly agree with the statement because aid can create dependency, but I do not believe it is completely ineffective. One reason for my view is that in many countries aid has been given for decades, yet poverty, corruption and weak institutions still remain. I believe this happens because some aid only provides short-term relief instead of long-term solutions.
For example, constantly giving food or money without helping countries build their own economies can make governments and communities rely on outside help. When this happens, local industries do not develop and real independence is not achieved. In these cases, aid can become part of the problem rather than the solution.
However, I disagree that we should abandon aid completely. Aid has saved millions of lives through healthcare, disaster relief, education and clean water projects. Many successful programmes, such as vaccination campaigns, prove that well-planned aid can be highly effective.
Instead of trying something totally different, I think aid needs to change. It should focus more on creating jobs, supporting local businesses and improving education, so countries can support themselves. Local communities should also have more control over how aid is used.
In conclusion, aid is not useless, but it must be reformed. The goal should be to reduce dependency, not increase it, by helping countries become stronger and more independent.
I think this is right and wrong.
Why do you think so?
I think I can relate with you. Using an example, aid can be used to stabilize regions, promote peace and enhance security. But on the other hand, it can also cause war when it is manipulated and stolen to use as 'weapons of war'. After all, everything in life has an advantage and a disadvantage. Nothing is perfect. Good point!!
I agree with mirthful cloudberry; it actually causes dependency. Aid is a short-term relief instead of a long-term solution. It also has its advantages, though, like, for instance, a ghastly accident just happened. First aid makes it possible in some scenarios for the people involved's lives to be preserved; it stops or prevents any further harm and also promotes recovery before the individual is taken to the hospital.
My solution to the opinion I have made is to make sure the environment is safe; there should be infrastructural development to help in preventing car accidents and other accidents. There should be a policy on the frequent use of first aid to ensure that it is only used during emergencies, and immediately the victim should be taken to the hospital for long-term relief.
I really like you take on this. I agree that aid can sometimes create dependency, especially when it only addresses short-term needs. Your point about local economies not developing without long-term support makes a lot of sense. At the same time, I think you are right that abandoning aid completely would be a mistake healthcare, education, and disater relief programs have saved so may lives . Focusing on job creation, local businesses, giving communties more control seems like way to make aid more truly helpful. Reforming aid to build independence rather than dependency feels like the smart approach.
I completely agree with you, because as you said at some point in your comment, aid shouldn't be completely removed because it saves millions of lives through wars, life and maybe even help through education.
I just want to add one point to you. Aud shouldn't be removed, it should be updated, just like the apps or games we install on app store, at first they're still simple, developers are still working on it, and not famous. But then starts to get updates, starts to be more creative, starts to be more useful for people or more fun for kids. And this is what I think should happen to aid, I think there should be a global program around the whole world in schools and companies and universities on how to do first aid and basic medical practice so for example if someone is in need for medical uses, there will be at least one or two people to help them.
*Why I think this?*
I think this because recently people that know first aid or learning it might think that it's boring and not fun, especially people with ADHD and maybe people that don't really care with responsibilities a lot, so if the place they are learning first aid from becomes a little bit more creative, for example doing games on how to do first aid, or maybe even act a scene like someone is really in need for medical uses and the person wouldn't know that this is an act and would help them and at this point we will know if there is improvement or not.
In conclusion, I'd like to say that eight shouldn't be removed, it should be updated, and be more creative, and helpful.
That said, bye-bye.👋🏻
I agree that aid is often independency because if you where at home with your mum or dad and something happened then you would have to call someone because you would not be able to do it your self
This is a relatable metaphor. Would you like to deliberate abit further? How can dependency become harmful for a country when it relies heavily on aid? And in your opinion, what is the right way to support them?
In my opinion no because say your parents are at home and they get hurt and no one is there they are just going to be hurt and when someone is at home and they get hurt you can use aid to help and support them.
This is actually a really important and questionable situation.
Here are some solutions that I thought of when I read your comments.
Solution one:
Maybe in houses owners can install a device or cameras that automatically detect if the person in the house is hurt or is feeling okay, and maybe even have something like Alexa and your house talking to you and when Alexa detects that there is something unusual with you, Alexa can start to talk to you and if you do not answer she starts examining you with her AI lenses and if she detects that you are hurt she can immediately call anyone that lives in this house or maybe even the police.
Solution two:
If the person in the house can't afford to have any expensive devices like Alexa or anything, for example an elderly woman, she could buy a protecting dog which can detect if she is not okay and if she is not that woman should train him that if something is wrong with her, he should bark so loud or go search for help in their ways.
Solution 3:
This reason is kind of similar to the first one, maybe the country or any company can create a device that is designed like a watch that counts your heart rate and can detect your emotions and your face expressions too, and if they detect that something is unusual, they call 911 or a person that lives in the house immediately.
To conclude, I'd like to say that I live with a certain concept that helps me pass a lot of struggles in life, and the concept is, even the word impossible says I'm possible, and I believe it means that nothing is impossible and everything has solving.
That's it.
I think the problem is not aid itself, but how aid is delivered. In my opinion, aid can definitely create dependency when it focuses on short term handouts and ignore long term solution. what I mean by "short term handouts" is when an international aid only sends free food every year to a country facing poverty but does not invest in local farming. sure, the food does help people survive in the moment, but it can cause local farmers to lose customers because people rely on free supplies instead. In these cases aids don't solve the problem, it pauses it. so yes, poorly designed aid can be ineffective.
However, saying all aids can cause dependency is an overgeneralization. because well designed aid focuses on education, healthcare, infrastructure, and skills training. these kind of aid help countries become more self sufficient over time, and strengthens systems instead of just replacing them.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, ineffable_tornado! You say a better way to supply aid is though infrastructure, healthcare and education - should this be a separate aid program or do you think some current resources should be diverted from issues such as famine relief and natural disasters?
For me, aid has sometimes failed because it’s not always distributed fairly that truly addressed local needs. In some cases, corruption, poor planning, or lack of understanding of local issues or conditions might cause aid to be waisted and not used. When aid focuses on short term relief without supporting the long term development, it can create dependence rather than lasting solutions. And can make the issues worse than before.
Those are interesting comments. What ways do you think aid could be distributed more fairly/effectively?
Foreign aids and humanitarian assistance play a crucial role in addressing global poverty, inequality, and crises such as conflict, disease, and natural disasters that most likely will happen. However, despite the large amounts of aid distributed every year, many critics argue that aid is often ineffective and inefficient. Problems such as political bias, lack of local involvement, and poor coordination have limited the impact of aid in many regions or countries. Which is why to ensure that aid truly improves lives and contributes to sustainable development, it must be distributed in ways that are both fairer and more effective. This can be achieved through needs based allocation, local participation, transparency and accountability, etc. For example the ways are : Non governmental organizations (NGOs) must commit to higher levels of transparency and accountability, Aid should go to the countries with the greatest need based on their factors, etc.
I disagree with with this statement. Even though many problems in some countries havent been fully solved, that doesn't mean aid doesn't work. Aid has helped millions of people survived wars, natural disasters, and poverty. For example, food aid saves lives during famines, and medical aid helps stop diseases from spreading. Just because problems still exist does not mean aid has failed.
Another reason I disagree is that aid often focuses on long term improvement, not just short term help. Aid can support schools hospitals and clean water systems. These things will help people become healthier, more educated, and more independent over time. In some cases, aid doesnt work well because of poor goverment management or corruption, not because aid itself is useless. If aid is planned and monitored properly, it can make a big difference.
Finally, instead of stopping aid, we should improve how it is used. Aid should work together with local communities and goverment so people can get their own needs. Removing aid completely could make poor situations even worse. While aid is not perfect, its still an important tool for helping countries grow and solve their problems.
I partly agree with amiable_walrus because although everything stated is true, we cannot forget the fact that as in many places it is a great help, in others this investment is not being enough or just isn't implemented in the best way. For that reason, I think although aid is really important, we should detect where it is useful and where we have to change the strategy to go straight to the point, solve problems.
This means that we should maintain aid where it is working and innovate and try something new in all the places that need it. Besides, regarding the statement I partly agree with it too but it's quite more drastic than my ideas about aid.
In conclusion, I believe aid is important and has helped in many ways but it's not the best option for every problem. We should investigate each case deeply in order to bring the best solution possible and try to create new ways of helping others.
I partially agree with you, amiable_walrus. It is true that aid can be helpful, but we have to use aid in ways that make aid actually useful. For example you said in your statement that aid can support schools, hospitals and clean water systems. I absolutely agree with this but unfortunately in reality, aid is not being used in ways that will actually help pressing issues. For example, the U.S. said that they were going to donate $11,000,000 to Liberia for a project that would help with access to clean drinking water. This was a great idea that would have helped hundreds of thousands of people all across the country, but sadly, this aid was cut, leaving 100,000's suffering! This type of aid would only be effective if we actually make goverments stick to there ideas and follow through with them! Adding on to that, in Senegal, malaria is a huge issue! There was a huge malaria project where private corporations, world banks and public, private health services would provide bed nets and medications to people in Senegal to provent the spread of malaria as it is a deadly disease. But then in 2005, the companies who had invested in this life changing project decided to cancel this aid. This means that still to this day, people in Senegal are suffering from the fatal disease, proving that aid in this country was ineffective! Both of these examples show how aid is quite ineffective!
Hi i am understanding_effort,
I partly disagree with the statement because aid creates dependency and is often ineffective.
One reason for my opinion is that aid plays an important role in saving lives and supporting basic needs such as food, healthcare, and education, especially during emergencies like natural disasters and conflicts.
For example, international aid has helped many countries to reduce disease, improve access to clean water, and increase school attendance.
However, I believe aid can become ineffective when it is not well planned or when countries rely on it for too long. Instead of ending aid completely, it should focus on long-term solutions such as education, skill development, job creation, and strengthening local institutions. This way, aid can help countries become self-reliant rather than dependent.
I agree with this statement.
Aid is crucial for countries in war, refugees, and those facing natural disasters. However, many countries send money to save face, and call it a day. They may refuse to help internally, and assume that the problem will be fixed by tossing cash at it.
As an example, WarChild is a program which educates children who are in countries facing war. They rely on funding to protect, and support those children, but the aid has not solved the wars, the conflicts, the uprising. It’s just minimized damage. As of recently, one person who supports WarChild, Dr. Nutt has been speaking out about countries stopping a lot of funding in order to expand military, as their resources are running out trying to protect them.
It’s time to try something new. These countries are stopping funding, to protect themselves even if there is no immediate threat. They stopped funding because the problems of Africa for example, are not the problems of North America. A direct example, is that the USA has cut 90% of funding to foreign countries in need which is causing said countries to collapse. We are supposed to be united as a planet, but we still think of it as every country for themselves with some having alliances. Aid, needs to be reframed. Instead of just money, countries need to get involved themselves. Whether it’s through sending teachers, food, supplies, actual soldiers to help fight wars, giving evacuees a safe way out. Countries need to get personally, and reach out to ask how to help. Aid is failing, and it’s time to rally together and try something new.
I agree that aid is good because if you are out in the park and you sprained your ankle you have to call 999 and you have to get stuff done.I think that the aid is very helpful, for the injured and people around the beautiful world.
Hello, generous_watermelon! I think I agree with your overall statement, but I also think that the number you were trying to reference was 911, not 999. I agree with you that aid is very helpful!
In addition to your statement, aid is not only helpful, but it also creates a sense of community between the people helping and giving the aid, and the people receiving the aid.
I disagree because there is better and more skills now but back then but there is a way bigger difference and better things now then back then
Could you please explain your comments a little further, I am not sure your point is clear!
I mean that there are more resources and things that over countries have
like different skills e.c that is my opinion.
The US Aid really did not fail, because for decades, offering survival tips, with practical measures and necessities that have saved trillions of lives, simply, aid has not failed, because to fund little and larger groups for years, really, aid has worked as well as it should have. A lot will say it failed because there were times of uncertainty of dependence, corruption being practiced, interests of others and more, but really, if you check the statistics, aid has been effective enough to make a difference, malaria deaths dropped by over 60% since 2000, global child deaths heftily fell from 12 to 5 million since 1990, long time, same impact. You can say Aid has not always been as effective at all times, but it is a clear statement that aid has not failed; it improved the educational sector and responded to disasters worldwide. Think about it, and let me know what you think!
I agree that aid often creates dependency and is ineffective, and that it is time try something else. One reason for my view is that long-term aid can reduce motivation for governments to improve their own economies and services. When countries rely heavily on foreign aid, they tend to forget the reason for which they are collecting the aid and start slacking off. I believe this because most countries that have received aid for decades are still facing problems like poverty, unemployment, and corruption, which are still common, showing that aid has not fixed the root causes.
Aid is often spent on short-term solutions like food or cash, which can help in emergencies but do not always lead to lasting change. Over time, this can make communities dependent instead of independent. I think a better approach would be investing in education, job creation, and fair trade, so countries can support themselves. Trying new methods that focus on long-term development would be more effective than continuing the same type of aid.
Can you share some examples of new methods that focus on long-term development?
Great question , Eva. There are several long-term development approaches that aim to reduce dependency and build self-sufficiency. One is education and skills training, especially vocational and technical education that matches the modern labour market's needs. This helps the country to gain more employable personnel that can improve the economic state of the country rather than relying on aid.
Result based funding which is a development aid or investment mechanism that disburses funds only after pre-agreed, verified results such as better economic performance and measurable impacts in sectors like health, education, and energy, making sure that aid isn't seen as a donation but rather as an investment made for the betterment of the country.
And if the aid is to support insecurity, then they should support community policing and justice systems, spending the aids on food and shelters, not making some mistakes that countries facing this issue have been doing which is rebuilding while the problem has not been solved.
In conclusion aid shouldn't be abandoned but redefined. Economic aids should be like investments and insecurity aids should focus on immediate results.
I disagree with this statement because aid is a source of help to poor people. The reason why I believe so is because of the COVID-19 pandemic palliatives given by the government in my country, I saw this as a great source of help to the poor people as the country was in total lockdown and no markets existent, meaning no food stuff. Some workers received either cut or no salary, making income very low and people struggling to pay electricity bills, and other bills. This palliative however, was a great source of help as the funds sent by the government and the foodstuffs given to these individuals were essential to help save the lives of the poor, without this there would have been severe hunger, unemployment and closure of small businesses.
However, others may think that aid is just there to make people lazy, but I do not believe because in our world today in countries with mixed and capitalist economies, there will be poor people at the expense of people getting rich, who are left with no other way to gain income or what have you, bu this aid can be the turning point in their lives, enabling them start their own businesses and have a source of income.
THANK YOU
You say "other may think that aid is just there to make people lazy", can you say more on why you say this?
Yes, I made this statement because others who may be rich or non beneficiaries of aid may not like it as it may not affect them and may see it as a means for lazy people to get free money or foodstuff.
There is a psychology that I believe in which simply is the fact that people may not necessarily like something they do not partake in like a friend of mine explained to me which was true as I didn't like other subjects because they were perceived to be hard, but on realisation, I discovered that actually, you may not like what you have never tried and I actually like those subjects. This is the same for the people who just assume such, while aid is actually saving lives of the poor who have a very low source of income which is below the living income in that area, but to the other people they assume such as either the aid makes no difference to them or they are non beneficiaries of aid
Well, I partially agree that aid creates dependency and is often ineffective. Aid is simply help from other country. Please don't get me wrong, aid is actually good because no human being or country can actually "decide to be a one man or one country army." At times, to much aid often creates over dependency and laziness in a country. Let me use one of the most debated topics around the world. In the context of AI, the creators of this technology actually brought it to the world with the intention of helping humans. However, some people actually rely on these technology too much and become lazy even in their line of work because of the availability of AI. This is an evidence that too much aid actually brings over dependency.
However, aid is actually good. A country without aid in at least one sector is not going to be developing well. A country with more may actually perform and develop better than a country without aid. For instance, a country that produces phones can aid other countries through import and export trade so that they would both experience the latest technology.
In essence, I think that aid is very important in our country but we shouldn't also over depend on aid. If a country depends on a particular country too much, the country would not develop when the aid is taken away.
I don’t think aid itself has failed but the way it’s been implemented definitely has. To bring up a relevant example, Palestine has been backed by numerous countries and has gained a lot of social media support but still isn’t receiving basic aid like food, water en sanitary products. Aid should be given in desperate times but not as a hand out. I don’t think aid like weapons, bombs and soldiers should ever be sent under any circumstances but we as humans have a responsibility to ensure “bully” countries don’t run the world.
I agree with this statement, as countries depend too much on others for aid, and therefore lose the ability to come up with solutions. Their problems are prevented before they face them. This means they lose independence, and are indebted to others. I also believe that in times of crisis, aid is important as it saves so many lives. The issue is the solution isn't long term and causes more problems in the future. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
The country receiving aid is controlled by whoever provides it. They are told how their government should work, what their country should look like, and which countries they can support. A great example of this is Haiti, which is known as the 'NGO Republic' due to how much international aid they receive.
Some context: in 2010, Haiti was struck by a horrible earthquake, and was aided by thousands of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisation) who still contribute today.
The NGOs practically took over, and now not only does the Haiti government have little to no control over their country, but also doesn't have the ability to support a more local long-term solution. They are stuck in a catch-22 situation, which shows how disruptive aid can be. If these NGOs were to withdraw their aid, Haiti would be absolutely ruined. The problem is, that if they had not been aided many lives would be lost.
So yes, aid is important in dire situations, but the issues it causes could outweigh the short term benefits. So, how can we give aid without the issues that come with it?
I partly agree with this statement.
Aid is essential for the survival of countries in war and conflict and even other situations that need it but most countries just use a temporary solution instead of something instead of something that will provide an eternal solution that will better the country. Sometimes they just want to do it just as an excuse to say that they have tried their best.
Under the rule of President Ronald Reagan, the united state government reduced the amount of money spent on food aid to increase the defence budget and they cut it by about 10%.
While I think there should be a new way to tackle problems other than aid we can't completely abandon the idea entirely sure we need a new way but aid is still going to be crucial for the sake of countries as many are dependent on it because it provides essential support for people who can't support themselves and get medical care, a basic education etc.
To conclude, YES we should find a new way to replace aid since that's isn't getting the job done, but we shouldn't just stop doing it since many are dependent on It.
Can you cite where you found your evidence?
I strongly agree with the fact that aid is often ineffective! A reason for my view is that in wars such as the Russia-Ukraine war and especially in the Israel-Palestinian war there is a huge lack of aid,and the aid that has been given has not been useful.According to the UN,as of February 2026,there are 2.4 million suffering Palestinians along West Bank and Gaza Strip that are in urgent needs of care and assistance,but,these pressing issues have not been addressed!Numerous countries such as the US,Canada and the EU have provided humanitarian aid but this aid has clearly not been effective.Saudi Arabia donated $1 billion to the issue with the U.S. following close behind,giving $900 million,but as we can see with what is currently happening Gaza,dropping lots of money on the issue doesn't neccesairly mean that you are fixing the cause.These are huge amounts of money,and you would definetly think that 1 billion dollars could fix most of the issue but in reality,this money is really not going anywhere,creating aid that is unhelpful and ineffective.I firmly believe that the key to giving useful aid is by re-defining what aid is.For example if Saudi Arabia is giving 1 billion dollars to Gaza, why not build a hospital with that money, that could help the millions of wounded citizens.We also have to make sure that all of the donor governments actually step up and meet their aid commitments since many countries often come up with great ideas but fail to follow through.If governments actually follow through with there commitments we can actually fix these pressing issues.
I partly agree with your statement.
The area where I lose your point is the examples of the countries that are at war. Aid at the moment cannot be used effectively because these countries are mid-war and are in a wild chaos. The 2.4 million Palestinians could easily increase to more but hasn’t because of the current aid that is being supplied. All of the nearby hospitals and food banks have been destroyed by the opposition for the sole reason of decimation. These kinds of aids cannot be effective because you’re looking at the war from an outside perspective of it just not working rather than seeing that its effectiveness is jeopardised because by the chaos of the war.
A better example of countries that have been failed by aid could be Haiti because of the users and distributors of the government who were unfortunately corrupt and eventually fostered dependency which has continued a cycle of instability.
I agree with that because aid has been given for many years and has not solved the main problems in some countries. Aid helps people survive in emergencies, but it does not always improve the economy. I believe countries need long-term solutions, not just financial support. In my opinion, relying only on aid is not enough to help nations develop properly. Instead of only donating money, richer countries should invest in education, jobs, and trade. Real progress happens when people can earn their own income and support themselves.
I agree with that because aid has been given for many years and has not solved the main problems in some countries. Aid helps people survive in emergencies, but it does not always improve the economy. I believe countries need long-term solutions, not just financial support. In my opinion, relying only on aid is not enough to help nations develop properly. Instead of only donating money, richer countries should invest in education, jobs, and trade. Real progress happens when people can earn their own income and support themselves.
I strongly agree with this statement. Although there are many reasons as to why aid is beneficial, often times, aid is not properly used by the government and does not reach the citizens. The World Bank's budget office has reported over 300 valid violations of anti-corruption measures in World Bank loan's in the fiscal year of 2023 alone. This means that in 2023, there has been over 300 cases where is isn't properly being used. Because of this, taxpayer money is going to waste and citizens still aren't having access to the aid provided. Instead, I believe that there are other alternatives that can help countries. Firstly, we can help their businesses by improving market access. This means that we can allow countries to trade their goods with fewer tariffs and restrictions. This will grow their economy and help individuals more, creating a more stable system. Overall, I think that aid has created to many opportunities for corruption and by focusing more on strengthening market access, we will improve the lives of many civilians.
I agree with this statement because short-term aid does not fix long-term problems. Sending food or money helps temporarily, but it does not solve issues like weak healthcare systems, poor transportation, or limited access to clean water and food. Another reason for my view is that aid money does not always reach the people who need it. Bad planning or weak governments can cause aid to be taken or used the wrong way, meaning it does not actually solve the problem. I also think that sometimes aid can make countries rely too much on outside help. If countries constantly receive support, they may not feel the need or pressure to improve and develop their own economies, governments, or systems because they expect help to continue. One more reason of mine is that aid can give wealthy countries too much control, since the help often comes with rules, making poorer countries feel forced to follow decisions they didn't choose.
This is what I think, however some others could disagree and say that problems come from how aid is given, not aid itself, and that aid can save lives right away. They could also say that not all aid is poorly used, that many aid programs are carefully planned to make sure help reaches the right people.
The people who think this are definitely also correct, that aid comes in handy to save people in desperate situations, however I still think that it'll be good to try something new because new ideas could create even better help.
I partly agree with the statement, while aid could create dependency if allowed, it isn’t always ineffective when done correctly.
Take for example, the Marshall Plan. After World War II most of Western Europe was in ruins. The United States decided to create the Marshall Plan which would provide aid in food, machinery, and funding. However, the reason this worked so well was because it was focused more so on rebuilding than just immediate relief. With said funding and machinery countries were able to invest in powerplants, factories, and railroads which in end allowed for long term economic growth and not just short term dependency. By the mid-1950’s Western Europe has recovered faster than expected and was now one of the world’s largest economic centers.
With that being said, aid should not be abandoned. It is vital that we become more effective in the ways we provide it. Similar to the example, we must focus on rebuilding those who need our aid instead of just handing off money. Long term investments make all the difference in allowing for a country to flourish and become revitalized.
I completely disagree with the statement that aid creates dependency and is often ineffective. I think aid can actually be very helpful when it is used properly and MANAGED well.
One main reason I beleive this is because international aid has helped saved lots of lives. Many countries rely on aid to support hospitals, provide vaccines, etc. Without that support, many communities would even struggle to survive, especially during wars, natural disasters, and much more.
I also don't think aid automatically creates dependency. Dependency usually happens when aid is poorly planned or only gives short-term solutions. When aid focuses on things like education, or creating jobs, it actually helps communities become stronger.. The problem is usually how aid is handled, not aid itself.
In summary, I beleive stopping aid completely would cause more harm than good. Instead of trying something completely different, countries should unite and focus on improving how aid is delivered.
I think that aid can be extremely helpful because if someone was in the war and they were dying you could send someone over and if coved was spreading around the world . You could stop sending people over until whatever has happened is finished so the person sending it will not get injured.
I agree with this statement because aid can create dependancy. Because even though aid has been very helpful with curing diseases and filling stomachs, etc. They have also deprived some countries from finding a solution internally.
For an example USAID recent withdrawal on Afghanistan has caused their healthcare system collapse with about 450 health clinics being closed. This abrupt halt has suspended services for maternal childs and health nutritions.
I believe that we should change aid in a way that benefits countries development internally rather than depending on an external source.
Aid, like most things can be manipulated and turned into something negative but lives are still being affected and saved, I think the good heavily outweighs the bad.
Some countries truly have massive issues with corruption, war, crimes, etc.. You can't really comprehend how much good you're doing by giving them the aid they desperately need.
You CAN create dependancy and technically cripple a country but it can still have a positive impact which is why I think that aid has not been a failure.
To a certain extent, I agree with the claim. Aid is extremely important in saving lives during emergencies such as famines, natural disasters, and health crises. However, it is less effective when it comes to providing long-term solutions to deep-rooted problems like poverty. One major issue is that continuous aid can sometimes create dependence, where countries rely on external help instead of developing their own sustainable solutions. This view is supported by the fact that years of food and financial aid alone have not permanently reduced poverty in many regions.
That said, completely stopping aid is not the right solution. Instead, the focus should be on reforming how aid is delivered. Aid should be directed more towards long-term development rather than short-term relief. Investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and local businesses can help countries build strong foundations for the future. When people are educated, healthy, and given opportunities to work and trade, they are more capable of supporting themselves and contributing to their economy.
There are examples of countries that have focused on training and skill development, resulting in citizens who are more independent and less reliant on foreign assistance. This shows that aid can be effective when it empowers people rather than replacing their efforts.
In conclusion, the problem is not aid itself, but how it is used. A development-focused approach that empowers local populations offers a more sustainable and effective solution in the long run.
I believe that aids can create dependency if it was not done correctly but if the aid was done correctly, it can be effective. Countries that have natural disasters (earthquakes or volcanos) or wars have their rights to ask other countries for aids and support. It is the right for the humans in these countries to get provided with goods like food, water and medicines
However, some countries are provided with a lot of foreign aids, but their problems are not solved consequently this can create dependency. For example, a country like Somalia faces a lot of economic disasters and they have not been solved yet. The country has been taking a lot of international aids yet there were no developments in their economy. This indicates that there is no development because of relying on the aids.
In my own point of view, I think that instead of providing the poor countries with aids, other countries can help in encouraging their local investments like in agriculture. This can increase and boost the poor countries' exports and bring them money. Countries also can help others by improving their infrastructure and buildings. Aids can be more efficient by being given to the local communities since they are the ones who face the calamities in their countries. They are the ones also who know what their needs are.
In my country, Egypt, poor people are not helped by money, but they are given jobs to increase their income. If we gave them money only, they would depend on us so if the money was stopped one day, they will be hopeless.
What do you think? Do aids make countries worse?
I agree that aid has failed. One reason for my view is because of the incapacitated government. Aid can act as a replacement for internal revenue making government less accountable to their people and more focused on donor requirements.
For example nigeria, known for its high level of corruption and deception, often leads to the misdistribution and loss of aid funds.
I disagree with the statement because in my perspective, I see aid as a helper, someone who helps people in hard situtations. Let's try to look at it in a way like this, your friend is failing on a subject so you try to help them by studying together, explaining some materials your friend hasn't understand and more. Now the exam results are out and your friends score increased a lot but still failed. I think the situation is similar because aid has helped thousands or even millions of people but it would be impossible to help everyone out. I don't think aid has failed but aid can develop and grow bigger so that it can help more people in need. Some ideas of mine that maybe could help would making small organizations throughout countries. These organizations can help give services to those in need or maybe share food and donations to the people who experienced natural disasters and lost their home. Overall, I think aid has not failed anyone but we shouldn't expect it to help everyone but put hope so it can in the future.
The claim that aid creates dependency and is often ineffective might actually be overlooking how well-designed assistance actually works. So I would be disagreeing to this motive because I feel that aid that is invested in needed programs like healthcare, education etc helps people build their skills and systems that helps them not to rely on outside support. Other programmes like vaccination and agricultural training strengthen local communities and save lives, allowing communities to grow independently.
So basically, I believe that when paired with accountability and local participation, aid empowers communities, address urgent needs, and creates opportunity for sustainable developments, rather than believing it creates dependency and can sometimes be ineffective.
I partly agree with this statement because aid can create dependency if it continues for a long time without change. One reason for my view is that some countries rely heavily on foreign aid instead of building their own economies. I believe this because, according to the World Bank and OECD, in several low-income countries foreign aid makes up more than 10% of their national income, which can reduce motivation to develop local industries and collect domestic revenue.
However, I disagree with the idea that aid is ineffective. In many cases, aid has saved lives and produced clear results. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, countries like Mauritius received vaccine support from India, which helped control the spread of the virus. The World Health Organization estimates that COVID-19 vaccines saved over 14 million lives globally in just one year, showing that well-targeted aid can be extremely effective, especially during emergencies.
In conclusion, aid should not be stopped, but it must be improved. A better solution is to gradually reduce aid over time while helping countries create their own sources of income through education, jobs, and industries. This reduces dependency without removing support suddenly. As a student, I believe real progress happens not when countries are helped forever, but when they are helped to become independent.
I think that aid is not completely the problem. It's not completely the solution either.
It's like when you meet a hungry person that lives in a riverine area. You have two options:
a. Catch fish for him and give him to eat.
or
b. Teach him how to catch fish.
Which one is more effective? It's the second one. That is because the first option only relieves the man from his immediate hunger. If he gets hungry again and there is no one to catch fish for him, he'll starve to death.
Aid is only one part of the solution. We also need to focus on development and not just immediate needs.
For example, when aid is sent to a country in need of food and clean water, once the supplies have been exhausted, the need for them arises again. What should be done instead is to build facilities and empower them with the means to provide for themselves IN ADDITION to the aid that is sent.
If this can't be done, there is no way that we can fully eradicate the need to be constantly sending aid to other countries.
I agree because aid creates dependency if it is not properly given. And I mean, if it's not properly given in the sense that when funds are given to local communities, they shouldn't just satisfy their pressing needs, but they should help to solve the problems of low-income earning; they should provide job opportunities in the community for people to earn money instead of always depending on international aid.
I personally agree that international aids are inefficient due to some following points:
Firstly I believe that there are too many middlemen, from the donors to the government then to agencies then NGOs then the contractors and finally the locals which by the time the money has reached the locals you can see that a chunk of money have been embezzled. I also believe that aid is more about satisfying donor governments' politics and also to create attractive and good looking reports meaning the projects look good on paper but does not solve any local problems.
I personally believe that aid should not be changed completely for something different instead, the scope of aid should change from basic needs like food to things like long term development needs not just immediate survival. Aid is more effective when it affects root causes of poverty not just its symptoms.
In conclusion, I believe that international aids should not increase dependency instead it should make countries become stronger.
I surely disagree with this statement because Aid has saved a lot of life by acting as the helping sector in the poorest and toughest situation. If any country is affected by any natural disasters, it's the responsibility and humanity of alliance country to come forward, and consider that consequence as their own issue.
Our country, India, has faced many natural disasters like cyclones, floods and tsunamis and in those darkest days, the world stood beside us in the form of Aid.
After the 2004 Indian ocean Tsunami countries like Japan, the United States ,Australia and the United Kingdom extended immediate support to India .They not just send money but they send us hope for our life.
Also, during the 1999 Odisha super cyclone international organisation and foreign Nations supported India with emergency supplies,clean drinking water and mental health support programs.
Today, our country stands stronger not just because we have rebuild roads and houses ,But because the world helped us rebuilt hope, courage and mental strength through Aid
So, it's not just about funding but about sharing humanity!!!
I don't agree totally with this statement, but I can understand what it tells. Its true that many countries create dependecy over the aids they receive, but sometimes those countries need the support of determined countries to develop a little bit more. I mean that when you give aid, you have to be knowing to which type of cuntries do you help, because many countries will create that famous dependency because of your aids and other will try to improve when you dont give aids. I think that aid doesn't create dependency, but onlyl that many countries don't want or can't develop.
I partially agree with the statement above because some people can be aggressive to people. One reason for my view is because they can attack people I believe this is because the LSE news article said "There was a devastating explosion that led to homelessness, injuries, and death." When people experience people who are hurting them, they can lose everyone. However, I believe that it can save lives from natural disasters and from other people who are hurting people and different countries. For example, if something bad happened aid can send supplies for people who need it and we can send some workers to fix problems to give them a new home. Even though sometimes aid can hurt people it still needs to rise and create jobs for people who need it and support locals and education for people who need and educations and a local who needs extra money. If aid does not rise people may start to make a trend where people try to not use aid. In conclusion, this is why I believe that people should partially agree on abandoning aid because it can help us, while it can harm us more.
I agree with the statement. Aid has helped a lot of countries in need. If a county relies on aid too much then the problem won’t be fixed.If countries constantly receive support, they may not feel the need to improve and develop their own economies, governments, or systems because they expect help to continue. Aid gives countries temporary support but if they don’t find a full solution then the problem won’t be fixed. Although aid is useful, some countries rely on it too much. Therefore the country needs to find a different way to fix the problem, because not all the time they will get aid from other countries.
I agree with the statement. Aid, although seen as helpful will only make the country worse in the long run, as the country can turn dependant on the constant support, it makes the provider lose resources, and the country will most likely crumble if the aid doesn't stop.
Aid is only short term benefits, as blankets, food, and water only will last a while before gone. This leads to constant need of these short term supports, and the country not able to manage themselves. This may also cause the citizens to leave and move away from the country, as the living conditions would most likely be bad.
This moves on to my second reason, if the supporter continues the constant aid, they themselves will lose resources, but if we think what the country may actually do if in a scenario they're asked constantly for supplies, they may just stop. This leaves the in need country angry for lack of aid, and could result in war.
Speaking of which, another outcome to the scenario would be the country just falling apart. With no supplies and goods, they will simply just die out of essential needs, and soon lose population to death if they don't move. If the country were to go to war, they would have a weak military, as they can't afford weapons or even good bases.
In conclusion, I agree with the statement because aid can cause dependancy, a lack of resources for the provider, and a weak country altogether. Aid has only been causing trouble, and if your president is to choose the option to keep providing aid/choose to provide aid, your country may not be able to sustain.
I disagree because aid is helping a lot with money and materials. Countries that are poor and need help actually get help from aid. One reason from my view is how aid helps very poor countries with food, water, and money. For example, International aid helped 170 countries around the world. In the research I did Nigeria was one of the many countries that was helped. Aid helps so many poor countries with food, money, water, and shelter. Also, aid gives money to the countries in need so they won't die of sickness or starvation.This is why I disagree that aid has failed.
I agree with getting an better option than AID. Why? Because AID has not helped like it should. Many states and continents have denied USAID to smaller countries and countries with limited funding, all to the fact they have either more money, more supplies or even just hatred between the two countries due to a past war or even conflict between two major figures in the political standing. This is not helping, being able to choose and pick between who gets to save their people and who doesn't is just devastating. Knowing your future, your children's future, even your blood line or close colleague's futures are put into the hands of one person who may have a negative perpesctive about you is just frightful.
This is why we need a change. We need a better solution than tearing apart futures people didn't know they were allowed to have, just for one nation, continent, or states small or big gain. It is time to change. People can vote on whether a political figure's choice of humanitarian aid is the right choice, we as people can vote to get a different AID system, not controlled by the government of the state's or continent's. We should leave it up to the people, as if it's a ballot. We need to work towards a better approach.
In my opinion, I believe neither of the choices are correct or incorrect. This is because it does make people become dependent on others, but it is an effective way to do teamwork. I do think we should also try something else, but also stick with what we're doing for others.
To start off, people say that aiding others makes them dependent, which is partially correct but not everyone is perfect enough to not get help. For example, imagine a developing country gets a flood and it destroys the majority of the land, and of course they don't have enough money to cover it all, so obviously they will need help. At the same time, that country will have to learn to go through it without help, unless it gets worse, not becoming so dependent like most people say.
Additionally, it's a great way to show partnerships, unless you are against them. For instance, in WWI(World War I), there was a group of countries who bundled together to fight Germany. These countries were France, the Russian Empire, Italy, the United States, Japan, Serbia, Belgium, Romania, Portugal, and Greece. They all worked together to attack the major Axis powers.
In conclusion, I believe neither of the choices are correct or incorrect because it does make people become dependent on others, but it is an effective way to do teamwork. These are the reasons why I believe this statement is neither right nor wrong.
Imagine that you are the president of a wealthy, large and financially secure country. One day, two countries beside you declare war, and what will you do? You will aid for a side or do nothing? I agree with the statement because if you keep aiding a side, that side will just use your military, resources, money, and medical. When they use all of your resources that you gave them, they will not know what to do and the consequences will be: lost the war, starvation, and deaths because they keep relying on your country.
Fellow students, esteemed writers,
I disagree with this quote, as I find that current aid supplement is ineffective, but not totally useless.
On the plus side, aid allows countries to form alliances over supporting each other, and allows smaller countries to thrive in poor conditions such as frequent natural disasters.
On the flip side, aid is often ineffective as it is often too little or too late.
For these reasons, I believe that aid should be replaced by a more streamlined system, or managed by those directly affected by a situation, so that they can gauge exactly how much and when they need supplies.
Thank you for reading.
I partially agree with the statement that aid can create dependency and that it is often ineffective.
On the one hand, aid often focuses on solving problems immediately, which is necessary in emergency situations. However, when this type of aid is prolonged over time, it can cause some countries to end up depending on external support and, therefore, not develop their economic or social capacities.
In addition, nowadays there is not always good management of aid, and this can cause resources not to reach the people who need them most.
On the other hand, eliminating aid completely is not a realistic solution because it is needed to respond to emergencies and to mantain stability.
For all these reasons, the key is to transform aid so that it focuses on the long term. This can be done by investing in education and health systems. This would allow countries to develop their own economies.
In conclusion, although aid can generate dependency, it remains an essential tool. Aid should not be abandoned, but rather the way it is provided should be changed.
I disagree because while aid can sometimes create dependency, it it not always ineffective and has helped millions of people worldwide. One reason for my view is that foreign aid has funded life-saving vaccinations, disaster relief, clean water projects and education systems in developing countries. For example, in Nigeria, international aid has supported major polio vaccination campaigns that brought the country close to eradicating the disease. I believe this shows that global health campaigns supported by aid can reduce diseases like polio and malaria in many regions, proving that aid can produce measurable long-term benefits.
However, I do think the way aid is delivered sometimes needs improvement. This links to related topics like sustainable development and governance. If aid is poorly managed or tied to political interests, it may not reach the people who need it most, which can slow progress and create reliance. That's why many experts argue for "capacity-building" helping countries develop their own industries, infrastructure, and institutions so they become self-sufficient rather than dependent.
It also connects to global economics and trade. Instead of replacing aid completely, countries could combine aid with fair trade policies, investment in local businesses, and debt relief. This approach tackles root causes of poverty, such as unequal trade systems and lack of economic opportunities. So rather than abandoning aid, I believe reforming and modernizing it (alongside other strategies) would be more effective than simply "trying something else."
I mostly disagree with the statement that aid creates dependency and is often ineffective, because it isn't always bad, and it has many positive effects that help people to make their lives better.
One reason for my view is that sometimes, aid has saved many lives and improved living conditions. I believe this because it can give food during hunger, medicine when people are sick, and help to solve natural disasters in the country. Aid can also improve economic situations by creating new jobs, supporting small businesses and helping build roads or schools; and social conditions by giving people access to education, health care, food and clean water, which makes the country healthier and gives children new opportunities for the future.
For example, global aid has supported vaccination programs that reduced some hard diseases, saving millions of lives. This type of example shows that aid, when used carefully and properly, can be very effective in improving personal situations, rather than creating dependency.
I think that help can be good because it can bring peace and make places safer. But sometimes help is used in a bad way, and people steal it to start wars. In life, everything has good and bad sides. But for luckily or unfortunately, nothing is perfect.
Yes the aid are meant to support the country in time where there are needed the most that is why it is called "aid"
Aid has not completely failed, but it has not fully succeeded either. It has helped save lives during emergencies and improved access to healthcare and education in some countries. However, it has often failed to solve long-term problems like poverty and conflict because of corruption, poor planning, and over-dependence. This shows that aid needs to be improved, not abandoned.
I somewhat agree with the statement that aid's not very helpful. The thing is aid can make countries rely on it much.. I do not think aid does not work at all. Aid has been given to countries for a long time. However these countries are still poor. Their institutions are still weak. This is often because the aid they get is, about helping them right now rather than helping them in the long run. Aid is given to help with problems not to help countries develop and get better over time.
For example when you give money or food to people all the time without helping the economy grow countries start to depend on help from places. This is a problem because it stops businesses from growing and it means that Food and money cannot help countries become truly independent so Food and money donations do not support economic growth, in these countries.
We should not stop giving aid. Aid has saved a lot of lives through healthcare and education. Helping people during disasters. This shows that aid can really work when it is planned properly. Aid is important. It can make a big difference, in peoples lives. Aid has helped millions of people. It can continue to do so if we do it right.
In my opinion, aid should be reformed to focus more on job creation, education and local businesses. This would reduce dependency and help countries become more independent.
I'm not sure about this because aid in short term is helpful in situations like natural disasters or war and conflict because it is a short term situation. But some countries have been given aid for decades or sometimes even longer, yet they are in the same position as before this can be because of misuse by their government.
The Bible tells us that we need to teach people and not just give them things or they can't learn. Matthew 4:19 tells us that we should focus on teaching and empowering rather than giving.
There is also a proverb that teaches us this too.
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"
I can agree to this because aid is usually presented as a moral and practical solution to certain situations, yet in many cases it creates dependency and fails to provide long-lasting results. Instead of fostering self-sufficiency or developing domestic industries, long-term aid can develop a cycle in which countries depend on continuous outside support to meet basic needs.
Aid can also distort local economies by allowing a large inflow of free goods, which may end up undermining local farmers and businesses who can't compete with donated goods. And this factor discourages innovation from people and also weakens domestic markets. In some other situations, aid funds are mismanaged or held back by corrupt officials, which simply means that sometimes the aid never gets to the consumers who intend to use them.
Besides, donors often attach conditions that fit their own strategic interests rather than local priorities. Without focusing on empowerment and institutional transformations, aid risks maintaining dependence instead of promoting durable growth.
THANK YOU.
Hi, topical talkers.
In my opinion, international aid has failed to permit long lasting national developments; as it provides temporary assistance, but overtime, its economic impact has been limited. Aid could create some form of dependency which could reduce governments motivation to build stronger institutions or better and sustainable economies. All in all, with aid from other countries which lend a helping hand in survival for the meantime, it doesn't encourage a country to work towards having a stable economic system that will last them for the future.
Thank you.
I disagree with the statement because aid can be very effective when it is planned well and focused on long‑term solutions. One reason for my view is that international aid has saved millions of lives through things like vaccination programmes, clean water projects and disaster relief, which many countries could not provide on their own. I believe this because aid has reduced diseases such as polio in Nigeria and provided essential support during emergencies like earthquakes, conflicts and health crises. This evidence suggests that aid does not always create dependency; when used properly, it helps countries become healthier, stronger and more independent over time.
I think aid only creates dependency if it's delivered wrongly. Here's what I mean by "delivery wrongly", imagine this: your friend does not know the answer to an exam question, and you decided to just give your answer sheet so they can copy it. Sure, now your friend has good grades but this behavior does not make them smarter and improve, it's just giving them a quick and easy solution.
However, instead of giving them your answer sheet, you decide to explain the lesson and help them understand the problem better, now thats different. because your not giving them a temporary fix, your giving them a long term fix and a steady base.
Thats how international aid should work. If aid only provides short term hand outs like sending food without helping them grow corpse, then yes aid can cause dependency because countries might start relying on outside help instead of building their own systems. But, if aid focuses more on education, infrastructure, healthcare than it can empower people to stand o their own.
Good aid should act like a teacher, not an answer sheet.
I like your example of "delivery wrongly" ineffable_tornado, I think it gives a good picture to what you feel about how international aid should work
I agree because the counties that are being helped may get too dependent on the Aid that is given to them and start being A leach to the USAID and kill the program so I think that there is need for change.
Do you think wealthier and more powerful countries have a moral or political obligation to assist poorer nations? What potential consequences might arise if wealthier countries stopped providing foreign aid?
I think aid is good because what if someone is in desperate need of something and they don’t have it the we could send it over to them so then they stay healthy and we may be able to save lives you might need aid in different situations like when you need food or water if there is a water drought or in wars or in any situations you could need aid so I think aid is good
I completely disagree with the notion that aid creates dependency or is usually a failure. If we well planned, aid can preempt problems from starting, fill the most critical gaps, and ultimately save money instead of creating dependency.
The first thing to note is that aid is preventive practice. Through providing basic requirements such as food, health services, and education, aid helps us to minimise the chances of war, migration, and the spread of diseases. If these basic problems are addressed early enough, they will not rise to become global problems requiring armed intervention or disaster response.
The second aspect is that aid supplies what the market fails to supply. Some needs, such as healthcare in countryside, clean water, sanitation, and basic schooling, for instance, may lack profitability and therefore fail to attract the interest of private enterprises. As a result, aid provides what would have otherwise been lacking, thereby creating the ground for future prosperity.
Finally, halting the provision of aid can inflate the overall cost around the globe in the long term. It may make a great deal of sense to curtail the provision of aid in ht short term, but it is likely to inflate the costs in the long term since disaster victims will need peacekeeping, refugee support, and disaster response. Preventive and targetted support is much cheaper than responding to emergencies.
I disagree and I think that we should keep aid, because Aid can make countries create dependency on it in case of emergencies or in need of food or shelter, but the fact that countries are still in lack of food and other supplies still continues. However I mostly disagree because in my opinion aid still helps countries today, without it the world would struggled even and more people will be without homes and shelter.
Instead of trying something different we should focus on how we can make Aid better in ways that can really improve it. For example we should open up more homeless shelters for people in need of shelter and provide more supplies for the people without it