Reassessing How We Look at Foreign Aid

The current mode of foreign aid is broken. On almost every level, we have consistently failed the people we claim to be trying to help. This is partially due to mismanagement and inherent flaws in the system, but it is mostly due to our own inability to adequately address the complexities of the problems facing the developing world and to seek solutions compatible with the unique situations in these states. William Easterly, in his book White Man's Burden points out that that we (the West) have given more than $300 billion in foreign aid in the last 20 or so years and yet we have failed to achieve any measurable results. $300 billion and we have not been able to end the spread of malaria in children in Africa. $300 billion and we cannot get these kids beds nets. $300 billion and we cannot guarantee immunizations will be in stock when Malawian mother's make the 20 mile trek to the nearest hospital. And so they have to come back another day with their child on their back because they are too sick to walk. $300 billion and we are no closer to eliminating poverty in the developing world.

The reason this is true is that a large portion of foreign aid is aimed at economic development and not necessarily at the specific problems afflicting these people. The proponents of foreign aid venerate the classical model of economic progression when, in reality, the environment that allowed the early industrializers to develop no longer exists. The international community is highly critical of the exploitation of a laboring class and regulatory agencies will not permit countries to foster infrastructural growth by hiding behind high protective tariffs.

The notion that economic development will occur in the same way as it did more than 200 years ago, and thinking that economic progression follows a single spectrum ignores the differences between the West and the developing world. Additionally, I feel compelled to ask how we are so presumptuous to assume that we can end poverty 3000 miles away when we cannot eliminate poverty within our own borders?

I'm not against helping people in need. I believe the West should have a role in the developing world, just not the one to which we currently ascribe. We need to focus our efforts on promoting and protecting basic human rights, not on some archaic model of economic growth and development. We need sweeping changes. We need a complete re-evaluation of the problem. We need to stop using tried and untrue methods when addressing the priorities of foreign aid. Right now a large portion of or foreign aid endowment is focused in pushing our own political agenda and securing our own interests and not in alleviating the oppressive burden of poverty in these areas. Now, the other side is going to tell you that foreign aid is essential, that it accomplishes real results. They are going to say that foreign aid creates markets for American businesses. They are going to say that foreign aid reduces the threat of terrorism by improving quality of life. They are going to say that foreign aid helps save lives. But what they are not going to tell you is that the end of that statement is "we think".

Foreign aid creates markets, reduces terrorism, and saves lives, we think. But the dark truth of foreign aid is that it seems to accomplish none of these things and instead engenders a belief that the people we send aid to are somehow less human than we here in the developed world. Most of our aid is politically driven and the na've donations of private citizens do not help alleviate the conditions of the poor and abject citizens of the developing world, and instead only really help the donors be able to sleep more soundly at night.$300 billion and we have accomplished nothing. So maybe its time to change the way we think foreign aid works, or rather doesn't.