Question

On the global scene, many people feel as if foreign assistance which is supposed to be a target at population health, should not be given to countries with known histories of abuse and having corrupt governments.

Others do not see value in withholding aid since it is believed to be the only form of influence available.

What is the rationale for each of these views? Where do you fall on the issue?

Answer 1

The logic behind whether foreign aid should not be given to countries with corrupt government is that in corrupt governments, financial aid do not reach the needy but is wasted in public consumption. Foreign aid fosters corruption instead of reducing it .When foreign aid is given to country like Ethopia , which is known for more serious human rights abuses,they do not take any interest to improve human rights. To give aid to such countries is only to promote legal responsibility to protect human rights.Foreign aid is given to promote economic growth but at times they lead to poor governance and slow down growth.There is no value in providing large amount of money to a country with poor policies because foreign aid may not be productive if there is delay in putting the policy reforms to practice.However it is seen that corrupt governments receive as much aid as less corrupt ones.

Cutting down aid may however lead to very little change. On the other hand alienating foreign government may build strain relationship and push important relationship to danger. It will do more harm than good. It is argued that such a drastic move to withhold aid cannot be expected to bring 100% change in the country which is targeted , rather small changes can make the government move in a better way.

My view is that aid should not be cut to countries with poor human rights record as it puts the donor country in a bad record.Cutting off aid may lead to much more problems and it is less likely that threat to stop aid will have desired effect .