NationStates Jolt Archive

What are some purely pragmatic reasons for rich countries to give aid that helps poor people in developing countries? I think that aid that hastens economic development in poor countries can have the following benefits for rich nations:

1. Disease control: By improving public health in developing it countries it makes it less likely that disease will spread to rich countires.

2. Prevention of crime: Terrorists and other criminals will find it harder to hide in countries have decently funded police and legal systems.

3. Environmental protection: The richer a country is, the less likely people are to tolerate local environmental degregation, and the less expensive it will be in absolute terms to reduce pollution.

4. Improved markets: As countries become richer they buy and sell more.

3. Faster economic growth in developed countries: As poor countries become richer they will produce more capital of their own and have more educated people inventing things that rich people can benefit from.

4. Improved choice in entertainment: Just as South Korea now produces high quality movies and computer games, other countries will do the same once their ecomomies improve.

5. Reduction in number of refugees and illegal immigrants: As conditions improve in their own countries, more people will want to stay there.

6. Soft power: Giving aid can increase the influence rich nations have.

7. Peace in the Future: A world in which it common practice for nations to help each other is one that is more likely to avoid war in the future.

Can anyone think of other pragmatic reasons for giving a hand to developing countries?

Well not at the moment, however all those reasons you listed are also good, selfish and pragmatic reasons to invade other countries.

Aid encourages dependency, which is a useful thing if one wishes to exercise control or at least influence over a country.

Wasn't one of the reasons to provide the neccessary bargaining strength to force economic/political reforms on the recipient nation that would be of direct benefit to the economy of the donor nation? i.e. aid packages in exchange for complete removal of tariffs and import taxes and that sort of thing.

all those reasons you listed are also good, selfish and pragmatic reasons to invade other countries.
I don't quite follow. War generally involves the spread of disease, increases in crime, the destruction of environment and capital, reduction in trade, more refugess, deaths of people who will subsequently invent nothing, less money spent on entertainment, and, um, definately less peace. Hard to think of any wars that didn't have these effects.

War generally involves the spread of disease, increases in crime, the destruction of environment and capital, reduction in trade, more refugess, deaths of people who will subsequently invent nothing, less money spent on entertainment, and, um, definately less peace. Hard to think of any wars that didn't have these effects.
I can think of a couple of examples - the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made things all better. With a bit of luck, we can spread the benefits you mention in your first post to Iran too, and maybe the world.

Long term economic growth generally depends on a number of factors described in an economics field called "Growth Accounting".
In a nutshell, there is a model that describes the long term growth rate of GDP (per capita), and it mainly focuses on the savings rate. It argues that savings are needed to improve and expand capital stock, which improves productivity.
Since 3rd world countries generally have very low savings rates, they need lots of foreign investment to cancel that out. But the social infrastructure in such countries is often suboptimal as well, such that aid may be the only way to help those countries along for the time being.
The problem with aid is of course that it isn't used in the best way. It should go into improving social infrastructure to attract foreign investment, but instead it goes into all kinds of inefficiencies.

That's not enough of a reason though to invade 3rd world countries.

I can think of a couple of examples - the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made things all better. With a bit of luck, we can spread the benefits you mention in your first post to Iran too, and maybe the world.

That's a hell of a lot more expensive both in money and our soldiers lives then just sending an aid package. Along with the increased expense, we seem to be creating some animosity toward outselves among the people living in the countries we invade. You're not going to have more influence over a country when the people living in that country vote for politicians that run on a platform consisting solely of not cooperating with Americans, or worse, the west in general. When that happens we all lose.

I can think of a couple of examples - the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made things all better. With a bit of luck, we can spread the benefits you mention in your first post to Iran too, and maybe the world.

Hmmm, I'm inclined to think that the benefits to Iraq and Afghanistan may not be quite as large as you think. Even if I'm mistaken, it seems quite an expensive way to go about it. One hundred and seventy billion dollars spent and over 1,600 U.S. armed forces personel dead so far. And the cost and the death toll are going to rise. It hardly seems selfish or pragmatic. At this rate it will only cost 6.8 trillion dollars and 64,000 lives to liberate the poorest billion people on earth. Kind of pricey. That's $6,800 per person. Why not just invest that amount and pay the poorest billion people say 2 dollars a day? That will improve their well being immensely. You might want to make it conditional upon their governments adopting sound economic policy.

I can think of a couple of examples - the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made things all better. With a bit of luck, we can spread the benefits you mention in your first post to Iran too, and maybe the world.

That's sarcasm right? I know it should be obvious, but there are quite a few people here who actually think that. I'll take the phrase "all better" as evidence of sarcasm, aside from the sheer absurdity of the statement. Absurdity alone is no longer evidence of sarcasm these days I'm afraid.

But I'll still take the chance to point out to the many who are not aware. The war in Afghanistan changed practically nothing outside of Kabul. In terms of the area that we actually established a functioning government, a map of Afghanistan would look like a ball on a string (the ball representing Kabul, the string representing a road out of Afghanistan.)

I don't quite follow. War generally involves the spread of disease, increases in crime, the destruction of environment and capital, reduction in trade, more refugess, deaths of people who will subsequently invent nothing, less money spent on entertainment, and, um, definately less peace. Hard to think of any wars that didn't have these effects.

Only in the short term. And only in the nation where the war is actually taking place. When was the last time you used a product invented by a citizen of Iraq anyway?

But I'll still take the chance to point out to the many who are not aware. The war in Afghanistan changed practically nothing outside of Kabul. In terms of the area that we actually established a functioning government, a map of Afghanistan would look like a ball on a string (the ball representing Kabul, the string representing a road out of Afghanistan.)

How much control did the Taliban have outside major cities? If Afghanistan is anything like countries like Pakistan and Yemen, I would assume that they had about as much control as we do. That's no big suprise. It'll take a lot more modernization in all those countries to overcome tribal traditions. No government that anyone sets up will be able to enforce laws on those people and their territories for at least a decade, I'd guess. I doubt the Afghan government will have the kind of control over their tribes that the US has over native americans (ignore forced resettling and reservations that probably shortened the process) for many, many years.

When was the last time you used a product invented by a citizen of Iraq anyway?

Everyday actually. But rather than go into that, I'll ask: When was the last time you used a product invented by a citizen of Japan? If Japan had stayed poor, we would miss out on a lot.

Everyday actually. But rather than go into that, I'll ask: When was the last time you used a product invented by a citizen of Japan? If Japan had stayed poor, we would miss out on a lot.

If you are referring to the fact that civilization originated in Mesopotamia, you may be wrong. Most of the breakthroughs were primarily brought about by Semitic peoples. The Arabs latter displaced them, thus making that argument is complicated, but I suppose they were technically Iraqis.

About Japan, I’m sure someone else would have come up with all that stuff. The first video game consul was invented by an American, after all, and then bought by a Japanese company. However, they do deserve much of the credit for showing initiative, recognizing a new market and investing heavily in it.

On Topic: Providing aid to African countries is important from a purely humanitarian view. Normally, I am not for handouts, but the fact of the matter is that these people have no practical way to help themselves. Not to mention the less morally abstract reasons stated before.

If you are referring to the fact that civilization originated in Mesopotamia, you may be wrong. Most of the breakthroughs were primarily brought about by Semitic peoples.
I'm thinking about Iraqis working in research, mostly in other countries. And I though Arab people were semetic?

About Japan, I’m sure someone else would have come up with all that stuff.
Well yes, I'm sure. And I'm sure someone would have come up with all that stuff America invented, eventually. Doesn't mean we don't benefit from it now. In 1998 Japan produced more than twice as many patents as the U.S. despite having less than half the population.
Providing aid to African countries is important from a purely humanitarian view. I agree with you here. If I see someone suffering in the street, I don't calculate how much gain I will get personally from helping them.

The first video game consul

Video games with diplomatic credentials?

Aid has the effect of stunting economic growth because it increases dependency.

The main selfish reason that Western government give aid to the third world has absolutely nothing to do with the recipients of the aid. Aid makes western politicians look nice and compassionate, improving their vote.

I'm thinking about Iraqis working in research, mostly in other countries. And I though Arab people were semetic?

I honestly wasn’t aware of any Iraqi nationals working as researchers in other countries. I suppose it makes sense, though. They don’t exactly have a good job-market for them there. Oh, and I just looked up something and it turns out I remembered incorrectly. Although the Ubaidians were the original inhabitants the Semites arrived in 4000 BC so you can give them the credit for all but the very basics I guess. ;)

I agree with you here. If I see someone suffering in the street, I don't calculate how much gain I will get personally from helping them.

That would be kind of a weird thing to do. “I wonder if that guy that just got hit by a car has any untapped wealth he’ll give me if I help him?”

Aid has the effect of stunting economic growth because it increases dependency.
My government paid for my education. I don't think that increased my dependency. I don't think aid has to increase dependancy. Teach a man to set a fish on fire and all that...

My government paid for my education. I don't think that increased my dependency. I don't think aid has to increase dependancy. Teach a man to set a fish on fire and all that...

In theory, it doesn't have to.

In practice, in some cases, it doesn't, however, in most cases, it doesn't.

For aid not to create dependency, it must be conditional, and in general, the conditions should revolve around the idea that the purpose of aid to to eliminate the need for its existance.

The problem in the Third World is government.

On Topic: Providing aid to African countries is important from a purely humanitarian view. Normally, I am not for handouts, but the fact of the matter is that these people have no practical way to help themselves. Not to mention the less morally abstract reasons stated before.

Yeah, because a place with abundant and valuable natural resources can never help itself :rolleyes:

Yeah, because a place with abundant and valuable natural resources can never help itself

I would like you to explain how they are to obtain the means to harvest these recourses without being taken advantage of by international corporations.

That would be kind of a weird thing to do. “I wonder if that guy that just got hit by a car has any untapped wealth he’ll give me if I help him?”

If you were an average person with no way to benefit from it, perhaps so. If you were a lawyer, your line of thought would probably be "I wonder how much I can get him to sue that car driver for?"

It depends on what viewpoint you see it from really.

I would like you to explain how they are to obtain the means to harvest these recourses without being taken advantage of by international corporations.

Standard issue anti-capitalist rhetoric. It was fallacious when it was invented. It is fallacious now.

Are you saying that trading resources for money constitutes being taken advantage of?

Why does trade constitute being screwed?