need help for paper: does foreign aid lead to economic growth?

[The Frozen One]

to start, i'm having a very tough time finding out what economic development means.

is it the same as economic growth?

 

[the mechanic]

to start, i'm having a very tough time finding out what economic development means.

is it the same as economic growth?

Economic development is the policy and strategy that leads to economic growth.. they're connected but you can have economic growth without economic development in a laissez faire economy for example or an area with new mineral discovery ..and you can have economic development and still have no growth if the strategies are poorly chosen.

 

[theworldismine13]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Aid-Working-Better-Africa/dp/0374532125/ref=la_B0034Q5B42_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365399220&sr=1-1]Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa: Dambisa Moyo, Niall Ferguson: 9780374532123: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[88m3]

the easy/simple answer would be yes; you could make a case either way.

 

[theworldismine13]

the simple answer is no, aid is like welfare, it can help if its temporary, but over the long term it leads to economic stagnation

 

[the mechanic]

the simple answer is no, aid is like welfare, it can help if its temporary, but over the long term it leads to economic stagnation

I Agree..foreign aid just creates dependence,kills innovation and entrepreneurship ,causes corruption and mismanagement

ironically almost the same kind of problems that welfare does..

 

[The Frozen One]

Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa: Dambisa Moyo, Niall Ferguson: 9780374532123: Amazon.com: Books

I started reading this book earlier today. Had to go to the library to pick it up.

I like her arguments. Though there are lot of grammar mistakes in the book. Wonder how it missed during the editing process.

 

[theworldismine13]

I started reading this book earlier today. Had to go to the library to pick it up.

I like her arguments. Though there are lot of grammar mistakes in the book. Wonder how it missed during the editing process.

i read it, i dont really remember any grammar problems, i missed them i guess

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

the simple answer is no, aid is like welfare, it can help if its temporary, but over the long term it leads to economic stagnation

I Agree..foreign aid just creates dependence,kills innovation and entrepreneurship ,causes corruption and mismanagement

ironically almost the same kind of problems that welfare does..

Not true in all cases since it depends on the government structure and corruption. Foreign aid can increase productivity by allocating the resources to developing technological advances, hire workers, access to equipment etc. If the government are fair and really want to develop the economy (increase growth rate) then they will treat the aid as a foreign investment and/or bank loan. Similarly to an investment/loan, it will give access to firms to grow thus increase the overall countries output/GDP/Income.

Foreign aid, again, does not kill innovation or the entrepreneurial spirit if it helps create policies that, for example, incentives people to start their own company by creating a stronger judicial system, police, and other factors that creates a safe environment to its' citizens. Why focus on the law? Well, it is certainly a big factor since it is the main thing stopping people from creating their own product/starting their own company in third world countries. No property rights, patents, or a slow judicial process are the main concerns that people are scared of since their absence makes it easier for others' to come and steal their shyt.

To answer the OP's question; foreign aid is only beneficial to a country if it is treated as an investment in a "fairly" free-market economic structure and not to strengthen a socialistic government-owns-all ideology.

 

[stealthbomber]

foreign aid is good for business

 

[theworldismine13]

Not true in all cases since it depends on the government structure and corruption. Foreign aid can increase productivity by allocating the resources to developing technological advances, hire workers, access to equipment etc. If the government are fair and really want to develop the economy (increase growth rate) then they will treat the aid as a foreign investment and/or bank loan. Similarly to an investment/loan, it will give access to firms to grow thus increase the overall countries output/GDP/Income.

Foreign aid, again, does not kill innovation or the entrepreneurial spirit if it helps create policies that, for example, incentives people to start their own company by creating a stronger judicial system, police, and other factors that creates a safe environment to its' citizens. Why focus on the law? Well, it is certainly a big factor since it is the main thing stopping people from creating their own product/starting their own company in third world countries. No property rights, patents, or a slow judicial process are the main concerns that people are scared of since their absence makes it easier for others' to come and steal their shyt.

To answer the OP's question; foreign aid is only beneficial to a country if it is treated as an investment in a "fairly" free-market economic structure and not to strengthen a socialistic government-owns-all ideology.

The only type of aid that has really helped an economy develop is if it's temporary or if its military aid, but direct prolonged aid has never been shown to work and african countries are an example of that

And there are way to many ifs in your post

 

[mbewane]

foreign aid is good for business

Don't forget that foreign aid IS a business in itself. No aid agency has an interest in seeing countries develop.

 

[unit321]

to start, i'm having a very tough time finding out what economic development means.

is it the same as economic growth?

Depends. There are people who are trying to get foreign aid because they want to help allied countries out. The flipside is what is benefit? Really, they are a third-world country and have nothing to give back. Think about it, they are as poor as can be. One milly ain't going to turn things around.

It's about two things. 1. Diplomacy. Maintaining good relations with allied countries. 2. Strategic alliance. By maintaining good relations, we can use them as an ally to assist in intelligence operations against our enemies.

 

[Resident Geordie]

Aid could work but it is mainly tied to anti-development polices forced on third world countries by richer countries. Aid is often for the benefit of the country supplying the aid

A major proportion of aid from donor nations is tied, mandating that a receiving nation spend on products and expertise originating only from the donor country. [9] Eritrea discovered that it would be cheaper to build its network of railways with local expertise and resources rather than be forced to spend aid money on foreign consultants, experts, architects and engineers imposed on the country as a condition of development assistance.[9] US law requires food aid be spent on buying food at home, instead of where the hungry live, and, as a result, half of what is spent is used on transport.[10] As a result, tying aid is estimated to increase the cost of aid by 15-30%.[11] Oxfam America and American Jewish World Service report that reforming US food aid programs could extend food aid to an additional 17.1 million people around the world.[12]

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as primary holders of developing countries' debt, attach structural adjustment conditionalities to loans which generally include the elimination of state subsidies and the privatization of state services. For example, the World Bank presses poor nations to eliminate subsidies for fertilizer even while many farmers cannot afford them at market prices.[13] In the case of Malawi, almost five million of its 13 million people used to need emergency food aid. However, after the government changed policy and subsidies for fertilizer and seed were introduced, farmers produced record-breaking corn harvests in 2006 and 2007 as production leaped to 3.4 million in 2007 from 1.2 million in 2005, making Malawi a major food exporter.[13] In the former Soviet states, the reconfiguration of public financing in their transition to a market economy called for reduced spending on health and education, sharply increasing poverty.[14][15][16]

In their April 2002 publication,Oxfarm Report reveals that aid tied to trade Liberalization by the donor countries such as the European Union with the aim of achieving economic objective is becoming detrimental to developing countries.For example, the EU subsidizes its agricultural sectors in the expense of Latin America who must liberalize trade in order to qualify for aid. Latin America having, a comparative advantage on agriculture and mainly forms its export sector losts $ 4bn annually due to the EU farm subsidy policies. Carlos Santiso advocates a "radical approach in which donors cede control to the recipient country

Aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

The only type of aid that has really helped an economy develop is if it's temporary or if its military aid, but direct prolonged aid has never been shown to work and african countries are an example of that

And there are way to many ifs in your post

In real life practice yes because of the political factor, but he didn't ask if it has been successful, only if it could lead to economic growth. Two different things.

Wtf is temporary foreign aid? That they only get money for a short period of time or that they only use it for a short amount of time? I'm guessing it's the first and that's the fukking definition of foreign aid!

Have you ever studied economics? Everything is based on ifs.....