The issue of foreign aid goes to the heart of how nations should cooperate together, and whether this
should be on a ‘quota’ system or more ‘as needed. ’ In this often heated debate, the opposing arguments can
perhaps be summarised as follows.
Proponents of the quota system claim that wealthier nations have a moral duty to sacrifice some of
their income to help poorer countries, and that this duty does not rise or fall depending on circumstances. This
argument is often used to justify the quota arrangement for former imperial states such as Holland, France or
Britain. Moreover, the arguments goes, the fixed proportion system allows the receiving countries to plan and
budget reliably, building the foreign aid into their economic calculations. However, opponents of the fixed donation system respond that this budgetary aspect is in fact the
most damaging aspect of the idea. They point out that, if aid money is provided regardless of whether it is
actually needed, the funds become part of the recipient country’s administrative system, with all the dangers of
inefficiency and corruption that this involves. It must be said that fixed aid to some developing countries falls
into this trap, as even the local charities themselves will agree. What is more, if aid funds could be held back
until times of emergency, such as floods, famine or civil war, the money available would then be far higher and
thus would help more people in distress.
To conclude, it appears to me that opponents of the quota system have the more robust argument,
with their concerns over unnecessary donations which reduce emergency funding in future. We all recognise a
moral duty to help those in need, but surely these resources should be targeted more strictly towards sufferers,
rather than sent permanently to government departments to become part of the local economy.
The issue of foreign
aid
goes to the heart of how nations should cooperate together, and whether this
should be on a
‘quota’
system
or more ‘as needed. ’ In this
often
heated debate, the opposing arguments can
perhaps be
summarised
as follows.
Proponents of the
quota
system
claim that wealthier nations have a moral duty to sacrifice
some
of
their income to
help
poorer
countries
, and that this duty does not rise or fall depending on circumstances. This
argument is
often
used
to justify the
quota
arrangement for former imperial states such as Holland, France or
Britain.
Moreover
, the arguments goes, the
fixed
proportion
system
allows
the receiving
countries
to plan and
budget
reliably
, building the foreign
aid
into their economic calculations.
However
, opponents of the
fixed
donation
system
respond that this budgetary aspect is in fact the
most damaging aspect of the
idea
. They point out that, if
aid
money
is provided
regardless of whether it is
actually needed, the funds become part of the recipient
country’s
administrative
system
, with all the
dangers
of
inefficiency and corruption that this involves. It
must
be said
that
fixed
aid
to
some
developing
countries
falls
into this trap, as even the local charities themselves will
agree
.
What is more
, if
aid
funds could
be held
back
until times of emergency, such as floods, famine or civil war, the money available would then be far higher and
thus
would
help
more
people
in distress.
To conclude
, it appears to me that opponents of the
quota
system
have the more robust argument,
with their concerns over unnecessary donations which
reduce
emergency funding
in future
. We all
recognise
a
moral duty to
help
those in need,
but
surely
these resources should
be targeted
more
strictly
towards sufferers,
rather
than
sent
permanently
to
government
departments to become part of the local economy.