You are on page 1of 2

Is the elimination of global poverty a realistic aim? Introduction & Thesis: It takes two hands to clap.

Similarly, global poverty can only be truly eradicated if both donor countries and governments of poor nations work hand in hand. The truth is if either of them takes the elimination of poverty for granted, it would persistently hang upon generations after generations of disadvantaged people like an incurable plague. History attests to the fact that even when donor countries were willing to pour in huge amounts of aid, corruption, cronyism and mismanagement of funds led to the squandering of these funds by the governments of poor nations. The present depicts a different but equally grim picture. The recent global financial crisis which is said to be a far worse crisis than The Great Depression of the 1930s has set economies of developed countries into a tailspin. This leaves these donor countries both unwilling and unable to place providing aid to eliminate global poverty on their priority list. As such, when both history and the present do not depict cooperation between donor countries and governments of poor nations, insight into the human nature forces us to concede that it is unlikely such cooperation would happen in the future. The elimination of global poverty is thus an unrealistic aim. Point 1: For point Foreign aid rarely reaches its true beneficiaries. Even if large volumes of foreign aid are poured into poverty stricken nations to eliminate global poverty, this aid would be squandered by those at the top due to corruption and cronyism. Entrenched corruption and cronyism as a way of life is a common problem in poverty-stricken nations which have poor rule of law and whose people lack the education or expertise to question their government. Also, countries which have had Western military intervention are especially notorious for bribe-taking due to the confidence of having Western military and political protection such as in East Timor and Iraq. Hence, unconditional foreign aid has failed in its true purpose due to incompetence of governments of poor countries. This is even clearer when we realize that enormous foreign aid to Arica has only rewarded incompetent dictators and elites whereas absolute poverty has plummeted in India and China which have received comparatively little foreign aid.

Point 2: For point

Some argue that the problem is with the way donor governments provide aid. They argue that instead of providing aid in monetary terms, aid in other forms such as building infrastructure or education programmes should be provided instead. Infrastructure projects require working with the local governments and talks often fail again due to fundamental issues with governance such as corruption. Also, education programmes have not adequately addressed the poor peoples practical needs and expectations, resulting in most dropping out of school to look for ways to bring bread and butter home. For instance, although Peru offers free and compulsory pre-primary, primary and secondary education, only 42.5% of the poor complete primary education where 13.1% received no formal education. Hence, even when donor countries go into poverty-stricken nations to provide aid directly, what is viewed as essential by donor countries may be seen as unnecessary by the poor. For instance, besides education, providing technology which the locals have no means of maintaining further highlights the gap in need and provision by donor and recipient countries. Point 3: For point The recent global financial crisis of which major developed nations such as the United States and countries in the Europe have yet to recover from place them in a state where they are both unwilling and unable to provide further aid. The fact that Non-government Organizations (NGOs) rather than governments are holding the reigns to provision of aid in recent times is quite telling of priorities of governments. When these countries themselves are struggling to provide jobs and aid to their own country people, it makes little sense for them to venture into the affairs of other nations. Point 4: Against Opponents might argue that global poverty elimination is possible with altruism. In the past, such as during the 3rd World Debt Crisis of 1970s, debts have been cancelled by the 1st World nations. Rather than giving aid that needs to be repaid, allowing poor countries to begin with a clean slate by writing off all their debt or giving aid that does not need to be repaid would eliminate poverty. However, as mentioned earlier unless recipient countries can manage funds appropriately without squandering them through corruption, eliminating global poverty is not realistic. Also with the current global financial environment, donor countries have the responsibility to look after their own people first.

In conclusion: Having said that eradication of global poverty is an unrealistic aim, if recipient countries governments are willing to go the extra mile to be responsible to their people, the reduction of global poverty is certainly realistic.