National Development: Self-Development vs External Aid

There is a common belief in contemporary society that the development of the so called “third world” is dependent solely on the governments and people of those countries, and that the external aids which exist (such as developed countries) have no responsibility or moral obligation to aid in that development.  However I would argue that within human nature is the intrinsic desire to help others whether this is through aid, trade or governmental development.

It is a saddening fact that in the 21^st Century 1% of the world’s population owns more than 40% of the world’s total wealth, while the bottom half of the population owned barely 1% of the global wealth.  This disparity is a fundamental cause of poverty in developing countries such as Zambia, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone and Uganda which suffer from some of the worst standards of living in the world, with low rates of literacy, poor life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality. It’s no wonder that the question of “who’s responsible for economic growth in these countries” is a one which causes high levels of debate.  Yet I would like to argue that it is not the sole responsibility of these developing countries, but the intrinsic responsibility of those countries that are wealthier to help their fellow humans reach the same standards of living.

One reason that I believe ourselves and other wealthy nations are partially responsible for the development of such countries is due to the ever widening and perpetual cycle of poverty that engulfs these countries.  By cycle of poverty I am referring to Poverty feeding poverty, just as wealth feeds wealth.  These countries are buried in their poverty, leading to an inability to develop national infrastructure; such as roads and hospitals; which leads to the difficulty of transporting people, goods and raw materials around the country, which subsequently causes poor development of trade in and out of the nation, causing low employment, low living standards, and of course more poverty. How can a country stuck in this continuing cycle of poverty possibly help itself? How can they break this cycle by themselves? Well the simple answer is, they can’t.  Intervention is required, intervention from developed countries and charitable organisations such as The Red Cross, to provide aid, training or responsible trade to help these countries develop.  Organisations such as fair-trade are a clear step in the right direction, where a group of people who recognise their responsibility to help others trade with local farmers in developing countries, to not only provide them with money for basic living, but help them to increase their production while ensuring that they are not exploited by large multi-national organisations.  By removing one of the links in the cycle of poverty we can slowly but effectively reduce the number of people who are living in horrific conditions, way below the bread line. However simply providing aid is not the answer, and without sounding horrendously cliché or embarrassingly misquoting “give a man a fish he can feed himself for a day, give a man a fishing rod he’ll feed himself for life”. Training, and increased trade (without exploitation) are two of the main ways in which wealthier nations can try and have a hugely positive impact on developing countries.  By allowing farmers, and workers in other areas to learn new skills, to practice their skills and to benefit from them monetarily, not only provides an incentive for the people to become involved in developing their country but ensures that they can become more self-sustained in the long run.

Another reason that I believe there is a responsibility for other countries to participate in the development of developing nations is the unfortunate yet very real situation of corruption.  With some of the poorest and most undeveloped countries in the world being those under a dictatorship, or falsely democratic government, it is impossible for anybody to deny a clear correlation between the two. Zimbabwe for example, is a country which I hope most of you know has been under the rule of Robert Mugabe since 1987, with his false democracy having a clear impact on the country. In 1980 the Zimbabwean dollar was worth more than the American dollar and the average income was US $950, however by 2003 the average income was less than US $400 and the economy was in an absolute free fall with inflation rates at 231 million %. There is a clear cause and effect here. The cause? Governmental corruption. The effect? Poverty, inflation and low living standards. It is clear that a country whose government is so corrupt cannot be solely responsible for its own development and that in situations such as Zimbabwe it may be imperative for international legislation to be imposed to begin aiding these countries to allow development.

To conclude I will say that this is not a clear cut debate and the wording of the motion greatly changes the arguments that must be posed.  One cannot argue convincingly that developing countries are SOLELY responsible for their own development, when there is the undeniable problem of the poverty cycle and possibly even government corruption.  It is the joint responsibility of developed and developing countries to ensure that the latter of these are able to reduce their levels of poverty, and thus increase their standard of livings. This isn’t a question of government or individual responsibility, but a question of morality and seeing that it is intrinsically right for us to help developing countries.