This is the modified version of an "op-ed" essay that I submitted as schoolwork this semester for my American Foreign Policy class at Bishop’s University. The other version will be sent to newspapers/magazines for publication later.

—

It’s a given. Conventional wisdom throughout the world holds that the more money you throw at poor and underdeveloped countries, the richer and the more developed they will become over time. Ask any non-governmental organization (NGO) devoted to the help of the world’s deprived and they’ll tell you so. It all logically makes sense, right? More funds equal less poverty.

As strange as this may seem to some, blankly throwing money at the world’s needy does not help. Personal initiative, market liberalization and economic development and growth – the very tools these countries need to pull it off - can’t be bought. If all foreign aid funds dispensed since the beginning really did anything to alleviate poverty, we’d have totally gotten rid of it by now. The whole continent of Africa has received roughly the equivalent of four or five “full-fledged Marshall Plans” since the 1950s. Unfortunately, these nations have become poorer. Something does not add up here, but what?

Well, for one thing, foreign aid to underdeveloped countries always is exchanged from the hands of one government (“giver”, democratic) to another (“receiver, usually authoritarian). Why is this relevant? Underdeveloped countries generally do not enjoy the same standards of transparency and accountability that we in the West do. Corruption runs rampant, and the flow of international aid often gets ambushed and diverted to the selfish profit of malevolent dictators and other non-recommendable rulers or “figures of authority”. Strike number one.

When foreign aid funds really do make it to the population for which they were intended, they still don’t help much. Industrialized nations that provide foreign aid for underdeveloped countries appear to help them in the short term – but they are in reality undermining their own willpower and capacity to make it on their own. They are causing them to be accustomed to receiving aid, and this lowers national morale because these populations then feel that they depend on the help of others to live. This kills any personal initiative that these individuals might have and enslaves them in a vicious, hard-to-break circle preventing them from creating a better living for themselves and their families. Strike number two.

If the aforementioned is in fact true and verifiable, and that dispensing foreign aid to underdeveloped countries really makes things worse, then why do most governments and NGOs come out in favor of continuing to do it? Well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, or so the saying goes, and the truth is that foreign aid does help some, although it doesn’t help those that it was intended for. It helps the “giving nations” feel better about themselves. That’s right. We self-loathing Westerners can’t help but feel a little responsible for the tragedy of world poverty, so just grabbing hold of that checkbook and signing a fat one off to Zimbabwe helps us feel better about it. It’s purely instinctive. Strike number three, foreign aid: you’re out.

Are we at all responsible for their demise? Yes, but not in the way you think. Countries that suffer from poverty don’t suffer because they have been victims of globalization, but rather because they haven’t been “globalized” enough. Deprived countries could very well compete in the agrarian sector if they were given property rights and if the industrialized nations abandoned protectionist measures. The key is investment rather than just monetary aid. Everywhere they’ve been given the chance, capitalism and the liberalization of markets have enriched nations. Look at Ireland. Look at Taiwan. Look at India, which a while ago decided not to accept foreign aid anymore. We’re now moving call centers over there.

Let’s make that choice for their sake. Those who believe foreign aid actually helps will still be free to contribute on their own.