August 22, 2007
Aid Organization CARE turns down federal food aid - a great examination of the complex issues and unintended consequences of well-intentions efforts to give aid to 3d world countries
I immediately felt the same as valatan reading the article. "He's doing great, but CARE says he could theoretically be doing better." What kind of example is that?
Here's another debate on hand ups versus handouts with some well defined points and counterpoints.
« Older Beer in your fridge. | I can hear you moistening right now Newer »
To post comments to a thread you must login or create a profile.
This logic strikes me as strange. Why would you use an example where the program worked as evidence that the program needs to be abolished? Shouldn't your example be another farmer down the road, who was already selling oil, without the aid of anyone, and who then was put out of business by the aid program? Isn't it better to send goods to these countries than it is to send dollars, which can often destroy the local currency?
From what I've heard, a lot of the problems in Zimbawe, post-Mugabe is that the country has a large part of it's GDP accounted for by expats sending money home, which results in hyperinflation for those who aren't getting foreign currency from relatives.
It really seems like the issue is just how the aid agency is going to get funded, and that the contrast between using aid funding to send direct handouts versus creating profitable businesses would work under either the old model or the one that CARE seems to want to advocate.
Am I missing something?
posted by Valatan at 11:54AM CST on August 22