Many people in developing countries have managed to overcome extreme poverty since the 1990s. Economic conditions in these countries have significantly improved, therefore reducing infant death rates and making the income levels double over time. Democracy in these countries has been dramatically embraced, many girls have also enrolled in schools, and some common diseases are now being cured (Briggs, 67). However, due to various reasons, many of these developing countries have stopped depending on the United States of America for foreign aid, and they are now getting more engaged with China. However, there has been a slowdown in global growth, rising tension, and climate change, which acts as a significant threat to further development in these countries. For this reason, we can see that the United States is missing out on creating a more democratic world and strengthening its global leadership (Radelet, 57).
According to World Bank statistics, in 1993, we had two billion people who were languishing in extreme poverty, but in 2012, the number had gone down to less than two billion people. China is one of these countries that has recovered from extreme poverty. The decline in poverty, which has been experienced across the globe, has promoted economic growth. Between 1997 and 1994, the average GDP of developing countries was about zero, but now it is way above that. This development has also been experienced in health and children issues; because of this drastic growth, people have embraced democracy through voting. Elections have also become more transparent and fair. Decades ago, no one had imagined that Nigeria would ever have a fair election apart from the military rule it used to have. However, in 2015, history was made when the first free and fair elections were held. In the same year, Burma held its fast, free, and fair elections.
Human rights are now being honored more in these countries than before. Since most of the developing nations have become democratic, civil war has also significantly reduced (Radelet, 57). Back in the 1990s and 1980s, the world was full of civil wars and violence. However, in the last decade, civil wars have reduced by about half. One of the reasons why development has been possible is the fact that the Cold War came to an end, bringing to an end some dictators and conflicts across the globe. It made various states start having different perspectives on economic growth and development. Some of the developing countries were quick to adopt democracy and open market systems. Secondly, globalization has created new opportunities for economic growth.
Due to globalization, there has been more investment, trade, and information, therefore promoting economies. Thirdly, new leaders have emerged with great ideas both in politics and religion. However, in some countries, development has not been possible because of the dictators who are still in power up to date (Briggs, 88). This can be demonstrated well in a country like Zimbabwe. In these countries, we still have a good number of people languishing in poverty. Children are always dying from diseases that can even be prevented, girls are still embracing early marriages at a young age, and we still have some dictators in place.
The United States of America needs to consider the economic development that is taking place in these countries and encourage it. Development has a way of enhancing global security. This is not to say that terrorists have poor backgrounds, but weak states cannot adequately handle the issue of terrorism. However, when there is sustained development, economies can stand on their own without outside intervention. When developing countries become rich, they can fight terrorism and ensure security. When poor economies grow, wealthier United States of America can significantly benefit. As these economies develop, products from America will have new markets. In fact, developing countries purchase more industries and machinery equipment. In conclusion, it is true that development helps to deepen and spread values that are dear to Americans. These values include democracy, freedom, economic opportunities, and openness. On the other hand, these values promote economic prosperity.
As income rises, citizens demand more freedom. The development progress is more impressive because it has stood all the test of time despite the various economic shocks. Some of the major shocks that have stood as a threat to economic growth include the Asian financial crisis, the global food crisis, and the HIV and Aids pandemics. The government has also learned a lot in managing these downturns. Globalization has provided essential technologies to these economies. However, for there to be sustained development in these countries, they must stop depending on natural resources. They should invest more in women’s education and make sure that they have strengthened democracy.
As I said earlier, One thing that is quite clear is that the United States has failed to lead developing countries. Therefore, these countries are turning to other countries like China for assistance (Gurumurthy, 98). Although the United States is open to trade, it has no proper policies when it comes to trading with developing countries. Products from emerging states are charged with high tariffs. It also restricts the importation of some agricultural products. Although America has programs like the African Growth and Opportunity Act, they are not enough to promote economic development in emerging countries. The United States should try and have duty-free and quota-free to the developing nations. On the other hand, it should bring to an end multilateral trade talks and open up new negotiations for developing countries. Lastly, the United States should extend its foreign aid to these developing economies. This will help to support people who are still caught up in poverty. It will also help to lengthen the lifespan, rebuild countries that have been more affected by violence, alleviate humanitarian crises, and, more importantly, increase agricultural products.
However, studies have shown that foreign aid favors more rich people than poor people. These studies have shown that foreign aid is not being used to perform the purposes that it is meant to achieve. The primary purpose of foreign aid to these developing countries is to alleviate poverty, and it is also part of the millennium development goals. In 2013, the World Bank came up with strategies for ending extreme poverty. We have also had other banks, like the ADB, which have significantly invested in bringing poverty to an end in developing countries. However, there are still questions regarding the distribution strategy of this foreign aid in developing countries (Briggs, 165). External funding should be allocated to places experiencing poverty to meet donors’ goals. As I have said earlier, one of the most significant aims of multilateral donors (WB, ADB) is to direct the places where this funding will be allocated. However, the way people vote in these countries determines where the foreign aid will be assigned.
The global budget for humanitarian aid is about 22 billion. In Europe and the United States, the overall funding received from these countries is not likely to rise in the next decade. Donors of foreign aid need not only to double their funding but also to come up with policies that will ensure that productivity gained from this foreign aid is also increased. To achieve these, a lot of changes in practices used in managing this foreign aid will be witnessed. Foreign aid can be categorized in various ways. The money that is used to help those people who are suffering in war-torn areas and because of natural disasters is called humanitarian relief. Moreover, the funds used to support economic growth and to improve quality of life are called development assistance (Gurumurthy, 177). There is also a difference between foreign aid for middle-income countries and low-income countries. Sometimes, this aid is not enough to meet the needs of individuals.
Most of this foreign aid is spent in fragile states (Gurumurthy, 45). The majority of the poor people are in middle-income countries, and a third of them are in India. However, in most middle-income countries, foreign aid is not enough to alienate poverty, so foreign investment, economic growth, remittances, and domestic investment should be embraced. However, in low-income countries, foreign aid is an essential tool for wiping away poverty. If the United States of America expands foreign direct investment and gets rid of agricultural trade subsidies and tariffs for developing countries, it will be easier to eradicate poverty in these countries than by use of development assistance (Briggs, 154).
The United States, when offering foreign aid to the poorest countries, should adopt one principle, and this is to fund those programs that can be verified. By doing this, the United States of America will ensure that these financial aids comply with the financial and legal rules. They should also ensure that the programs they are funding have been supported by a lot of data. It is very much costly to look for data, but it is necessary to ensure that foreign aid plays its part in alienating poverty and bringing about innovations (Radelet, 188). Donors need to ensure that their money reaches the designated people. It might not apply to all programs especially, but it is necessary to ensure that donations are correctly used. It will also ensure that the global millennium goals are all met.
Works Cited
Briggs, Ryan C. “Does Foreign Aid Target the Poorest?” The IO f (2016).
Gurumurthy, David Miliband, and Ravi. “Improving hUMANITARIAN AID.” FOREIGN AFFAIRS (2015): Pg1-13. Document.
Radelet, Steven. “The Success of Global Development—and how to keep it going.” Prosperity Rising (2015): pg1-pg 12. Document.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
