Foreign Aid Spending Essay

The 2015 budget has revealed Foreign aid contributions will be reduced by a further $3.7 billion over the next three years in an attempt to tighten Australia’s border security.

They also called for reform of the humanitarian response and development assistance, to enhance resilience and promote long-term solutions. Also, the US supports developmental assistance over military aid. ThinkAfricaPress states “Western governments look set to increase their military support for Sahelian and Saharan countries. But they do this based on incorrect assumptions, misguided objectives and questionable methods. At best, this trend will cost a lot of money and lives, and achieve little. At worst, it will lead to a worsening spiral of violence, producing the very outcomes Western powers fear.”

Defense is one of the main priorities in US foreign assistance. The US also has certain goals regarding foreign aid. They always try “rehabilitating the economies of war-devastated countries” in order to bring them back to where they once were and the US also tries “strengthening the military defenses of allies and friends” in order to make sure that poor countries are able to sustain life and have a good government without remaining in poverty for such a long time (Foreign

“The goal of this article is to determine empirically whether and how the United States has maintained aid allocation patterns consistent with its overarching security objectives” (1146). There are three hypotheses in the article that give a solution to why the U.S. is a “fair-weather friend” and their possible reasoning. Firstly, the authors try to make the readers understand that it is the United States’ strategy to aid allies or states and in that strategy there is another strategy to pick out who and how much help. During Bush’s presidency, after 9/11 he made a speech saying that our battle with terrorism doesn’t stop until all terrorist groups are defeated which gives a sense that “as the lone superpower in the international system, the United States has an interest in stability everywhere on the globe” (1148). Having said that, what the authors are trying to do is see if we actually held the claim of “the war on terror” and to do that, they show from hypothesis 1, which basically says that if the volume of attacks increase on a state, they are more likely to receive U.S. foreign aid and if they are already receiving aid, they are more likely to receive even more aid (1149). So first the authors introduce the verbal side of the U.S. to show that we have an interest in terrorism

The premise behind foreign aid is the desire of acquiring new allies by creating strong nations. By sending money to countries that are attempting to organize their government or infrastructure, the U.S. creates ties. Once these nations, that we helped, get on their feet they can pay us back in this argument. However, for some nations this is proving to not be enough. Much of the reasoning behind the foreign aid that goes to underdeveloped or troubled nations lies in the attempts to facilitate the process of westernization and modernization. By giving other countries the chance to become more like our nation gives us a greater understanding of them and greater power over them. It also provides the US with greater possibilities for allies. It is for these reasons that global peace is a goal that seems semi-reachable through the act of foreign

Foreign aid should not be an issue at all. Many people have their own theories that suggest that the United States can do without it, and I personally disagree with every one of those people. People all over the world are in need of help; whether that be military assistance, food products, or simply a bottle of water, why not give them a helping hand? It is mutually beneficial to both countries and creates a stable relationship between the donor and receiving countries.

To begin with, a huge problem with foreign aid is that it does not reach the right people. When most people donate to an aid organization, they have no clue where their money is going. They are told it makes underprivileged lives better, but does it always? Most of the aid is given to the recipient’s government to distribute as they see fit. If there are guidelines, they are just that. They are ill-defined and inexact in their terms of agreement. Two reasons why the aid may not reach the right people are that the government does not always know where in the country needs money and help the most and the governments are

They, like many other americans, want the US to be an effective force for good in impoverished and war torn areas of the world. Should the US keep using its financial muscle to support other countries? I think it should., in fact, we should increase our spending on foreign aid. For reasons ranging from the duties we have to the financial and stability inducing benefits for the world as well as ourselves, the US should increase spending on the foreign to of struggling nations.

American bilateral aid, in the form of outright grants or low-interest loans, often comes highly qualified and redirects wealth back to the United States by design. The United States no longer keeps track of the level of tied aid, citing statistical difficulties, but USAID reports in 1996 estimated that “71.6% of bilateral aid commitments were tied to the purchase of US goods and services” (ActionAid 1). In 1993, USAID generated seven billion dollars in revenue from purchase of American goods and services and claimed it has created “thousands of jobs…here at home” (Hancock 156). Clearly, the United States reaps a handsome reward from its foreign aid policy. Is this what we want from a supposed exporter of development expertise and the richest country in the world?

Foreign aid has not been a formal element of our budget for too long; in fact it’s only been policy and budgeted for just over half a century. This is not to say prior to the 1940s there was no international aid-type involvement; it was just in other conventions and for other purposes. For example, there was humanitarian relief in some European countries, private investment in French and British colonies, and

The tools of American statecraft defense, diplomacy, foreign and security assistance, homeland security, security cooperation and intelligence are rarely examined together, but Adams and Williams have explained the links and needs of these tools in one box. They fill this gap by examining how these tools work, how they are planned for, and how they are budgeted. Seeing policy through the lens of the budget is essential, and it can help decision-makers and ordinary citizens discern the genuine priorities. The authors present in its best way that policies and strategies cannot be carried out without a corresponding allocation of resources.

Foreign Aid is something that people rely on, but the U.S. is deciding to drastically cut back their foreign aid budget to try to focus on their own needs. Many people think getting leverage over struggling countries by giving them aid will be a huge benefit to the U.S. The countries receiving aid are in dire need of help and this foreign aid money goes a long way to try to bring that. However, countries do have their own problems and might need to try and fix those first before they focus on foreign aid. Therefore, with a large amount of foreign aid money going into the war ravaged middle east, it is hard to put money into something that could get blown up the next week. Foreign Aid is complicated and has many aspects that can be hard for a lot of people to understand. Foreign Aid is considered to be beneficial and detrimental, while it helps millions and gives large countries much-needed leverage over struggling countries, it can also be put to waste by unstable countries riddled with terror.

To most, foreign aid is just a way the United States helps foreign countries in need, whether that be developing countries or countries recovering from natural disasters or wars. This aid includes food and money, as well as medical supplies. Morally, foreign aid is a tremendous thing as it helps those in need of support, however, is it truly effective? Although it may help the other countries, it only causes problems for America and its citizens. Before the United States gives up billions of dollars to other countries, we should use that money to help the poor in our homeland first.

aid not only helps the country in need, but it also pumps money into the US

Foreign aid or (development assistance) is often regarded as being too much, or wasted on corrupt recipient governments despite any good intentions from donor countries. In reality, both the quantity and quality of aid have been poor and donor nations have not been held to account. In 1970, the world’s rich countries agreed to give 0.7% of their gross national income as official international development aid, annually. Since