World Hunger and Poverty - Should We Help?

It is morally wrong to help "a few" at the expense of imperiling the whole. Wealthy nations/individuals should NOT help impoverished populations of other nations; if they did this, they would be endangering the long term well-being of wealthy nations and families. Though we might save a few today, birth rates will continue to rise, eventually breaking the wealthy financially.

This argument states that the economies of wealthy nations were (and are) being built in part on the impoverishment of third-world nations. This happened over time, through the exploitation of labor and other countries natural resources. Thus, the world's wealthiest nations are responsible for the impoverishment of many countries and we have a moral duty to correct our wrongdoing. This argument can also be explained in terms of the automobile accident analogy. This analogy draws a distinction between our imperative to help in an accident that we directly caused and our need to help in an accident that we merely observed. In this argument world hunger is seen as an accident that we have directly caused.

Foreign aid is not effective. Thus, affluent nations have a moral duty not to throw away their wealth needlessly.

Case In Points

1. A surge in free food ruins local economies. Farmers can no longer make a living because free food drives down market prices.

2.The bureaucracies of organizations called to aid the poor tend to perpetuate themselves. In order to continue their work they subconsciously perpetuate the problem.

3. Poverty is often caused by political corruption. Many regimes use poverty to maintain power over their people. These governments often block aid outright or take it for their own good.

All people have the right to live. It is everyone's responsibility to ensure that all people retain this right.

Libertarians assert that each person is a responsible individual and thus, each individual is accountable for his/her own existence. Just as no one has the authority to take another's life, no one has the responsibility to maintain another's life. Similarly, no one is permitted to take another's property but neither are they compelled to give away property to sustain another.

In helping impoverished nations, wealthy nations or individuals are contributing to their own long-term welfare. This point of view is often argued using economic models.

Compassion is a facet of human nature, therefore when we witness adverse circumstances we are touched at the very foundation of our existence. We empathize with those who suffer. To not respond to this feeling would be both immoral and inhuman.

All people are equal and therefore all suffering in the world should be equal. The school of Utilitarianism states that:

1. Our well being and emotion are not more important than anyone else's

2. Our actions should always reflect utility (goodness) - We should always do what is best.

It is morally wrong and incoherent to reduce the quality of life of someone we love to save a person that we have never known. All people have a special moral commitment to their loved ones.

We cannot know what is best for people of other cultures, and in this case, we cannot know the best way to assign aid. It is impossible to understand the interconnected psychological, physical, and religious needs of another culture. Subsequently, it is foolish to interfere as we may inadvertently worsen the situation.

One of the responsibilities of the World Bank is to formulate strategies that help stop the cycle of global poverty. No doubt, this is an incredibly difficult task. One of these so called 'poverty reduction strategies' simply includes monetary aid. In 2007, 45 countries pledged a collective 25 Billion in US Dollars to the World Bank's 'International Development Association' as "aid for the world's poorest countries". the World Bank proceeds to distribute this money to various organizations and governments taking into account years of extensive research.

The World Bank's Research

Most of the World Bank's research has focused on collecting data on defined terms. For example, the world bank researches 'poverty thresholds' throughout the world.

Did you Know? According to the world bank, $1 a day is enough to sustain the average world citizen

They define this 'poverty threshold' or 'poverty line' as the minimum level of income deemed necessary to guarantee an adequate standard of living. Knowing how much it takes to survive in certain places is extremely useful when it comes to allocating aid, and often the poverty line may come as a great shock to those in affluent countries.

...thats what Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo thinks. First discovering the issue while Studying at Harvard, Moyo choose the cycle of African poverty as her thesis topic at Oxford. Why is Africa always struggling, unable to pull itself up? This question drove her interests. In the first half of her book, 'Dead Aid', Moyo claims that aid itself is what is keeping Africa poor. "Development aid simply doesn't work," she says. "It was supposed to lead to sustainable economic growth and a reduction of poverty. Name one African country where this has happened."

Reasons aid doesn't work, according to Moyo

"First and foremost the widespread corruption. The people in power plunder the treasury and the treasury is filled with development aid money. The corruption has contaminated the whole of society. Aid leads to bureaucracy and inflation, to laziness and inertia. Aid hurts exports. Thanks to foreign aid the people in power can afford not to care about their people. But the worst part of it is: aid undermines growth. The economies of those countries that are the most dependent on foreign aid have shrunk by an average of 0.2 percent per year ever since the seventies."

Moyo's Plan for Change

In the first half of her book Moyo sets out a level-headed plan to phase out aid within 5 years. The first half of the book is what has caused such a ruckus among intellectuals, however, the second half is truly the most important part. The second half suggests certain methods to balance the budget of African governments. These recommendations include: inciting foreign investment, taxing money sent home from abroad, issuing government bonds, and increasing exports (especially to developing nations like China and India).

Why Does the Western World Keep Giving if the Aid Isn't Working?

According to Moyo, "The cynical answer is - because it distracts attention from the trade barriers they have erected in order to protect employment in the West. These trade barriers cost Africa an estimated 500 billion dollars every year. That's ten times the amount Africa is given in development aid. And because they secretly don't believe that Africa is ever going to pull it together. They feel sorry for the Africans. So they buy themselves a conscience."

The Outrage Over Her Proposals

Many authors, intellectuals, and book reviewers are outraged by the ideas laid out by Moyo. As written in The Guardian Madeleine Bunting realizes that "Not all of the criticism has been unjustified - $300bn of aid has gone to Africa since 1970, yet average incomes across much of the continent have stagnated or fallen." Yet, Moyo's "proposal to phase out aid in five years is disastrously irresponsible: it would lead to the closure of thousands of schools and clinics across Africa, and an end to the HIV antiretroviral, malaria and TB programmes, along with emergency food supplies, on which millions of lives depend."

"The danger is that this book will get more attention than it deserves."

An average of 25,000 people die from hunger every day worldwide. To put this in perspective with another global issues, compare that number to the average of 1.25 (according to the CIA) that will die from terrorism each day. At least one quarter of the worlds population, according to the World Bank, lives in poverty. Many of these people live in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia. The gap between the rich and the poor is huge and growing even wider. A succinct way to measure this is current life-expectancy in countries. In sub-Saharan Africa life expectancy is 45 years, while in Japan it is 82.

The question that this lens asks, and that you should ask yourself is: do we, the relatively wealthy, have an obligation help poorer countries?

Some say that in helping the hungry we would allow underdeveloped nations to grow their populations, only increasing the burden on the world. Scholars estimate that, even now 90% of the population growth over the next ten years will come from developing nations.

Others say that we have little to lose, that extending at least some aid has little negative effect on us and, thus, it is our moral obligation to help. I encourage you to think about the arguments and share them with friends and family. The first step to fixing this issue is talking about it!