In 2000, the United Nations adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), a set of eight humanitarian missions to be completed by 2015. The goals included eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, universal primary education, gender equality, reduction of child mortality rates, improvement of maternal health, combatting diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, ensuring environmental sustainability and the creation of a global partnership for development. Each of the goals was also set with specific numerical milestones to track the project.
The United Nations’ 2013 report on the MDG reveals that there has been substantial progress on some of the goals. Most impressively, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty declined by 50 percent between 1990 and 2010. On the other hand, millions are still suffering from inadequate nutrition, access to clean water, medical resources and a good education.
The UN report also documented the level of aid being provided by developed countries has been declining, disproportionately affecting the very poorest countries. This trend seems consistent with my observations about public discourse over foreign aid. With many politicians focusing their rhetoric on spending cuts, suggestions that foreign aid should be cut are hardly uncommon.
The effects of foreign aid are disputed. Jeffrey Sachs, American economist, has argued in favor of increasing foreign aid on the grounds that it can stabilize developing countries and promote economic growth.
William Easterly, another American economist, has criticized Sachs contending that the types of interventions that Sachs has advocated for are often inefficient or ineffective at stimulating growth. The view that foreign aid does not work constitutes a second reason why support for it has declined.The primary motivation of affluent countries such as the United States in providing humanitarian aid to developing countries should be to reduce suffering. While many aid programs may be of questionable efficacy, there are some, such as vaccinations and food distribution, that we know to reduce suffering at relatively little cost to donor nations. (The United States spends approximately 1 percent of its budget on foreign aid.) In my view, the debate over aid and growth is off point to the extent it leads away from a focus on the humanitarian justifications for aid.
As citizens of an affluent country and students at a leading university, we are morally obligated to help those worldwide who are struggling due to extreme poverty. I do not think this means every citizen or student is required to make personal donations to various causes, but I do think it means we should conduct our civic lives in a way that is conscious of the fact that the suffering of someone on the other side of the world is just as real and matters just as much as someone here. I am not arguing the United States or any other affluent country should suddenly ignore self-interest, rather my argument is that we could, with relatively little sacrifice, do others a massive amount of good. This means taking the Millennium Development Goals seriously and making the necessary financial and political investments to pursue them.
Do you agree with Aaron that we must not forget the primary goal of foreign aid amid the political rhetoric? What are our obligations as students and the next generation of workers? Please send all feedback or responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
