Are charities and foreign aid organisations the new colonialists?

[Shinra1]

Does anyone think that all these Western charity and aid based interventions that are setup to help third world countries are actually doing more harm than good?

Aid agencies, international charities, and philanthropists stand between some of the world's most dysfunctional states and collapse. But for all the good these organizations do, their very existence in poor countries often erodes governments' ability to stand up on their own. The result: a vicious cycle of dependence and too many voices calling the shots.

[Damajin]

Yes, it absolutely is. They're leverage tools used in top level negotiations between big shot countries or corporations to get what they want, and are one of the tools economic hitmen use to break the solvency of a government and its' currency.

[Deleted]

Alot of aid is just money staight into corrupt governments. Was a pretty huge Swedish report a few years back about billions being lost of the year that noone could point being used to build or improve anything.

Just cut funding. Think the west has held alot of african countries under the arms for way to long now. It's time they start adapting and moving forward not replacing one corrupt government with another, you can only blame colonialism for X amount of years.

[Shinra1]

Alot of aid is just money staight into corrupt governments. Was a pretty huge Swedish report a few years back about billions being lost of the year that noone could point being used to build or improve anything.

Just cut funding. Think the west has held alot of african countries under the arms for way to long now. It's time they start adapting and moving forward not replacing one corrupt government with another, you can only blame colonialism for X amount of years.

Lol admits the west is only exacerbating the situation
> claims colonialism is not relevant

???

[Deleted]

You know that colonizing refers to people settling?

The closest you would get with such accusations is with china and their africa politic.

[Damajin]

You know that colonizing refers to people settling?

The closest you would get with such accusations is with china and their africa politic.

If you want to get technical, yes then the OP should have used the term Neocolonialism.

[Deleted]

If you want to get technical, yes then the OP should have used the term Neocolonialism.

It would still be a stupid terminology as it is trade with independent, sovereign and self governing states.

To frame this in a colonialist context is uncalled for. As said the best fitting example would be chinas policy in Africa if
you strech your fantasy a bit and get unprecise.

[Sole-Warrior]

I don't think all aid is created equal, you generally want aid that will actually increase independence and allow the people there to generate wealth.
I don't know very much about foreign aid, but I do know charity aid in the form of education, family planning services, and medicines that go directly to the people rather than $$ to governments, and when done right would be pretty reliable and does improve lives. Population Services International for example: http://www.givewell.org/international/charities/PSI
givewell is one of the best charity critiques out there. Reproductive and education aid, aid which could strengthen the younger generations are generally desirable and will have long term benefits. Diseases like Malaria do have a very negative impact on the local economies there, so helping and teaching them tackle the crisis there should have long term economic and health benefits too.

Also this:

"family planning; education; and economic infrastructure.
However, the average percentage of aid spent on these three aspects are small compared with total
development aid disbursement - only 16.38% in the past ten years, with only 0.31% on the most
important, family planning. Since fertility reduction is the key to reducing poverty, aid donors should
consider investing more aid in these three areas, especially family planning."

Those living in abject poverty generally have the highest fertility rates. Seems to me slowing down the birth rates in those areas with increased focus on aid in those three areas would be important.

A bit of a long read btw. The report suggests aid should be more focused on Family planning, education, and economic infrastructure.
http://uaps2015.princeton.edu/uploads/150299 But anyways, this is why I generally choose charities which focus on these areas. Like PSI.

[Khelek]

Foreign aid is the process by which governments take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries.

As for charities, they screw things up to. One of the reason poor countries have problems building a stable economy/society is b/c they can't build their own industries. American farmers, thanks to subsidies, better technology, and charity, can grow food, ship it to Mexico, and undercut local farmers. As such, Mexico has a glut of labor that has to migrate to the US for work and the only profitable agriculture in Mexico are those relating to drugs. Africa has similar problems--food aid comes in and screws with the local farmers. Why build a farm if those kind Western countries are giving it away for free. Local business cannot compete with free. It also lead to massive destabilization of the countries in question. The foreign aid situation is like winning the lottery. Any despot who claims power, will then have access to a massive flow of free cash.

In my opinion, true colonialism would be an improvement and I am only moderately exaggerating. If large numbers of westerners moved to these countries there would be an incentive to make the regions stable and prosperous unlike now when the West can feel good about themselves by giving charity and them blindly ignoring the reality. If they lived there they would be forced to see and make real change, but the better solution would be to fuck off and let these countries develop as they can with only our knowledge/experience as aid.

[Independent voter]

I can see the OP's point, why establish a hospital when Doctors without Borders sets up a free hospital and this could prevent a country from advancing.

But that's not colonialism.

[Dezerte]

They are in the business of making money out of misery, I'm not a fan. I think non-financially motivated organizations are better suited to this task.

[Damajin]

Foreign aid is the process by which governments take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries.

As for charities, they screw things up to. One of the reason poor countries have problems building a stable economy/society is b/c they can't build their own industries. American farmers, thanks to subsidies, better technology, and charity, can grow food, ship it to Mexico, and undercut local farmers. As such, Mexico has a glut of labor that has to migrate to the US for work and the only profitable agriculture in Mexico are those relating to drugs. Africa has similar problems--food aid comes in and screws with the local farmers. Why build a farm if those kind Western countries are giving it away for free. Local business cannot compete with free. It also lead to massive destabilization of the countries in question. The foreign aid situation is like winning the lottery. Any despot who claims power, will then have access to a massive flow of free cash.

In my opinion, true colonialism would be an improvement and I am only moderately exaggerating. If large numbers of westerners moved to these countries there would be an incentive to make the regions stable and prosperous unlike now when the West can feel good about themselves by giving charity and them blindly ignoring the reality. If they lived there they would be forced to see and make real change, but the better solution would be to fuck off and let these countries develop as they can with only our knowledge/experience as aid.

I'd agree with this in theory until the next Mugabe showed up.

- - - Updated - - -

It would still be a stupid terminology as it is trade with independent, sovereign and self governing states.

To frame this in a colonialist context is uncalled for. As said the best fitting example would be chinas policy in Africa if
you strech your fantasy a bit and get unprecise.

Aid is "trade" now? And you called Neocolonialism stupid terminology. Might want to check that again.

It's not uncalled for at all when multinationals are using aid packages as leverage to get sweet deals up to monopoly status on commodities in those countries. That's been going on for almost 100 years now just as far as American efforts alone, if you want to look at other countries you'll find a long established history of providing "aid" under the umbrella of expanded business practice.

Protip: When "aid" is offered as a carrot to furthering business, it's not aid.

[Malachi256]

Most of the organizations I'm familiar with are obsessed with teaching people how to fish, as opposed to just fishing for them.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some of them aren't run all that well, and perhaps a few may even do more harm than good, but otherwise this just irritates me - keyboard warriors bloviating about how to make the world better is very common around here, and now we have to go after the people actually doing something? Wonderful.

[Deletedaccount1]

Any type of donation or foreign aid is fundamentally a violation of individual rights and happiness and is a detriment to the human condition.