(HIV) Foriegn Aid for Worse Affected Countries 

 

Poorer countries such as Nigeria, Ethiopia and Kenya cannot afford treatment for HIV/AIDS, so as more people get sick and stay sick, less people work and productivity decreases. However, if wealthier nations can make retro antivirals available to these people who cannot afford them themselves, their countries become more likely to prosper, which means they will have the same need/less need for foreign aid to look after them in other areas, such as sex worker interventions. This will also make for a more steady economy and a constant population, increasing the overall stability of the nation.

 

Citizens of first world countries often regard foreign aid as too expensive or a waste of resources and time, and don’t place much value on the lives of people living in these underprivileged areas. For example, most Australian Citizens believe 10-20% of the government budget goes towards foreign aid, and that this percentage is too much. However the reality is that only 1.3% of the budget is put towards aid for third world countries, of which the quantity and quality of have been poor. This can also be said for many other donor nations and world powers, of which have not been held accountable.

 

Furthermore, aid has often come with a price of its own for the developing nations. For instance:

 

• Sometimes a condition of receiving aid is that the recipient be forced to buy overpriced goods and services from donor countries

• Most aid does not actually go those who will need it most

• Aid amounts are dwarfed by rich countries’ protectionism that denies market access for poorer countries’ products, while richer nations use aid as a lever to open the markets of the more deprived countries to their products

• Large projects or massive grant strategies often fail to help the vulnerable as money can often be embezzled away by corrupt bureaucrats.