It is sometimes said that governments should dedicate a fixed proportion of their country’s income to foreign aid each year, and this fixed proportion should always be donated on other countries. Opponents of this idea, however, say that aid should have no fixed proportion, and help should only be sent to other countries at times when it is really needed. What are the arguments on both sides of this debate? What is your own view on the matter?

The issue of foreign

aid

goes to the heart of how nations should cooperate together, and whether

this

should be on a ‘quota’

system

or more ‘as needed.’ In

this

often heated debate, the opposing arguments can perhaps be summarised as follows. Proponents of the quota

system

claim that wealthier nations have a moral duty to sacrifice some of their income to help poorer countries, and that

this

duty does not rise or fall depending on circumstances.

This

argument is often used to justify the quota arrangement for former imperial states

such

as Holland, France

or

Correct word choice

and

show examples

Britain.

Moreover

, the

arguments

Fix the agreement mistake

argument

show examples

goes,

the

Correct word choice

that the

show examples

fixed proportion

system

allows the receiving countries to plan and budget reliably, building the foreign

aid

into their economic calculations.

However

, opponents of the fixed donation

system

respond that

this

budgetary aspect is in fact the most damaging aspect of the idea. They point out that, if

aid

money is provided regardless of whether it is actually needed, the funds become part of the recipient country’s administrative

system

, with all the dangers of inefficiency and corruption that

this

involves. It must be said that fixed

aid

to some developing countries falls into

this

trap, as even the local charities themselves will agree. What is more, if

aid

funds could be held back until times of emergency,

such

as floods, famine or civil war, the money available would

then

be far higher and

thus

would help more people in distress. To conclude, it appears to me that opponents of the quota

system

have the more robust argument, with their concerns over unnecessary donations which reduce emergency funding in future. We all recognize a moral duty to help those in need, but surely these resources should be targeted more strictly towards sufferers, rather than sent permanently to government departments to become part of the local economy.