Programs To Help Poor Nations Criticized

[DrGonzoLives]

from CommonDreams


Instead of forcing developing countries to cut back on public spending, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank should be pressing rich countries to provide more help, the 367-page Human Development Report 2003 said.

Despite a widespread assumption that all countries are slowly getting richer, the report says that 54 are poorer now than they were in 1990, while life expectancy fell in 34 countries -- primarily because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic -- and 21 countries are hungrier than they were in 1990.

...

The report cited the case of Malawi, which has produced a strategy for reducing poverty based on IMF and World Bank guidelines. But the plan would not achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

"Malawi requires far more donor assistance -- as do many other countries in similar circumstances," the report said.

"Rather than being told to lower their sights, they should be aided in achieving the goals, with the IMF and World Bank helping to mobilize the needed additional assistance."

The study says a total reliance on market forces and increased trade to achieve development will not succeed.


The added emphasis is mine.

Any pro-free traders wish to try and counter this one?

The full UN report is here

[acerbic]

1. I guess I'm a pro-free trader but I don't see why I should "counter" that?

I don't see free trade and development aid as opposites. I think it would be best to provide ample aid for education, health care, general infrastructure etc. to a developing country that needs it and let market forces take care of what kind of economic activity develops there, of course with regulations regarding labor conditions, environment etc.

[DrGonzoLives]

2. I was referring

to those (few on DU) who think the IMF and World Bank are good things and that unfettered capitalist growth is a good thing. The problem with free trade as it is now is the lack of those regulations that you speak of.

[acerbic]

3. Well, terminology differs. Where I come from, "free trade" usually meant

...free as opposite to trade restricted by protectionist measures like tariffs and subsidies intended to give advantage to domestic production. If both domestic industries and the importers play by the same reasonable rules and regulations, then trade is free enough to be called free.

[stevebreeze]

4. free trade is not free

in fact it always requires more portection in the forms of copywrite and patent law protection. Free trade is mearly a marketing slogan not what realy happens in the real world.
:kick:

[Code_Name_D]

5. No, it is free...

for the coperations any way.

Now if the avrage merchent wanted to gain asses to America or a 3rd world nation, or any where outside his own contry. Its dusnly becomes redicusly expensive trade.

All free trade dose, is alow ford to make parts in Mexico, and ship them to Canada for asembly, without having to pay duties for both USA (from Mexico) and Canada (from the USA).