A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
by Lindsey Burr
Grade 12
Kinsley High School
Kinsley, Kansas
Teacher: Dr.
Galen R. Boehme
Even though the Millennium
Challenge Account has enough merit for the American people to improve the
quality of life in developing countries, the MCA proposal overlooks the current
economic conditions and the effective distribution of funds.
Many developing countries
struggle to establish an accountable government. Dictatorship governments control the developing countries so
that the leaders benefit, not the people. With
restrictive and controlling governments, economies are unstable.
Inflation and corruption run high. Market
prices are low. The leaders of
these developing countries limit food supply and water. An
opportunity to practice entrepreneurship does not exist.
Because of these conditions, President Bush wants to implement the
Millennium Challenge Account. Working together with the developing countries, Bush hopes
through the MCA to reduce the levels of starvation, increase the quality of
education, and create unity among countries.
Certain aspects of the MCA need
to be considered before the program can be successful.
For the program, the United States is expected to pay an additional
$10-$15 billion annually for foreign aid. We
cannot afford this increase. The
money would go toward foreign aid programs assisting developing countries.
The United States has already established and currently supports foreign
aid programs. A majority of these
programs aim to improve the quality of life for children and women.
The Rainbow Program, for example, encourages children to attend school by
rewarding them with meals. The
United States should not ignore or even consolidate these successful foreign aid
programs.
Obviously, the MCA proposal
overlooks the current economic conditions of the United States.
Currently, the United States owes $6.4 trillion in debt.
Instead of increasing our foreign aid expenditure, we should limit our
spending. Since September 30, 2002
the national debt has increased to an average of $1.18 billion per day. Approximately 23 percent of the outstanding debt is owed to
foreign and international accounts. Today,
the United States is constantly struggling to stay below our allotted limit, but
with proposed tax cuts and increased defense and security spending our financial
status will remain in the “red” for some time.
Financially, the United States cannot afford an increase of foreign aid.
Unfortunately, we will not be able to eliminate completely the national
debt, but steps to decrease the debt, like limited spending, need to be taken.
Another negative area of the
MCA proposal is the distribution of current funding. Israel, Egypt, and Columbia are the main recipients of the
United States aid. Israel receives
$2.5 billion for military and $600 million for economic support.
This is about one-third of the American foreign aid budget.
Israel accounts for only .001 percent of the world’s population and
already has one of the world’s
highest per capita incomes. Israel
is very capable of supporting itself and yet the United States continues to
distribute money. We give Egypt
$1.3 billion per year not to attack Israel and another $615 million for the
economy. Columbia receives $540
million to control drug trafficking and terrorism.
These countries are capable of supporting themselves. If the United States is to give countries foreign aid, the
aid should be given to the most corrupt countries.
By ignoring the fact that these developing countries should receive the
majority of our funds, the MCA loses merit.
We must establish who needs the funds.
The United States is always
willing to be first in giving funds and foreign aid to countries in need.
But have we forgotten that the United States is also a country in need?
We have starving and unemployed people, but the government does little to
help them. The United States must
be developed before we can help needy countries.
Instead of having a “mutual benefit” attitude, the United States
really should have a “me first” attitude.
In 1990, over five percent of the population in the United States could
not meet literacy criteria and were considered illiterate. Yet, when compared to surrounding nations, our one percent
illiteracy rate seems extremely low. If
our own people are living in corruption and in unfair conditions, the public
will think negatively about foreign aid programs. Re-evaluating priorities is important in making the MCA
successful.
The Millennium Challenge
Account needs some serious corrections before full implementation.
Throughout the proposal Bush discusses several key terms needing clearer
definitions. Many different
definitions exist for corruption, a key term.
Corruption generally means dishonesty and fraud.
Every country in some way is corrupt.
Problems arise, however, when the word is used to compare corruption
levels of different countries. Is
it right to compare one country’s level of corruption to another country’s
level and then decide who is more deserving of foreign aid?
The MCA needs to establish a uniform way of defining corruption.
Commitment needs defining.
Is the United States going to commit all of its foreign aid money to make
the proposal successful? How much
money is enough to make a difference in reducing illiteracy,
increasing education, and forming a democracy?
Does making a commitment mean helping continuously or just when we, the
developed countries, think necessary?
The United States can continue
give support to foreign aid programs that already exist, but should not and
cannot financially support the creation of new programs.
Many of the programs that exist today are grassroots organizations and
private organizations. These programs receive very little if any funds from the
government. Why not support these
programs and then focus our efforts on our own people, making our country
better?
Currently, the Millennium
Challenge Account overlooks a number of key areas. If implemented today, the proposal will not reach its full
potential of success. By
reconsidering our current financial status and by placing the needs of our
people first, the Millennium Challenge Account will definitely be a step in the
right direction for both the United States and the developing countries.
Bush, George W. “Millennium
Challenge Account.” Paper in
Singer Packet, 2003, pp 1-5. January
16, 2003. http://singerfoundation.org
Catholic Relief Services. “The
Rainbow Program- Education.” March
27, 2003. http://www.catholicrelief.org/what_we_do_overseas/education/index.cfm
ChildSight. Home Page.
March 28, 2003. http://www.childsight.org
Crossette, Barbara. “16
Percent World Illiteracy to Grow, Study Says.”
New York Times. December
9, 1998. April 14, 2003. http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/internat/pd120998d.html
Faith Action for People-Centered Development Policy.
“Testimony before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee Appropriations
Committee U.S. House of Representatives.”
May 7, 2003. Singer Packet, 2003. January
16, 2003. http://singerfoundation.org/Current%20Contests/EssayContests.../morere-quiredreading2003.ht
Fuller, Terry. Presentation
on World Aid. Kinsley High School,
Kinsley, Kansas, April 7, 2003.
Hall, Ed. “U.S. National
Debt Clock FAQ.” August 30, 1999.
April 20, 2003. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock.htm
Infoplease. “Definition of
Illiteracy.” April 14, 2003.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0858750.html
Lycos. “World Illiteracy
Rates.” April 14, 2003.
http://kids.infoplease.lycos.com/ce6/society/A0858751.html
“Millions in danger of starving in Zimbabwe.” CBC News. November
24, 2002. April 14, 2003.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/23/zimbabwe_food021123
McArthur, Shirl. “A
Conservative Total for U.S. Aid to Israel: $91 Billion- and Counting.”
January/February 2001. April
20, 2003. http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
Radelet, Steve. “Initial
Reactions to the Announcement on the MCA.”
Singer Packet, 2003. January
16, 2003.
http://singerfoundation.org/Current%20Contests/EssayContests.../morerequiredreading2003.ht
“Snow seeks higher debt
limit.” CNN Money.
April 4, 2003. April 14, 2003. http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/04/news/economy/debtlimit.reut/
Zunes, Stephen. “The Strategic Functions of U.S. Aid to Israel.” April 20, 2003. http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
Questions
Question #1:
President Bush claims that most funds for development do not come from
international aid. He mentions three things that do fund development.
What are they?
·
Bush believes that funds for successful development
should not come from international aid but from domestic capital, from foreign
investments and grants, and especially from trade. Each of these three sources plays a critical factor in
successful development. Using
domestic capital means using funding from home.
People are more apt to be more careful with money that they have earned
than with money that was given to them. Using
funding from foreign investments is also a good idea. The money that is put into foreign investments is
specifically placed in investments in order to make more money. Foreign investment money comes from outside the country.
Included in foreign investments are grants.
Providing poverty-stricken countries with grants can help the country
gain stability. The focus would be
on advancement, not debt. Trade
plays a critical role in successful development.
Trade includes imports. The
more imports that any country buys the more money developing countries receive.
Question #2:
President Bush reminded his audience that successful development in a
third world country requires more than funds.
What two items did he mention in this regard?
·
Funding is not the only factor in creating successful
development. Bush mentions three
factors that also affect a country’s capabilities to be successful.
Successful development requires citizens who are literate, who are
healthy, and who are prepared and able to work.
These three items go hand in hand. In
order to advance past poverty, the people have to be literate or capable of
reading and writing. Reading and
writing are the basic essentials of being successful.
Literacy plays a part in people understanding how to achieve and maintain
trade and democracy. People who are
healthy are capable of working and being productive.
When people are healthy, the death rare declines and more people are
available to fill laborious positions. Being
prepared and able to work is another key factor in being successful.
Without people to work, nothing can be completed and therefore no
advancement can be accomplished.
Question 3:
When is money sometimes counterproductive, according to President Bush?
·
Many examples exist that counteract the effective use of
money especially aid to impoverished people.
In many poor countries some examples are unprotected private property and
closed markets. Monetary and fiscal
policies can be unsustainable and private contracts can be unenforceable in many
developing countries. Progress
against poverty is almost impossible when nations refuse to enact sound
policies. Bush’s reasons are
valid as he has proven that more money can be counterproductive.
This counterproduction can cause the subsidizing of bad policies, delay
reform, and crowd out private investments.
For this reason, Bush advocates independent and organized policies to
ensure higher accountability of the funds.
Question #4:
Describe the Millennium Challenge Account and include in your description
what is anticipated from donors and recipients?
·
The Millenium Challenge Account seeks to make the world a
better place to live. We, as
Americans, must fight not only to defeat terror but also fight for the values we
believe in, the values that make life worth living.
Education, health, and economic opportunity are all values that we fight
for. The Millenium Challenge is
geared to make us work to make the world a better place to live for all
citizens. The developing countries
will be given new hope, prosperity and security through the actions of the
United States. By focusing our
efforts in fighting against AIDS, bringing computer technology into the
countries, providing textbooks, and teaching the skills of entrepreneurship, the
recipients of our offerings will be one step closer to reaching equality with
the rest of the world. By providing
the developing nations with “the tools they need to seize the opportunities of
the global economy” we expect those nations to adopt the policies that make
successful development effective. Encouraging policies that promote free markets, trade, and
democracy should result in the advancement of poverty-stricken countries.
Question #5:
What are the three broad standards that President Bush expects the
leaders of the developing nations to adopt?
·
Bush believes that leaders of developing countries should
adopt three broad standards including ruling justly, investing in their people,
and encouraging economic freedom. These
broad standards are essential to successful development.
Ruling justly is important to having a fair government that treats its
citizen with respect and equality. Having
a just ruling system creates governmental stability, which results in economic
stability. Investing in their people is an important responsibility. Leaders of
developing countries must be observant about the suffering in these countries
and try to alleviate the suffering. Investing
in their people gives the citizens more responsibility, resulting in a higher
need for quality. In order to have
successful development, the leaders of developing countries must invest in their
people. Giving people talents and
trade helps establish businesses and effective stability.
People can then create their own jobs through their new trade.
Leaders must also encourage economic freedom.
By encouraging economic freedom the leaders of developing countries are
showing a willingness to try new approaches.
Letting the citizens establish free markets and trade shows that the
government wants the people to control. Economic
freedom produces sound laws and a strong belief in the country.
By adopting these three standards, developing countries can begin to
start decreasing the amount of aid money received. The developing countries will be able to provide for
themselves and will not need assistance through foreign aid.
Question #6: Describe
President Bush’s challenge to development banks and explain why or why not you
favor it?
·
Bush challenges the development banks to carry our
several tasks. The first is that
the banks insist on improvement and results.
The results will be measured in the improvements in people’s lives.
Adopting a growth agenda places an emphasis on private sector enterprises
and focuses more on education. This
challenge may not work. Having a
bank insist on reform and results may not place an emphasis on private
enterprise. The second challenge that Bush extends is that development
banks provide grants instead of loans to poor nations. Grants do not have to be repaid whereas loans do.
By having banks provide grants instead of loans, Bush hopes to eliminate
debt. Bush’s thinking has merit.
Providing loans to poor nations is not a way of helping.
The people still have to pay back the money that was loaned and are no
better than when they began. Grant
providing will eliminate debt so that the developing countries can focus their
efforts on trade, democracy, and rule of law.
The emphasis should not be on raising money to pay back the loan.
Question #7: What percentage
of our national income (GNP) do you think the United States government committed
to foreign aid in 2002? First
answer this question and then use the Internet to find the answer.
·
I believe that the United States government commits 21
percent of our
Question #8: Describe and
defend a “Me First” attitude.
·
With a “me first” attitude, the focus is on the
people of the United States. Instead
of focusing our efforts on needy and developing countries overseas, our efforts
should be spent on our own people. By
ruling justly, investing in our people, and encouraging economic freedom in the
United States, we can set an example for other countries while still emphasizing
a “me first” attitude. Sometimes
our attention is pulled stronger to those who are in more need than ourselves.
But we cannot forget that the people of the United States are just as
important as the people of another country.
If we cannot take care of our own people, how do we expect to make
advancements in underdeveloped countries? The
United States must be developed before we can help other countries.
By focusing our foreign aid progress on ourselves instead of the people
in other countries, we can further develop and help our own people.
We can fight to stay out of poverty and create a better, safer place to
live. Having a “me first”
attitude is essential to the continued success of our development and
advancement.
Question #9: Describe and
defend a “Mutual Benefit” attitude.
·
A “mutual benefit” attitude involves participating in
and supporting the United Nations. The
United Nations is an international organization formed to promote international
peace, security, and cooperation under specific terms.
The big five of the United Nations include the United States, Great
Britain, France, Russia, and China. Having
a “mutual benefit” attitude means that the developed countries support the
goals of the United Nations and believe that these goals are a “shared
responsibility of developed and developing countries.”
Encouraging nations to focus on political, legal, and economic reform
produces progress where people benefit. Having
a “mutual benefits” attitude in regards to foreign aid assists in achieving
the Millennium Challenge. By
helping needy countries fight debt and disease with developed country money, the
hope is that the favor will be returned. When
both sides complete the part, all sides gain.
Then a “mutual benefit” attitude is successful.
Question #10: Describe three unsuccessful
foreign aid programs operated by the United States government or private
American citizens.
·
Aside from the successful foreign aid programs,
unsuccessful foreign aid programs do exist.
Several factors contribute to the failure of these programs.
Miscalculation, miscommunication, bad assessments, and promoting
competition are all reasons for the failure of these foreign aid programs.
World
Relief is a foreign aid program that focuses on eliminating starvation.
This program strives to help the 590,000 people who are at risk of
starvation. Because of the lack of
rain and disastrous weather, World Relief predicts that the number of starving
people will increase to 1.4 million. One
of the programs in World Relief was the Mozambique Natural Disaster Management
Institute. Due to miscalculation, this program was unsuccessful.
The actual number of people starving and dying was more than the program
had anticipated. Miscommunication between the country and the program also
plays a vital role in its uselessness. Leaders
of the program should have investigated deeper in the country.
This unsuccessful foreign aid program can improve itself by sending more
delegates into the countries served to monitor changes.
Communication advancement is essential for the improvement of this
program.
Operation
Restore Hope was the United States’ decision to mediate military in Somalia
during a war. The goal of Operation
Restore Hope was to put an end to famine by improving the land destroyed by the
war. The program also wanted to
establish stability that the warlords could no longer threaten.
Operation Restore Hope was an unsuccessful foreign aid program because of
several factors. The famine in Somalia was the result of the fighting among
various clan-based militias. Therefore,
instead of being a humanitarian problem as the United States felt it was, it was
a military problem. The focus
should have been to destroy the power of the warlords and their militias and
encourage the development of political structure. But Operation Restore Hope was poorly organized with a lot of
strategic misjudgment. The United
States’ bad assessment of resources and time required contributed to the
failure of the operation. By
setting up a definite set of political goals, Operation Restore Hope could have
been a success. Better
communication and stronger, effective strategic goals could have resulted in a
different outcome.
United
States Food for Peace is a foreign aid program concerned with providing food for
struggling developing countries. However,
this program was unsuccessful for Guatemala aid.
Following a devastating earthquake, Guatemalan farmers tried to sell
their surplus of grain. The
markets, however, were flooded by the U.S. Food for Peace program.
Instead of helping the farmers, this program proved to be in the way.
By promoting U.S. competition, this program aggravated the country’s
famine, disrupted local agriculture, and turned the people into relief addicts.
The program creates a dependency on foreign aid instead of helping
countries to develop independence on themselves. This program was
counterproductive hurting instead of helping the farmers and economy.
Question #11:
Describe three successful foreign aid programs operated by the
United States government or private American citizens.
·
Many foreign aid programs exist that are successful in
providing to developing countries. The
United States government operates all the three successful foreign aid programs
I have chosen. In order to fully
understand a successful program, success must be defined.
Creating a safe and clean environment for improved education, improving
the quality of life of children, and teaching self-reliance through manual work
are successful steps. Each of these
programs is successful because the program has made advancements.
The
Catholic Relief Services is a well-known foreign aid program that offers a
variety of programs. One particular
program is the Rainbow Program. The
Rainbow Program was established in 1985 as an outreach program for the children
of Calcutta. The program was
established to emphasize the importance of education. Children are welcomed and encouraged. The Rainbow Program gives each child a small meal and
provides a safe place to learn and play. Not
only is the Rainbow Program encouraging education but social skills as well.
Children learn to play fair and get along with the other children.
The Rainbow Program stresses access and equity, a quality education, and
community participation. By working
with social agencies and other relief services, the Rainbow Program hopes to
encourage school feeding. By using
school feeding, children are encouraged to enroll and attend school regularly
because they receive a meal.
ChildSight
is another effective and successful foreign aid program.
ChildSight is a school-based vision screening and eyeglass distribution
program. The program works to
improve vision and educational performance to impoverished secondary school
students. Eye doctors that are
partners to ChildSight conduct vision screenings and provide free, attractive
prescription eyeglasses. Estimates state that 25 percent or 1.8 million secondary
students, who live in poverty, cannot see clearly. This affects the students’ ability to properly see what is
written in textbooks or on the blackboard.
Students can not be expected to pursue a successful secondary education
if vision creates a problem for learning. ChildSight
World
Concern also provides many programs to assist developing countries.
In some poverty-stricken countries, farmers cannot make enough money to
feed their families. However, these farmers also do not have the skills or capital
to begin another business. World
Concern is concerned with this issue. The
program provides vocational training to equip people with the skills needed for
secure a job or even better to create their own. World Concern also provides small animals and veterinary
supplies. The goal is to create a
sense of self-reliance for these poverty-stricken countries. World Concern has been very successful in several
“meaningful work” projects. In
Rwanda and Kenya starvation is high due to the drought.
World Concern is teaching whole families the skill of livestock
management. This will ensure
long-term stability. In Cambodia,
World Concern is offering a literacy program to lift the people out of isolation
and poverty. The literacy program
is hoping to increase productivity from the people.
In Southeast Asia, a major concern is the one million disabled children.
World Concern is rescuing these children and helping them find jobs and a
future. World Concern wants to help
developing countries help themselves.
Question #12: Steve Radelet,
Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development, believes we can both take
care of our own people and lend a helping hand to citizens of less developed
countries. Explain why you think we
can or cannot offer aid to both.
·
Radelet believes that we can both take care of our own
people and still provide aid to citizens of developing countries.
This is an important aspect to remember when providing foreign aid.
Taking care of our own people is just as important as providing funds for
developing countries. Currently, we
as the United States are facing debt. We
cannot afford to give solely to poverty-stricken countries. We must first stabilize our own people. More money should be spent on ensuring that our own people
are living out of poverty and have enough to eat.
Once we have successfully tended to our own people, we can then lend a
helping hand to the less developed countries.
By distributing the funds between our own people and developing countries
we can set our priorities. To lead
by example, we should show developing countries that the first priority of a
country is caring for its own people.
Question #13: What do you
think about Mr. Radelet’s assertion that “the administration is leaning
towards a system in which eligible countries would write proposals describing
their objective and strategy, how they would use the money, the benchmarks used
for evaluation. Giving recipient
countries this responsibility is a revolutionary change in U.S. foreign
assistance.”?
·
Radelet is correct in his assertion.
Emphasizing a country’s ownership is essential to successful foreign
aid assistance. Having eligible countries write their own proposals
describing what they plan on doing with the money is an excellent idea.
This encourages governments to work together for a common goal.
This written proposal is a starting point for the developing countries.
It provides the countries with an idea of what to do with the money and
how to utilize the money. The
countries must take the responsibility for the changes that are going to be
made. The benchmarks used for
evaluation are also an important factor in providing eligible countries with
foreign aid. The benchmarks or mile
markers are an evaluation determining whether a developing country will continue
to receive aid or not. When certain
benchmarks are not met, developed countries question the accountability of the
poverty-stricken country. If
foreign assistance is going to be provided, developed countries want to ensure
that the foreign aid money is put to use properly.
Having the developing countries share more in the ownership of the money
will ensure greater successful development.
Question #14: Which of Mr.
Radelet’s three concerns regarding the Millennium Challenge Account concerns
you and why?
1. as more countries in this income range become eligible, there
will be fewer MCA funds available for the poorest countries that are
implementing sound development strategies.
2. the make-or-break requirement may unnecessarily eliminate
some countries.
3. the separation of the United States’ foreign assistance
into two agencies could lead to a lack of coordination and overlapping
functions.
·
The make-or-break requirement is a major concern for me.
Radelet expresses that a “country scoring above the median on the
corruption indicator raises some statistical difficulties.”
The ways of determining which countries qualify for foreign assistance
are inconsistent. The criteria for
determining eligibility are strictly subjective, based on opinion. I question
the capability of the survey to determine which countries are more corrupt than
others. Many factors affect which
countries are corrupt. Depending on
what a country is being compared to will determine how corrupt the country
appears. As an outsider looking in
on a developing country, it is difficult to indicate which countries are
corrupt. A standard of measurement
must be established and a reasonable definition of corruption is needed.
The make-or-break requirement often “weeds” out some countries that
actually are corrupt and need assistance. Because
of statistical difficulties and marginal errors a fair criterion is not
available to some developing nations.
Question #15: There is
evidence of an increase in negative world opinion towards United States foreign
policy, not necessarily the American people.
To counter this negative perception of the United States some people want
the United States to concentrate more on weapons of mass assistance and less on
weapons of mass destruction. Please
comment.
·
Concentrating on weapons of mass assistance rather than
weapons of mass destruction could be a successful step in reaching complete
development. Weapons of mass
destruction include bombs, chemical weapons, gas, and other devastating tactics.
Weapons of mass destruction are used often times to eliminate items or a
person of power that the United States does not like.
By focusing more on weapons of mass assistance, perhaps we can close the
gap on starvation, illiteracy, and dictatorship.
Weapons of mass assistance might include teaching the people of a
starving country how to grow their own crops and raise their own livestock.
Another assistant weapon would be handing out free reading glasses to
encourage people to take care of their bodies and focus on health.
If weapons of mass assistance are utilized, the world could be one as we
all fight to eliminate hunger, disease, and debt.
Question #16: What does the
World Bank recommend as the United State’s “just and appropriate share” to
reach the Millennium Development Goals by 2015?
Do you think our citizens can afford that kind of increase?
Defend your views.
·
The World Bank recently reported that by improving
developed policies and institutions, the foreign aid needed to reach the
Millennium Development Goal is between $40-60 billion a year. The World Bank suggests that the United States’ “just and
appropriate share” is approximately an additional $10-15 billion annually.
In considering the economy of the United States and its wealth relative
to that of other countries, the World Bank found this to be a reasonable amount.
This figure is absolutely outrageous.
Even though the United States when compared to other countries appears to
be wealthy, we are still in debt. We
cannot afford to allot an additional amount of money to meet the goal.
Besides being in debt, the United States has corruption and people who
are starving. Donating money to a
development goal should be second to taking care of our own people.
Our citizens cannot afford this kind of increase.
The United States does its part already through the available foreign aid
programs.
Question #17: What do you
think about the request of Faith Action for People Centered Development
Policy’s request that tax dollars be used to fund, not only
government-sponsored foreign aid programs, but “that funds also go to NGOs and
grassroots organizations.”?
·
Providing foreign aid not only to government-sponsored
programs but also to non-governmental organizations and grassroots is very
important. Even though a majority
of the foreign aid programs are government-sponsored, the grassroots
organizations and NGOs are just as effective.
Grassroots organization means a program that comes from within the
country by the people. Since the
government is using tax money to support the governmental programs, providing
for the grassroots organization should not be a problem.
The tax money that is used is the people’s money.
Using the money to fund the “people”-sponsored organizations makes
sense. Put the citizens’ money to
use where the citizens receive the most use from it.
While keeping the developed countries financially stable, we should
provide funds not only to government-sponsored foreign aid programs but also to
non-government organizations and grassroots organizations.
Question #18: How many
countries would be affected positively by health-related investments according
to the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health?
·
The Commission on Macroeconomics and Health after
analyzing the impact of health on successful development determined that certain
health-related investments would benefit many countries.
Roughly 83 countries would be positively affected by investing in
health-related fields such as responding to the AIDS pandemic, improving
research models, and focusing on community health.
Providing money to these health-related items will increase the
development rate of developing countries. Having
healthy people yields an increase in productivity.
Question #19: According to
the Commission on Macroeconomics, how much would be gained annually between
2015-2020 due to saved lives and increased economic growth, if an increased
investment were made in global AIDS and other health services?
The
Commission on Macroeconomics and Health believes that between the years
2015-2020, $360 billion will be gained annually. When lives are saved and economic growth increases, foreign
aid money will also increase. When
a developing country has more living and functional people, jobs can be filled
and more materials can be produced. The
manufactured goods can then be sold or traded leading to an increase in economic
activity. Developing countries will
accumulate more profit if people can work. Working people also have more money to spend which in return
stimulates the economy. Investing
now will pay for itself in the long run. The
Commission on Macroeconomics and Health wants the United States to commit $2.5
billion. This money would go to
stopping global AIDS. The thought
is that when the developing countries begin to develop, all of this money plus
more will be gained.
Question #20: Use the
Internet for your research and name the two congressmen who introduced H.R.
4524. Give a 2-line synopsis of
that bill.
·
Congressmen Chris Smith of New Jersey and John LaFalce of
New York introduced H.R. 4524 on April 18, 2002 to the 107th Congress. Also
known as the Debt Relief Enhancement Act of 2002, H.R. 4524 suggests a program
that aims at reducing the amount of debt in heavily indebted poor countries.
While still in the committee, the bill wants to limit the amount of money
that indebted countries have to pay back. The
money that is preserved will then go to programs dedicated to HIV/AIDS, and
fighting against poverty. Debt
cancellation hopes to achieve the objective of increasing resources available
for human development and poverty reduction.