This would increase the quality of life to the families living at home dramatically, from living of just one dollar a day to the minimum wage of an employee in an MEDC. Some people believe that you can put large amount of aid into a country, or even create a neo-liberastic situation – however, the countries that are currently regarded as LDCs or even LEDCs will always be in that situation and it’ll never change. This is due to their geographical location, and how so many external factors are taken into consideration such as the climate, the droughts and the inability to grow many things within the climate.
Biologist Jared Diamond in his book ‘guns germs and steal’ wrote heavily on this point, in this he effectively believed that the development of a country is completely reliant on their location rather than the people within it. To an extent this is true, 33 out of the 50 countries are just below the Sahara desert in terrible conditions. They have little crops that are able to grow on their land, which used to be the first stage of development many years ago – the animals that graze are few in terms of species and overall are on a complete natural disadvantage. Arguably geography created the countries into what they are today.
For example, the harsh conditions led to people unable to make many by selling their crops – this led to crime, as people needed more money to survive. This endless struggle continued and the crime, corruption and civil wars just became out of control. Similarly, economists agree that these countries have too many problems to be able to compete on a global market, such as internal conflicts/ HIV and AIDs. These huge problems all contribute to the unrest of the countries in question. Many companies may disagree with moving their factories to Africa, not only would they have to adapt their designs to fit with the harsh environment.
Also with 22. 5 million adults and children who have HIV/ AIDs in sub Saharan Africa, would also contribute to the potentially weak workforce – making the productivity of those factories less. This is mainly why many economists believe there is no way that they will be competitive within the workforce. In many developing countries around the world aid is directly given to the government and the public sector. With the increase in trade, it can directly add to the successfulness of exportesr within the private sector.
Many governments have seemed to prefer aid, however it does not necessarily mean this is the best way of improving the quality of life for the people within it. Many LDCs struggle to receive a large amount tax from their people, and having a weak private sector reduces their chances even further in developing – which is why governments of LDCs prefer aid to support their infrastructure. Tony Blair believed that we needed a $25 billion increase, doubling the annual aid, to countries within Africa by 2010 – and an even further $25 billion by 2015.
However, this aid only improves the country in the short term – for example Japan’s recent natural disaster of an 8. 9 earthquake on the Richter scale, may need for external aid which may be essential to get them back on their feat. But too much aid and it could lead to a dependency culture, in which countries are just merely reliant on aid without trying to achieve a goal for their country or to increase their countries quality of life. The argument comes into the idea that “if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.
But if you give him a fishing rod, you feed him for a lifetime”; aid is simply just a means to get by it is not a good enough plan for the future. While trade can effectively set you up for the future, and hopefully increase the revenue of that country and thus increasing the quality of life. I believe that the most important provision is trade, however for the trade to be optimized there are many problems which need to be addressed – such as political stability. If a country does not rid itself of some of its problems, the trade that a LDC does will just go straight back into the corrupt leader.