Man has long strived to eradicate poverty and theorized for centuries on how to create the ideal society that Thomas More coined “Utopia.” During the last centuries, privileged nations have taken greater interest in giving out aid to particular countries in the third world.

However, there has been considerable attention drawn to the effectiveness of aid in the past two decades, with some economists going so far as to question whether aid is hindering economic growth in the third world. If this truly is the case, then what other answers might there be to usher in the development that has come to many other countries over the past century?

The answer to these questions asked by intellectuals and humanitarians alike is already being spoken by the tongues of millions of people in the third world, from paupers to presidents. As Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said to George W. Bush in 2003, “I don’t want aid; I want trade. Aid cannot transform society.”        

I will not question the good intentions of those who donate time, energy and resources to the strife of natural disasters. However, I will say that in general for countries not experiencing these disasters, but seemingly stunted in economic growth, foreign aid has been especially harmful.

 Aid is bad for the American taxpayer and the recipients throughout the world. Citizens pay twice for aid through subsidies for inefficient production of agricultural products and the aid programs while the recipients struggle to find employment and their Global Domestic Product (GDP) suffers because their local markets are flooded with subsidized goods created thousands of miles away.

Through this system, money does not enter into their local economies,  not a single job is made and often jobs are destroyed as aid provides cheap foreign-made goods that oftentimes could have been provided locally. Instead aid has stunted African economic growth where the average person makes 11 percent less today than they did in 1960.

Still, many humanitarian organizations argue that certain countries need foreign aid to feed their children and educate themselves so that they can attain employment. But how can Africans find work, even without skill and experience, when American agricultural products are brought in and sold for less than any African farmer can compete with?

As it turns out, United States agricultural subsidies have essentially destroyed all of our own efforts to relieve foreign poverty since our subsidized produce drives down global agricultural prices, which cost the developing world billions of dollars. Aid has given Africa a whopping $600 billion of fish over the past five decades while preventing native Africans from casting their lines into the global economy and reeling in the potential $150 billion that they could be earning annually.

The African continent is rich; it is rich in its labor market and its resources. Africa is only poor in the way it has been treated by developed nations where it has been the center of political games played by world powers that have allowed war and disease to ravage the continent for decades and exacerbate economic woes. How best to help those struggling then?

If we cannot expect the government to help those most unfortunate people throughout the world, who can we turn to? Already it appears as though many have gone to the source in helping those who need employment, food, shelter and medical care in their communities.

A prime example of private organizations working toward development around the world is the non-profit group Kiva. They provide a basis not for charity but for microfinance loans. The organization allows people all across the globe to request funding to start their own businesses and endeavors to better the lives of themselves, their families and communities.

The organization has lent out over 400 million and has a current rate of repayment at 99.01 percent. Kiva’s work allows for real results in developing countries and real progress in communities as people create businesses. The best news may be that aid is not really involved at all and the organization’s assets are treated not as aid, but as an investment where aid might be spent without consequences.

Similarly, Macy’s department store has started a campaign in the spirit of “Trade Not Aid,” where they purchase the goods of hundreds of artisan craftsmen and women in Rwanda and Haiti through programs designed to pay living wages to help through employment. Not only do these business ventures provide employment opportunities which aid lacks, but they also provide hope for a sustainable future for communities which formerly subsisted off of aid donations.

In order to make the case for the reevaluation of government aid programs as well as the continued campaign for privatization of trade campaigns to help finance developing economies, businesses and entrepreneurs, there must be continued research and debate for change on all levels from less intergovernmental aid to more support for private industries’ intervention.

Without these additional efforts to give developing nations another option, neoliberal opinions on the third worlds’ economic futures will seem dim in comparison to others when in reality they have the chance to change the world in the next several decades in a way that continued foreign aid could never hope to. Solely through the efforts of charities and businesses is there hope for sustained independence, growth and autonomy for the people of developing nations around the world where job creation and living wages are more important now than ever before.

Robert Daly is a Collegian contributor. He can be reached at [email protected].