World crises has increased and is
affecting greater numbers of people. There are currently around 60 million
people who have been forcibly removed as a result of disasters and conflict,
creating the largest number of refugees since World War II (Austin and O’Neil).
By the end of 2014, around 81 million people were in need of humanitarian
assistance, in comparison with the 52 million people at the beginning of that
year (Austin and O’Neil). With the increase in humanitarian needs shown throughout
the last decade, there is an increasing gap between needs and resources
available to humanitarian organizations. In their article, Miliband and Gurumurthy argue that the humanitarian
sector improves the lives of the people in developing countries. While they make
some good arguments, I argue that they fail to note how increasing aid actually
hurts the people of those countries, and they also do not consider an
alternative to improving the impact of aid, and lastly, they do not go into detail
about how aid is a short-term solution.

Miliband
and Gurumurthy propose an increase in aid, but do not realize how that will
actually hurt the people in developing countries who need help. People believe
that the billions of dollars in aid sent from first world countries, like the
United States or European countries to developing nations have helped to reduce
poverty and increase growth. However, that is not the case and in fact, it
is just the opposite. Over the past fifty years, more than $1 trillion in
development-related aid has been sent from first world countries to countries
all throughout the African continent. However, the standards of livings of the recipients
of this aid are not increasing.

Miliband
and Gurumurthy do not provide alternatives that would increase the effect of
aid on developing countries. An alternative to just sending over money to
developing countries would be establishing greater
trade connections with those countries, and offering to set up branches of labor-intensive
companies to encourage economic growth. This will prevent the money from
getting in the hands of corrupt government officials and never actually going
to those in need. This trade link can also be done for mutual benefit. By
opening up a factory in a foreign country, companies bypass tariff barriers, as
well as boosting growth in a country that could potentially grow to become a crucial
trade partner. Indirectly, this trade link could lead to improvement in education,
infrastructure, and increase availability of finance. As opposed to
being so deeply invested into foreign aid, a healthy trade system would be an
alternative to help improve overall development. Another alternative would be
technological assistance. Technology crucially contributes to a country’s
market development, boosting productivity, especially in industries
like agriculture. For example, in 2011, Samsung launched its Electronics
Engineering Academy in South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria to
open up “skilled, well-paying job opportunities” for recent high school
graduates. Another good initiative would be to
provide direct support to countries, not in the form of monetary aid, but
by sending over teachers,
doctors and business people. These people
would have a positive impact on the local communities and economies in
developing nations. They could train locals, create classes, and set up temporary
clinics. Sending over these workers directly instead of giving the money to the
governments would ensure the
money doesn’t end up in the hands of corrupt government officials.

Miliband
and Gurumurthy fail to mention how aid is a short-term solution to a long-term
problem. Aid is great in helping to stabilize the situation and to help relocate
people, but the solution is only temporary. Giving
money can feed and help the sick, but it does not free the people from the
institutions that make them hungry and sick in the first place. Developed
countries need to think about what they can do to make lives better for the millions
of poor people around the world without hurting their economies in the way that
they’re doing by giving tons of money to their governments.