A country’s success is based on, not only acknowledging when there are times of struggle, but being able to adjust its plans and policies in order to find solutions for the situation it is facing. However, there is difference between planning to do something and actually doing something about it; by acting states can establish whether or not it works or if it can be improved. On the other hand, by simply planning and not executing their blueprints, states will just have an overall expectation of what can happen but no concrete facts of how the idea/concept will eventually turnout. One of the most ongoing disputes in international development is how organizations approach and perceive today’s worldly affairs.
In the pass few years, foreign aid has been a controversial issue discussed by international organizations and states because of the constant debate of who has more control: the east or the west and who how it is distributed. International development organizations focus on aid effectiveness, agriculture and food security, environment and climate, gender equality, global health and many others. Economists and entrepreneurs, like Prof. Jeffrey Sachs and Mr. Herman Chinery-Hesse, have conflicting views in this topic. Yet, they both agree on one thing, world poverty needs to end.
International development organizations are based on the The Millennium Development Goals. Setting a limited number of “Big Aid” goals has numerous benefits. Limiting the amount of goals will allow organization to focus on the states that actually matter and not on those that the rich think that need it. It allows for a better understanding of the needs and it prevents overspending funds. It creates and facilitates individual accountability for individual tasks as it allows more feedback from the poor. By fixing the budget, it will assure that they money will be better spent as it will specialize in what is truly needed. However, as argued by American economist, William Easterly, it will also stop the idea what aid will achieve the end of poverty since only individuals and firms in free markets can do so. Limiting the number of “Big Aid” goals will reduce western presence.
Development organizations would most likely side with Easterly because world poverty cannot be ended in a matter of 3 or fewer years like Sachs argues. Sachs states that the money needed to make poverty is available, however, it is misplaced in organizations in rich countries. International development organizations would agree with Sachs as to how aid can end poverty. However, he also argues that, as the example mentioned, farmers in Africa are able to produce more and end chronic hunger. Easterly believes that aid is the engine of development, while Sachs thinks it is not a driver of development; hence, why development organizations would side with Easterly. After all, aid is what fuels the engine.