(Original post by ilovecatsforlife)
Yeah, that's what I mean. The question was basically a discussion about aid and the alternatives. And yeah it was too little.
I spoke about countries being landlocked, having internal issues - civil war, disease etc. and this restricts their ability to trade.
Then I spoke about how trade didnt immediately lead to a trickle down effect - e.g. india still has 400m poor people and 44% is illiterate. Thus it could be argued it should be increased.
Then I said about 'aid for trade'. Some countries lack the infrastructure such as roads and ports to trade, furthermore aid needs to provide health and education systems to sustain decent standards of living.
I spoke about the unfair global trading system, how until recently African countries exporting primary goods were experiencing declining terms of trade and manufactured goods were banned from being exported to america and the EU, whereas the IMF and WTO enforced structual adjustment programmes on African states receiving loans, this prevented them engaging in trade.
Then I spoke about dambisa moyo and how aid creates dependency and a "moral hazard", by which aid would save african states from their own economic mismanagement.
Spoke about China and India, how they had opened their economies and were now MICs and most of Asia was third world in 1960, and whilst Africa has been flooded with aid, asia has traded its way out of poverty.
I said aid leads to corruption etc and rarely helps the people who really need it.
I've put more, but can't remember what I put.
I also spoke about the two theories, the orthodox view says states should embrace trade and aid only fuels internal problems such as corruption and embezzlement. The left wing perspective - those who reject the orthodox view - would say that aid should be increased because of the unfair global trading system - if sub-sahara africa increased trade, they'd get exploited by Northern, developed states.
Was the question not aid v trade essentially? That's how I interpreted it as. I just twisted it at the end of each paragraph, and would say 'therefore aid should be increased', therefore aid should be reduced' etc.