With the continued progression of the world’s economy, it is inevitable that some countries will be left behind.

Thus far in history, the solution to this problem has been for the wealthier nations to spread funding to these less fortunate countries in the form of foreign aid.

In theory, the more foreign aid delivered to third world countries, the more equipped these nations will be to raise the standard of living among their people and reduce the overall poverty experienced by their citizens.

However, the most recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in Economics, Angus Deaton, has a different take on the topic.

Shortly after winning his prize, the Washington Post published an article addressing Deaton’s philosophy: “Deaton argues that, by trying to help poor people in developing countries, the rich world may actually be corrupting those nations’ governments and slowing their growth.”

Deaton has a point, and many countries that use taxpayer money and designate it to foreign aid are extorting their citizens.

The concept behind Deaton’s argument involves both the corruption and disconnect such aid can cause between a government and its citizens. This paradox seems to be a shock, seeing that the United States opens its wallet the widest when it comes to sending aid overseas.

For example, “Since 2002, Pakistan has received about $1 billion a year under a U.S. program meant to reimburse it for costs incurred fighting militants near the Afghan border,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

However, “Under a law passed last year, Washington must withhold some of those so-called Coalition Support Funds if Pakistan doesn’t take adequate steps to disrupt the Haqqani network,” according to the article.

Although the law is designed to hold Pakistan accountable, it has taken Washington more than 10 years to implement policy, and large amounts of tax dollars have been lost.

“I think there is some cause for worry,” said Mark Gibson, an assistant professor in the School of Economic Sciences at WSU. “We need to be concerned about who is receiving (aid) and how they are using it.

“The question is, when you give foreign aid, how does it get to the people who need it,” Gibson added. “If you have a corrupt government in place, that government could be siphoning off the aid for its own purposes, preventing it from getting to the households that really need it.”

Until aid is truly being distributed to those in need, any U.S. taxpayer – or a taxpayer of any nation that distributes foreign aid, for that matter – should not stand for continuing to filter money into third-world countries that can further corruption.

An article published by Forbes addresses this argument in a similar way, stating that “Individuals are reaching the end of their patience when it comes to frivolous spending by those we’ve elected to manage our money.” The article then presents the question, “will we continue to pour money down a rat hole?”

With very few positive results coming from the distribution of foreign aid, there must be a drastic change in the actions of both countries giving and countries receiving foreign aid.

Countries which distribute foreign aid must have much stricter regulations on who receives the funds. Giving aid for philanthropic and policy reasons alike is a legitimate act, but politicians need to remember that it is the nation’s taxpayers who are footing the bill.

Nations receiving this aid, on the other hand, must be able to show results of what this aid is going toward, and the positive consequences it has on its citizens.

With plenty of causes worth funding around the world, there is no room for distributing money, which is causing communities around the world to become more impoverished.

Philip Grossenbacher is a sophomore english education major from Lynwood. He can be contacted at 335-2290 or by [email protected]. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the staff of The Daily Evergreen or those of The Office of Student Media.