are these good arguments to say that disaster relief is innefective?
Jan 02, 2011
in
Disaster
1.Not all of the aid actually reaches the people. (As in many African countries, the aid enriches the corrupt officials.)
2.Disaster relief shows preference.(haiti vs Pakistan)
3.Disaster relief is ineffective because there are still many man made disasters that threaten the country (such as terrorism)
Are they good? How can i make them sound better??? :O
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
One comment
hamrrfan on January 2, 2011 at 7:07 am
You arguments indicate how disaster relief is less effective not ineffective. You may want to show how it could be more effective, such as adding controls and checks. In the case of Haiti and Pakistan, Haiti is more accessible to the U.S. and Europe and is no threat of war in Haiti.
In each of the cases the people would get essentially no help instead of some help.
You could also point out that often the peoples basic lot does not change and they remain vulnerable to more disasters. This may indicate a need for education and other reforms.
There is an old saying, "If you give a man a fish, he has food for a day; if you teach a man to fish, he has food for a lifetime". This is good in that it shows the value of education and self reliance, but if he starves while learning nothing is accomplished