Means, not motives

Everyone agrees that ending poverty should be a priority (didn't our former PM try to get this issue on the G8 agenda 3 years ago?), but the difference is how to accomplish such a nobel goal.

The real question is: why are some countries rich and others poor? To the Make Poverty History crowd, the answer to this question, by far the most important in economics and all of the social sciences, usually lies with Western exploitation, insufficient aid and the alleged ravages caused by free trade or greedy multinationals. This conveniently omits to explain how so many poor nations in Asia have got rich; and many economists in developing countries no longer agree. Even more so than most westerners, they desperately want to conquer poverty but years of bitter disappointment as billions of dollars of aid did nothing to stem Africas descent into squalor and chaos have forced many to think again.

There is a lot of information here, about the need for free trade, lower tarrifs and subsides in the EU and US, less red tape, harmonized standards, respect for property rights and the rule of law, but the kicker is this: aid actually lowers a nations economic performance. Let's be honest, aid has done Africa no lasting good over the last 30 years.

The article even references a paper from someone at the University of Regina, among many others. If you are interested in what to do about African poverty, start here.