援助

搾取を続ける豊かな国の人が
道徳を持ち出して
豊かな国は貧しい人々を助けるべきだと
偉そうに話す

搾取をされ続ける貧しい国の人が
助けてなんてくれなくていいから
今すぐに搾取をやめてくれと
切実な感じで話す

豊かな国の人が
私たちが享受している幸福を今後も維持し
さらに幸福を子孫に引き継ぐためにも
貧しい人々を助けなければならないと話す

貧しい国の人が
私たちが幸福になるために
さらに子孫も幸福になるためにも
豊かな国には関わってほしくないと話す

してあげているという豊かな国の人は
人権や民主主義や環境問題のことを話し
何もしないでくれという貧しい国の人は
日々の暮らしのことを話す

話はいっこうに かみ合わず
今日も 豊かな国は貧しい人々を助け
貧しい人々は 助けとは関係なく暮らす

豊かな国が助けているのは
貧しい人々なんかではなく
自分の国の豊かな人々なのだ
そう合点がいった

3 thoughts on “援助

  1. shinichi Post author

    Should Rich Nations Help the Poor? (2016, Polity Press) by Professor David Hulme – Summary

    by David Hulme

    http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0745686060.html

    Why should people in rich nations worry about the distant poor?

    People in rich nations enjoy many of the advantages of globalisation, but in our increasingly globalised and interconnected world, it is impossible to ignore what’s happening to people in poorer countries.

    Despite recent progress, 3 million are deprived of at least one basic need – food, potable water, sanitation, primary education, shelter from the elements and others. 800 million people went to bed hungry last night, 19,000 children will die today of easily preventable causes.

    Yet we live in an affluent world. We produce enough food to feed the entire planet and we have the resources to meet everyone’s basic needs. Reallocating just 1% of global wealth would eradicate extreme income poverty at a stroke.

    The question we need to ask is not simply ‘Should rich nations help the poor?’ but ‘What are the best ways for rich nations to help the poor?’ We need to look ‘beyond aid’ at the broader ways in which rich nations can help or hamper their prospects: trade, finance, migration, patterns of consumption, climate change, state building and inequality.

    Rich nations should help the poor, for two main reasons:

    1. Morally, it’s the right thing to do. Our common humanity means that those of us who are doing well (often doing too well as we consume too many calories and create health problems with obesity) should help those whose basic needs are not met. And, in part, our personal and national wealth has often been created by the exploitation of poor people – colonial extraction of resources, the slavery and opium trades, unfair international trade and finance practices and others. Reallocating just 1% of global wealth would eradicate extreme income poverty at a stroke.

    2. Those of us who are ‘better-off’ would be stupid not to help the poor. If we want a prosperous, politically stable and environmentally sustainable world for ourselves (and our children and grandchildren), then we have to help poor people in faraway lands. Issues such as international migration, new pandemics (like Ebola), organized crime, terrorism and climate change are having an increasingly global impact, which we need to deal with through global action.

    While things have been ‘getting better’ for most of humanity over the last 25 years, the rate of progress is too slow and inequality is rising. There is an unacceptable amount of preventable human deprivation and suffering given our aggregate levels of wealth.

    When it’s spent effectively, international aid can help – but the idea that development can be achieved largely through foreign aid alone has been discredited.

    We know that aid does work (in some forms, in some places, at some times) and also that aid fails (in some forms, in some places, at some times). Aid-financed campaigns have eradicated smallpox globally and polio is close to eradication; insecticide-treated bed-nets have driven down infant mortality rates in sub-Saharan Africa; and millions of AIDS sufferers are alive and well today because of aid-financed access to retroviral medicines. We should be taking action to make aid as effective as possible, whilst recognising it’s not sufficient to create inclusive and sustainable development across a country.

    Looking beyond aid, the debate on the role of the state versus the market in development has taken a new turn. There has been a convergence in thinking that in low-income countries (and emerging economies), structural transformation (higher productivity and new jobs) is not possible if it is left to the market – both state and market are essential for sustained economic growth. The state has an important role to play in the technological upgrading of economic activity and in providing infrastructure (roads and ports) and schooling that modern sectors need to expand.

    At the same time, structural transformation is not possible without a dynamic capitalist sector and the growth of modern private firms with entrepreneurial and management abilities and skilled workers to compete in a globalised economy.

    If rich nations are serious about helping the poor, they need to go beyond aid and:

    1. Reform international trade policies so that poor countries and poor people can gain a greater share of the benefits derived from trade.

    2. Recognize international migration as a highly effective means of reducing poverty, achieving inclusive growth and meeting the needs of ageing populations.

    3. Take action against climate change (mitigation and supporting adaptation) and take responsibility for the historical role of rich nations in creating global warming.

    4. Reform global finance to stop the illicit and illegal siphoning off of income and assets from poor countries to rich countries by corporations and national elites.

    5. Limit the arms trade to fragile countries and regions and carefully consider support for military action in specific cases (Sierra Leone provides an example of such action).

    Continuing with present-day policies is not an option for two main reasons:

    1. Climate change. The material foundation of humanity’s improved living standards over the last two centuries has been and is being achieved by economic growth processes that are carbon profligate. This cannot continue as the world’s climate is warming and a set of poverty-creating environmental changes are already underway. Already, the people living in low lying and low income states are bearing the brunt of the increasing impacts of climate change. We have to move to an environmentally sustainable economic model.

    2. Inequality. Contemporary capitalism is generating income and wealth inequalities on a previously unimaginable scale – the richest 1% of humanity will soon own as much wealth as the remaining 99%. Those with excessive wealth are able to shape national and international public policies so much that they can ensure that they get wealthier. High levels of inequality raise the likelihood of growth collapsing, undermine education and health, exacerbate income poverty and lead to political decline in rich nations. As even the IMF acknowledges the promise of ‘trickle down’ economics to ‘raise all boats’ has been disproven.

    Social policy around the world is not simply about helping the poor and disadvantaged whilst incurring public ‘costs’. It is about redistributing wealth into services that are public investments in creating sustained national economic growth, social cohesion and improved welfare for all citizens.

    Concerted efforts by rich nations to help the poor would improve local and national social cohesion; reduce the threat of excluded social groups undermining social and economic stability; create economic opportunities; reduce the likelihood of public health problems and pandemics; and reduce the rates of migration and population growth

    We need an all-out war of ideas to raise levels of citizen understanding of the reasons why rich nations should help poor people and poor countries and to put real pressure on political leaders to do things differently.

    The over-arching principles that have to be pursued must be clear. We live in ‘one world’, and if we want good lives for ourselves, for our children and for future generations, then social justice and environmental sustainability must be actively pursued.

    Campaigning cannot just be left to the professionals: to make progress it needs to have social roots – in churches and mosques, student societies, trade unions, women’s institutes, farmer associations, cooperatives, consumer societies. Out of such roots, coalitions can emerge to create a civic voice and mobilize political action.

    The rich nations have to move ‘beyond aid’ and systematically reform international trade rules, climate change, migration, access to finance and technology, while genuinely promoting social justice as a global social norm. This may seem unlikely, but so did abolishing slavery, winning votes for women, creating international humanitarian law and, most recently, reducing the share of humanity mired in extreme poverty from around 47% in 1990 to 14% in 2015.

    Professor David Hulme, Global Development Institute, University of Manchester, UK

    Should Rich Nations Help the Poor?, is now available from Polity Press: http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0745686060.html

    Reply
  2. shinichi Post author

    豊かな国は貧しい人々を助けるべき、だが従来型の援助だけでは通用しない-マンチェスター大学 ヒューム教授が講演

    JICA

    https://www.jica.go.jp/jica-ri/ja/news/topics/post_310.html

    新著「Should Rich Nations Help The Poor?」を執筆した英国マンチェスター大学のデビット・ヒューム教授を迎え、JICA研究所は、2016年7月27日、JICA市ヶ谷ビルで、公開セミナー「豊かな国は貧しい人々を助けるべきか」を開催しました。ヒューム教授は、貧しい人々や国を助ける理由を倫理面と、豊かな国自身の利益の両面から説明したうえで、その方法としては、従来型の海外援助だけではなく、貿易・投資・環境政策の役割が大きくなっていると論じました。

    冒頭、萱嶋信子JICA研究所副所長が「開発協力に30年以上携わっているが、この問いへの答えを知ることには、いまだに興味がある」と開会のあいさつを述べ、セミナーは始まりました。

    ヒューム教授は、毎日、約8億人が満足な食事をとることができず、妊娠や出産が原因で約1400人の女性が命を落とし、約2万9000人の子どもが予防可能な病気で亡くなっていると現状を示しました。同じ人間としてこうした人々を助ける「道徳的義務」があり、また、このような状況を引き起こした原因の一端は歴史的に見て先進国にあると述べました。その例として、現在の貿易システムや気候変動は植民地時代の奴隷貿易のように貧しい国々や人々を苦しめているとし、その意味で、「道義的責任」としても、豊かな国は貧しい人々を助けなければならないと述べました。

    また、こうした倫理的な面だけではなく、先進国の人々が享受している幸福を、今後も維持し、さらにその子孫に引き継ぐためにも、貧しい国や人々を助けなければならないと指摘しました。グローバル化が進んだ現在、遠く離れた土地の問題もすぐに豊かな国の問題になる。避難民や移民、テロ、気候変動、国際犯罪や新しい健康などの問題に国境はなく、相互につながる世界の中ではグローバルな問題にはグローバルな対応が必要だと述べました。

    こうした課題への対策は、従来であれば援助だったとしたうえで、民間投資や中国の資金などにより、伝統的な対外援助の相対的な影響力は減少傾向にあると指摘し、今起こっている多くの課題の解決には、従来の方法では通用しないと説明しました。例えば、気候変動は、今までの経済成長と人間開発を支えてきた高炭素社会の限界を示唆し、人類の未来のためには新しい経済モデルが必要と述べています。豊かな国の人々は、このような点を踏まえ、モノ、サービス、金、人、情報の流れが増え続けるグローバル化の進展、世界各地でみられる経済格差の拡大に気付く必要があると強調しました。そして、従来型の援助だけではなく、貿易、金融や環境政策改革-あるいはこれらをを効果的に結合した政策-が考慮されるべきだと提言しました。

    一方、NGOと市民社会組織については、「多くのNGOが政策立案や持続可能な開発目標(SDGs)に焦点を当て、政策立案にかかわるエリートや専門家との対話にばかり目が向き、市民との対話が置き去りになっている」と指摘。再び市民とつながることが大切だと述べました。

    質疑応答では、フロアーから、開発援助の将来に関してその分野や方法などについて質問があり、ヒューム教授は、援助プログラムが本当にその国のニーズに合っているかどうかを確かめる必要があり、期待される結果を生み出すためには、その援助プログラムに、国際組織だけでなく国内のアクターも含めるべきであると答えました。

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.