Kuper introduces some major claims in this section.His main claim is that we need a political philosophy. A sub-claim to go along with this is that we need NGOs, therefore a structured government and appropriate markets. He also implies that aid organizations are not necessarily the solution to international problems, they can sometimes worsen the situation. Through these claims, Kuper is explaining that we need a well structured government that will make good decisions with money in order to help world poverty.
Some words in this section that you need to know are... - Neoliberal: an outgrowth of the U.S. liberal movement, beginning in the late 1960s, that modified somewhat its traditional endorsement of all trade unions and opposition to big business and military buildup. - Inertia: inertness, especially with regard to effort, motion, action, and the like; inactivity; sluggishness. - abrogation:the act or an instance of abrogating, or repealing - capricious: subject to, led by, or indicative of caprice or whim; erratic -Acontextual: Without context Knowing these words can help one better understand and interpret this section of Kuper's text.
Kuper clearly states in the last paragraph of this section how "the last thing we can afford to be is ahistorical, acontextual, and noninstitutional in our approach to global poverty relief. We need a political philosophy." Through this, he's openly stating the way for fixing one of the problems that he talks about in this article which is that we need to look at this dilemma of poverty in a political manner and the effects that it has upon their funding as to where the money is actually being put towards, unlike the approach that Peter Singer had. Ideally, we would like for the money to go directly to helping the people, however, Kuper speaks about how their funding is so "capricious" that is could actually be making those leaders/dictators who are part of the problem even stronger and the poverty even worse. Therefore, Kuper's idea of saying the type of approach and philosophy that we need is pinpointing his support for this argument.
In the section titled Political Judgment in Context there is evidence about how aid can actually do harm. In Rwanda, NGO international aid prolonged the conflict due to their refugee camps. People were told it was safe to go home but because they were receiving international aid they chose not to. In the 1970s "food relief" hurt farmers in the developing world. The evidence he provides shows that aid can be harmful if other factors such as politics and their economy are not taken into account even if the aid is well-intentioned. We need to help developing countries them help themselves and not depend on international aid.
4 comments:
Kuper introduces some major claims in this section.His main claim is that we need a political philosophy. A sub-claim to go along with this is that we need NGOs, therefore a structured government and appropriate markets. He also implies that aid organizations are not necessarily the solution to international problems, they can sometimes worsen the situation. Through these claims, Kuper is explaining that we need a well structured government that will make good decisions with money in order to help world poverty.
Kari Mitchell
"Political Judgement in Context"
Some words in this section that you need to know are...
- Neoliberal: an outgrowth of the U.S. liberal movement, beginning in the late 1960s, that modified somewhat its traditional endorsement of all trade unions and opposition to big business and military buildup.
- Inertia: inertness, especially with regard to effort, motion, action, and the like; inactivity; sluggishness.
- abrogation:the act or an instance of abrogating, or repealing
- capricious: subject to, led by, or indicative of caprice or whim; erratic
-Acontextual: Without context
Knowing these words can help one better understand and interpret this section of Kuper's text.
Kuper clearly states in the last paragraph of this section how "the last thing we can afford to be is ahistorical, acontextual, and noninstitutional in our approach to global poverty relief. We need a political philosophy." Through this, he's openly stating the way for fixing one of the problems that he talks about in this article which is that we need to look at this dilemma of poverty in a political manner and the effects that it has upon their funding as to where the money is actually being put towards, unlike the approach that Peter Singer had. Ideally, we would like for the money to go directly to helping the people, however, Kuper speaks about how their funding is so "capricious" that is could actually be making those leaders/dictators who are part of the problem even stronger and the poverty even worse. Therefore, Kuper's idea of saying the type of approach and philosophy that we need is pinpointing his support for this argument.
In the section titled Political Judgment in Context there is evidence about how aid can actually do harm. In Rwanda, NGO international aid prolonged the conflict due to their refugee camps. People were told it was safe to go home but because they were receiving international aid they chose not to. In the 1970s "food relief" hurt farmers in the developing world. The evidence he provides shows that aid can be harmful if other factors such as politics and their economy are not taken into account even if the aid is well-intentioned. We need to help developing countries them help themselves and not depend on international aid.
Post a Comment