Do we have a duty to help developing nations escape poverty? Or does foreign aid do more harm than good? What is the best way to end global poverty? These are some of the questions we’ll be in asking in this week’s show on foreign aid.

Some people dislike the term “foreign aid” because it suggests we’re giving handouts or gifts to developing nations, and it ignores the troubling history of exploitation and colonization by western imperial powers. When we in the west have despoiled the planet, stolen natural resources, exploited poor foreign workers, propped up corrupt regimes, and funded dictators and warlords around the globe, for our own gain, it’s easy to see the point. A better term to use might be “reparations,” not “aid.”

While I think it’s important to frame our moral obligations to developing nations in terms of compensatory justice and not ignore the historical context that has given rise to pockets of extreme poverty around the globe, I worry that this approach could let some in the west off the hook.

以我的家乡爱尔兰为例。它从来都不是一个全球性的大国，相反，它自己在大英帝国手中遭受了800多年的残酷压迫、剥削、文化毁灭、土地盗窃和殖民。爱尔兰成为独立共和国的时间和印度一样长。直到最近，它的经济挣扎到这样的程度，当我长大的时候，我们不确定我们是否生活在一个“第三世界”国家。(After the failure of the “Celtic Tiger” in the late 1990’s, some Irish still wonder if the country is a “banana republic,”as Bob Geldolf once claimed almost 40 years ago.) Certainly, we have never had a history of colonizing African nations, propping up Latin American dictators, or waging war in the Middle East. So, does that mean countries like Ireland that are now developed have no obligation to give to poor, developing nations?

That seems like a bad conclusion. But this is what the compensatory justice model of foreign aid leads to. Of course, one could argue that all developed nations have benefitted from the exploitation of developing nations, and just because Ireland or some other country was never a colonial power, and was itself a victim of colonialism, it doesn’t follow that it hasn’t benefitted indirectly from from the exploitation of developing nations. There’s no doubt some truth to that, but if what we owe is proportional to what we have taken, or the harm we’ve done, it’s going to be a messy business figuring out who owes what to whom, especially because those most guilty deny their crimes. And surely it would be better to say that if you’re a rich country, you ought, for humanitarian reasons, to spend some amount of your GDP on pulling poor countries out of poverty, regardless of whether you were the one who is responsible for their poverty or not.

此外，我们当然应该帮助那些在其他国家受苦的人，即使他们的贫穷不是西方剥削的结果。你可能会想，希望你能找到这样一个国家。但是，当前的贫困是否总是西方剥削的结果，这是一个我们可以搁置一边的经验问题。人道主义的观点是，那些有能力提供帮助的人应该帮助那些需要帮助的人。

Some might object to the humanitarian position for the opposite reason I’ve objected to the compensatory justice view. Where one picture is too limited, holding only rich countries who have a direct history of imperialism responsible, the other is too expansive. It makes every developed country obligated to help lift poor countries out of poverty, regardless of how they got there. It places too high a burden on developed countries that were not directly involved in the exploitation of developing nations, when those who are most responsible and who have benefitted the most should bear the greatest burden.

还有第三种立场需要考虑。捐助发展中国家符合我们明智的自身利益。消除贫困既符合我们的经济利益，也事关国家安全。当世界上有些地方没有机会、经济不安全、战争、不稳定、饥饿和压倒性的绝望时，恐怖主义就会自然而然地滋生。因此，应对全球恐怖主义的最佳方式之一就是让人们摆脱贫困。这对大家都有好处。

It may be true that it is in our enlightened self-interest to lift everyone out of poverty, but for that to be themotivefor helping strikes me as desperately cynical. And what if there are nations where it’s not in our self-interest to help? Should we just ignore their plight? That doesn’t seem like the right approach to me.

我所概述的三种对外援助方法——补偿正义观、人道主义观和开明的自利观——都存在问题。那么最好的方法是什么呢?也许是三者的结合?

And once we’ve figured that out, next we have to tackle the problem of what kind of aid we ought to give. How do we make sure our giving isn’t just propping up corrupt governments rather than lifting the general population out of poverty? How can we be sure that the aid we give isn’t actually doing more harm than good?

Tune in to this week’s broadcast where Ken and Debra dig into these kinds of questions with economist John Welborn.