Should rich countries help poorer ones

Whether rich nations should assist poorer ones divides public opinion sharply. My view is that wealthy countries do have a clear duty to help, both for moral and practical reasons, but that the help must build independence rather than dependence.

The moral case is genuinely difficult to escape. Much of today's global wealth gap has historical roots in colonialism and one-sided trade, so richer nations are not neutral bystanders to poverty they partly created. Even setting history aside, countries that can vaccinate their children twice over while others cannot vaccinate them once are making a choice, and calling that choice a purely domestic matter does not make it one.

Self-interest points in the same direction. Poverty in one region exports its consequences everywhere: epidemics ignore borders, desperate people migrate, and unstable states become sources of conflict that eventually demand far more expensive intervention. Money spent on clean water, schools and functioning institutions is cheaper than money spent on crises, in the same way that maintaining a roof costs less than rebuilding a flooded house.

The form of help matters as much as the amount, however. Aid that simply ships food or cash can undercut local farmers and entrench corrupt officials. Assistance works when it strengthens what a country can do for itself, through fair trade access, investment in infrastructure and training for teachers, engineers and doctors.

In conclusion, rich countries should help poorer ones because justice and self-interest both demand it, but the goal of good aid is to make itself unnecessary.