Foreign aid

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33942, 8 September 1975, Page 12

Foreign aid

Sir, — At the end of an excellent resume of the aid dilemma, your leading article . suddenly, in 74 words, makes a statement which I hope can be supported with good argument. One could try writing it from a different point of view: In the long run the lot of the poorer countries will be improved only if the wealthier States get poorer. Only then will the peoples in the less developed countries be able to afford the products which the wealthier countries sell at lower prices to maintain their exports; only then will the wealthier countries have to make con-, cessions in trade and aid on a sufficient scale to make a significant difference. Neither getting wealthier nor poorer makes any sense in reality. Leaving it to market forces can never be a solution. World government, taxation and “social security” is the only alternative to ultimate world dictatorship, militarily enforced. — Yours, etc., G. C. SUGGATE. September 4, 1975; -?

Sir,—At least two points in your editorial on aid and trade need challenjging. First; could you name any report or economist on the subject advocating that “every part of the world should enjoy a similar standard of living”? Second, your assertion that “the lot of the poorer countries will be improved only if the wealthier States get even more wealthier” is rather shaky. Have the official aid flows of the rich countries as a ratio of their growing G.N.P. since say, 1960, risen

at constant prices? Have the “escape clauses” for “sensitive items” in which the L.D.C.s have gained a comparative advantage been progressively removed in the tariff concessions by the rich countries on their imports from the poor? Have the rich ceased to use nob-tariff barriers to nullify the impact of such tariff concessions?— Yours, etc., F. G. TAY. Department of Economics, University of Canterbury. September 6, 1975.