Instructions:
1. Sign up for ONE topic by writing your name in the chart below
2. Come up with ONE argument for each side of your chosen SPN topic
3. Be sure that next to your argument you indicate your name and link your evidence
The document will be available until Wednesday, 3/22 at 11:00 pm, at which time it will be
closed until the discussion section.
Topics:
​
​
​
1) Should the U.S. government focus its foreign aid exclusively on countries with stable,
democratically elected governments with effective anti-corruption measures in place?
2) Should foundations that champion evidence-based policymaking only finance international
development interventions that have demonstrated efficacy using randomized controlled trials or
other credible causal identification methods?
Only fill this side once there are 5 people
signed up for each topic
SPN Topic
Foreign aid
to reliable
govs
Person
1
Person
2
Person
3
Person
4
Person
5
Person
6
Person
7
Kevin
Mei
Adit
Sinha
Markell
a
Papandr
eou
Jayson
Singer
JC
Michael
Bozzi
Brando
n
Davidso
n
Emma
Brelloc
hs
Logan
Varsano
Charles
V
Hodrin
Kamnan
g
Randomized Teddy
control trials Taylor
Person
8
Person
9
Example:
●
Name: Bob
○
Argument 1: Permitting organ sales will save many lives by alleviating the
shortage of transplantable organs.
■
Evidence: According to the US Department of Health and Human
Services Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, there are
approximately 123,000 patients on transplant waiting lists in the US (The
Person
10
Economist 2014). In the case of kidney transplants, US patients have to
wait an average of three and a half years to acquire a compatible kidney.
■
Analysis: Permitting organ sales will save many lives by alleviating the
shortage of transplantable organs. By legalizing a commercial market for
organs, we can meet the constant, inelastic demand of terminally ill
patients who need organ transplants to survive.
■
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/organs-sale/
Arguments for Topic #1: Foreign Aid to Reliable Governments
Name: (Kevin Mei)
Yes
●
Argument: Countries like Afghanistan who have received aid from the US have not
seen significant impact and economic growth because the money may be misused
by the government.
○
Evidence: “the Afghan government failed to recognize that the United
○
States would actually leave.” “Afghan government insisted that the Taliban
be effectively integrated into the Republic, making progress on peace
negotiations difficult” “Corruption in Afghanistan is anything but new. The
billions poured into the country over the last two decades, especially from
the U.S., fueled a class of Afghan millionaire contractors, politicians and
warlords whose corruption crippled the country and pushed many into the
arms of the Taliban, who have pledged to do away with such behavior.”
○
Analysis: The Afghan government made poor decisions that led to their
continued issues even with significant aid from the US. So the US should
look to focus giving aid to countries that will manage and use the money
properly, which would be democratic governments with anti-corruption
policies in place.
○
Source: https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/evaluations/SIGAR-23-05-IP.pdf
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/17/aid-funding-for-afghanistan-at-risk-of-taliban-m
isuse-corruption.html
No
●
Argument: Countries that desperately need foreign aid due to emergencies should
still receive aid as their citizens will be further harmed regardless of past
corruption.
●
Evidence: “Thousands of buildings are estimated to have been damaged across
Syria, affecting 8.8 million people according to UN figures. Over 105,000 people
are displaced.”
○
Analysis: During tragic emergencies like in the Syrian earthquakes that
occurred in February of 2023, it is still important for countries to offer
support and help through foreign aid as it is a humanitarian crisis.
Although Syria has lots of corruption, their citizens need the help now so it
is of obligation from other countries to provide this help during such
critical times.
○
Source:
https://www.nrc.no/news/2023/march/syria-earthquake-one-month-on-families-str
uggle-funding-dangerously-slow/#:~:text=Thousands%20of%20buildings%20are
%20estimated,to%20cost%20%245.1%20USD%20billion.
Name: Adit Sinha
Yes
●
Argument: Focusing aid on countries with stable, democratic governments and
effective anti-corruption measures helps ensure that aid is being used effectively
and for its intended purpose, rather than being lost to corruption or
mismanagement.
○
Evidence:
○
Analysis:
○
Source:
No
●
Argument:
○
Evidence:
○
Analysis:
○
Source:
Name: Jayson Singer
Yes
●
Argument: Foreign aid to fragile countries is not as effective as foreign aid given to
stable governments.
○
Evidence: “the World Bank reported that the share of its projects in fragile states
receiving unsatisfactory evaluations was double the share in stable countries.”
○
Analysis: This evidence shows that foreign aid given to weak countries has had
more negative results than foreign aid that's given to stable countries. The US
should only give aid to countries with stable governments so that the aid given to
the recipient country is properly allocated to produce its full potential of positive
effects.
○
Source: https://www.brookings.edu/research/aid-effectiveness-in-fragile-states/
No
●
Argument: Foreign aid helps many people in need as corrupt countries who receive
foreign aid still use a portion of the money for its intended purpose.
○
Evidence: “USAID, after the invasion of Afghanistan, worked with the country's
Ministry of Health and set up a system that provided very basic levels of health
care to the majority of Afghanistan's population for a low cost. It worked. After the
Taliban [fell from power] life expectancy jumped so rapidly [from 42 years to 62
years between 2004 and 2010]. There were huge improvements — especially for
young people and children. You can trace that to increased vaccinations,
neonatal care funded by USAID.”
○
Analysis: Although foreign aid to corrupt countries may not all be used for its
intended purpose, the evidence shows that at least a portion is still used to help
the citizens of the recipient country as seen here when Afghanistan was given aid
in its health care system and it produced positive effects.
○
Source:
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/08/04/539285319/is-corruption-really-abig-problem-in-foreign-aid\
Name: Markella Papandreou
Yes
●
Argument: Focusing its foreign aid exclusively on countries with stable, democratically
elected governments with effective anti-corruption measures in place, would allow the
US to ensure that the aid provided is used in a responsible manner
○
Evidence: Some US$150 billion in nonmilitary U.S. aid flowed into Afghanistan
from 2001 to 2020, plus billions more from its allies and international
organizations.For those two decades, Afghanistan’s economic development aid
largely funded education, health care, governance reforms and infrastructure –
including schools, hospitals, roads, dams and other major construction
projects.One notable result in terms of education was that far more students were
enrolled in school. The number of students jumped from 900,000 in 2001 to more
than 9.5 million in 2020. Foreign aid helped build about 20,000 elementary
schools, and the number of universities grew sharply as well. The number of
Afghans enrolled in higher education programs soared from 7,000 in 2001 to
about 200,000 in 2019. There were no female college students in 2001, but there
were 54,861 in 2019.
○
Analysis:Focusing its foreign aid exclusively on countries with stable,
democratically elected governments with effective anti-corruption measures in
place, would allow the US to ensure that the aid provided is used in a responsible
manner. the USA has a straight line of communication with the leader of the
receiving country, giving the USA the power to monitor how the money is being
used, while giving the USA the ability to withdraw if it decides that the money is
not used in a responsible manner by the receiver. Even though we acknowledge
that the primary goal of aid is to assist others living in less fortunate conditions,
the USA must consider which recipients will see the USA’s assistance as an
opportunity to grow, making the investment worth it, especially since money for
bilateral aid is coming from taxpayer money
○
○
Source:
https://theconversation.com/what-did-billions-in-aid-to-afghanistan-accomplish-5questions-answered-166804
No
●
Argument: The goal in foreign aid, in principle, is to help countries in need, regardless
of its government
○
Evidence: Foreign aid is money, technical assistance, and commodities that the
United States provides to other countries in support of a common interest of the
U.S. and that country. Typically, the support goes either to a government entity or
to communities in that country. Such support typically falls into one of three
categories: humanitarian assistance for life-saving relief from natural and
manmade disasters; development assistance that promotes the economic, social,
and political development of countries and communities; and security assistance,
which helps strengthen the military and security forces in countries allied with the
United States. The relative proportions vary each year, but over time
humanitarian assistance accounts for a bit less than one-third of the foreign aid
budget, development assistance a bit more than a third, and security assistance
about a third. Very little actually is delivered as cash, and most funds for
humanitarian and development assistance are provided not to government
entities but used for technical assistance and commodities provided by U.S.,
international, and local organizations.
○
Analysis: Bilateral aid assistance is primarily used to assist other countries in
need. Most of the time, the countries in the most need are exactly those who do
not have democratically elected governments or have anti-corruption measures
in place. This US should aim to assist these countries first, while, at the same
time, gaining political and market advantages.
○
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/bilateral-aid
Name: JC
Yes
●
Argument: It protects US interests better.
○
Evidence: In 2016, the Government of Colombia signed a peace accord with the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), ending more than half a
century of conflict. Since 2016, the United States has provided more than $1
billion in direct and indirect support to peace implementation – by far the largest
contribution of any international partner.
○
Analysis: The US government can help to promote stability and reduce the risk
of conflict, which can in turn help to protect U.S. national security interests.
Following decades of conflict between the Colombian government and various
insurgent groups, the U.S. government has provided significant aid to support
peace negotiations, security, and counter-narcotics efforts. This aid has helped to
promote stability in the region and reduce the risk of drug trafficking and other
criminal activities that could threaten U.S. national security interests.
○
Source: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/R43813.pdf
https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-colombia/
No
●
Argument: This approach might not be the most effective in achieving the goal of
promoting development and reducing poverty.
○
Evidence: Corruption: Afgangikhan ranking 174/180 in Corruption Percentage
Index; Government: internal conflict. “USAID remains committed to the people of
Afghanistan despite these unprecedented challenges. With more than two dozen
active awards, our work is focused on meeting basic needs through our support
for livelihoods, agriculture, health, and education.”
○
Analysis: In many cases, countries with unstable governments and corruption
issues may be the ones that are most in need of foreign aid to address some
domestic issues. And the aid does help the country, for example in Afghanistan.
○
Source: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021/index/afg
https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan
Name: Michael Bozzi
Yes
●
Argument: Focusing on stable governments can lead to more effective and efficient use
of foreign aid resources.
○
Evidence: An analysis is performed on specific samples from 2000 to 2019. The
model is split into three sections for this purpose: i.e., all developing economies,
sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and the most corrupt countries from regions other
than SSA. The difference generalized method of moments (GMM) panel
framework is used for empirical analysis. The study concludes that foreign aid
does not result in encouraging and significant changes in overall economic
growth in developing economies.
○
Analysis: Ine the study, research has shown that corruption can significantly
reduce the effectiveness of foreign aid by diverting resources away from their
intended purposes, reducing the quality of public services, and creating a climate
of distrust among citizens. By focusing on countries with effective anti-corruption
measures in place, the U.S. government can ensure that its foreign aid is being
used as intended and is contributing to positive development outcomes.
○
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.959563/full
No
●
Argument: Focusing on stable governments may neglect countries that are in dire need
of assistance.
○
Evidence: “Since the 2010 earthquake, the United States has provided over $5.6
billion for assistance to Haiti to support life-saving post-disaster relief as well as
longer-term recovery, reconstruction, and development programs.”
○
Analysis: Haiti does not have a stable government. It has faced continuous
turmoil through the multiple changes in leadership, constant protests, and
violence. However, they faced a major earthquake in 2010 and the US provided
over $5 billion in assistance despite their unstable government. The US has
provided food, water, medical care, etc. Focusing solely on countries with stable,
democratically elected governments may mean neglecting these urgent needs
and leaving vulnerable populations without the assistance they require
○
Source: https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-haiti/
Name: Brandon Davidson
● Yes
○ Argument : Donating aid to countries with unstable governments can lead to
rampant fraud and corruption and prohibits aid from getting to those who need it
■ Evidence: Investigations into USAID aid allocations in Syria revealed
“complex fraud schemes affecting the quality and effectiveness of
humanitarian assistance delivered to refugee camps”
■ Analysis: USAID assistance to Syria was misused because of corrupt
actors within monetary and supply pathways. Further, the unstable
situation in the country did not allow for anti-corruption measures to be
enforced. Donating to countries with unstable, undemocratic governments
allows for invaluable aid to be funneled to corrupt actors.
Source: https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/8-000-21-001-P_0.pdf
● No
○ Argument: Donating aid to countries with unstable governments can influence
political will and the scope of development within those states, decreasing their
instability
■ Evidence: An analysis of 39 African countries found a positive
relationship between foreign aid to unstable low-income countries and
GDP growth.
■ Analysis: Foreign aid has been shown to be effective in unstable
low-income countries, particularly in industrial and infrastructural sectors.
People in these countries need aid, and increased development has
proven to increase the stability of a country. Therefore, we should allocate
aid to these countries to combat instability, improve democratic input, and
help people in need.
Source: http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2222-3436/2015/V18N4A1
Notes for Yes (TA use only):
●
●
Arguments for Topic #2: Evidence-based Interventions
Name: Teddy
Yes
●
Argument: More long-term data
○
Evidence: Generates a solid evidence base
○
Analysis: Understanding evidence in one segment may reveal long term
patterns into what is effective, meaning that little research will have to be done in
the future.
○
Source:
https://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01397/WEB/IMAGES/SIEF_PRO.PDF
No
●
Argument: Many “inefficient” organizations would not receive aid
○
Evidence: Many countries in need of aid may not be able to show that they are
in need of development through data.
○
Analysis: Ultimately, what is considered to be efficient is up to these
foundations. (What if, for example, poverty decreases but injustice increases?)
Likewise, they may pick a measure of efficiency that does not ultimately save
lives. There are many different ways to define evidence based policymaking if it
is not agreed upon what it seeks to achieve.
○
Source:
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/104159/improving-evidence-b
ased-policymaking.pdf
Name: Emma Brellochs
Yes
●
Argument: The US should only dedicate money to interventions based on RCTs to
continue its trend and support for evidence-based programs, especially as other
countries do not prioritize it.
○
Evidence: From 1985-2014, the average citing of RCTs in social policy in the US
was 62%, compared to 4% in Canada, the UK, and Australia, and 2% in India,
Kenya, and Mexico. Other countries average 20%.
○
Analysis: By giving aid to international efforts to incorporate more RCTs in
intervention decision-making, the US would solidify its stance on valuing
evidence-based programs. Other countries do not prioritize this, as their social
policies cite RCTs way fewer, and by the US aiding internationally, it could even
out other countries’ low investment, or even motivate other countries in
evidence-based decision-making.
○
Source:
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/files/FINAL_AWP55
.pdf
No
●
Argument: Evidence based intervention requirements for aid may fail to account for
individualized needs of regions or countries, which may require analysis beyond or
instead of causal methodology for efficacy.
○
Evidence: In the context of evidence based medicine, it may have negative
outcomes as it fails to manage complexity, individual’s needs, and the person’s
context and issues like multimorbidity. In addition, the quantity of research
studies and quality of existing research may vary.
○
Analysis: This can apply to evidence based programs internationally. What has
been studied may not be tailored enough for the situation, or there may be
evidence for the intervention being effective in one country, but that does not
mean that it would work for another area, or the globe as a whole. It may be
valuable to also consider the context and community needs, rather than relying
on evidence of successful programs.
○
Source:
https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-015-00
57-0
Name: Logan Varsano
Yes
●
Argument: Foundations that champion evidence-based policymaking should only
finance international development interventions that have demonstrated efficacy using
randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because RCTs account for potential downfalls in
other identification methods.
○
Evidence: “What makes RCTs useful is the set of procedures they are expected
to follow, such as placebo controls, concealment, randomization and
pre-registration. These procedures are layers of protection against challenges
that scientists usually face in research.”
○
Analysis: Essentially, RCTs help assert that whatever is achieved as a result of
the trials is solely due to the intervention in question. This outcome is something
unique to the random nature of RCTs. It is therefore less risky for foundations to
finance interventions that have been tested using RCTs because they can be
assured that their money is going to credible forms of intervention, and therefore
protect their image as a champion of evidence-based policymaking.
○
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/randomized-controlled-trials
No
●
Argument: Foundations that champion evidence-based policymaking should finance
international development interventions that have demonstrated efficacy using a variety
of credible causal identification methods instead of only RCTs because RCTs have
relatively limited terms of use.
●
Evidence: “Often, however, an RCT cannot be conducted for ethical reasons, and
sometimes for practical reasons as well. In such cases, knowledge can be derived from
an observational study instead.”
○
Analysis: In other words, RCTs might not always be possible, especially
considering that international development interventions often require testing with
humans and are therefore more likely to have the above ethical and practical
ramifications.
○
Source:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7081045/#:~:text=In%20clinical%
20medical%20research%2C%20causality,from%20an%20observational%20stud
y%20instead.
Name: (Charles)
Yes
●
Argument: Policymakers should consider a wide range of empirical studies when
considering policies.
○
Evidence: Decisions are usually better when policymakers can thoroughly
understand existing research in relevant fields.
○
Analysis: Rather than relying on isolated observations or one-off studies, by
exploring a hierarchy of available scholarship pertaining to an issue, legislatures
can benefit from existing empirical studies. While this information is not always
available, it is usually fruitful when researchers engage in these investigations.
○
Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1415462
No
●
Argument: Attempting to justify actions or policies based on randomized control tests
subjects policies to similar biases while introducing a false sense of validity.
○
Evidence: There is no definitive definition of what constitutes relevant empirical
evidence, and forcing policy makers to cite these data will not eliminate these
debates.
○
Analysis: Without a wide range of representative qualitative and quantitative
data, empirical evidence will not ensure effective policies.
○
Source:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08913811.2017.1395223
Name: (Hodrin)
Yes
●
Argument: Promotes transparency and accountability
○
Evidence: Foundations that finance only interventions with a demonstrated
impact using rigorous evaluation methods can promote transparency and
accountability
○
Analysis: This approach sends a clear signal to organizations that they will
be held accountable for delivering measurable results.
○
Source: https://www.tc.columbia.edu/cice/pdf/25629_1_1_Edwards_Hulme.pdf
No
●
Argument: Evaluation methods may not capture the outcomes
○
Evidence: Using evaluation methods may not be feasible in all context.
○
Analysis: Financing only interventions with an established evidence base
may miss out on promising interventions that require a more nuanced
approach
○
Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19439342.2012.710641
Notes for No (TA use only):
●
●