Posts

Child Poverty in Austria
The Republic of Austria is a landlocked nation located in Central Europe. With its rich history and picturesque mountain views, Austria is a well-traveled country in the European Union (EU). Nevertheless, child poverty in Austria is a topic of discussion for many officials and leaders in the Central European nation. In 2019, approximately 372,000 Austrian children and youth younger than 20 years old lived in households vulnerable to social exclusion and poverty. These children, in particular, are more likely to be deprived of opportunities and basic needs in comparison to wealthier households. As such, organizations aim to address child poverty in Austria.

4 Facts About Child Poverty in Austria

  1. Roughly 6.2% of Austrian children live in conditions of relative poverty. About 33% of Austrian children “live with at least one person” who is a migrant. In this case, it is notable that poverty disproportionately affects the migrant population. Other children in impoverished conditions come from large families or single-parent households.
  2. Austria has a particularly high number of child refugees. In Austria, “1,751 unaccompanied migrant children applied for asylum in 2017.” Austria takes in many migrant children from the Middle East and from other war-torn areas of the world. Vienna, the capital of Austria, funded a program for unaccompanied minors coming to Austria, particularly trafficking victims.
  3. Child trafficking is rife. The United States Department of State’s 2020 Trafficking in Persons Report for Austria specified that a Vienna-based program offered legal, psychological, social, language and medical assistance to victims, including child trafficking victims. Though this program did not work in practice, it still aided NGOs and other organizations that advocate for children, migrants and asylum seekers to better identify trafficking victims. Therefore, this initiative still aided the overall global human trafficking crisis, with a particular focus on children.
  4. Rising child poverty rates. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which began in Paris, France, is an organization with various member countries that have commitments to world trade and overall economic progress. It reported that children from Austria are relatively better off when looking at the organization’s average poverty numbers, though these numbers are deceptive. Despite this fact, in 2015, the OECD reported an increase in the number of Austrian children living in relative poverty, even though the country is performing relatively well according to OECD standards.

SOS Children’s Villages

Several organizations aim to address child poverty in Austria. One such NGO is SOS Children’s Villages. The organization’s founder, Hermann Gmeiner, was an Austrian citizen. Gmeiner established the organization in the Austrian town of Imst, Tyrol, in response to the growing number of children suffering “without parental care in post-war Austria.” The organization works with children and families to tackle child poverty worldwide. SOS Children’s Villages has a large presence in Austria, with various initiatives like family strengthening programs, support for children who do not have adequate parental care and accommodation for refugee children. Over the last seven decades, SOS Children’s Villages has improved the lives of more than 4 million children worldwide.

With organizations committing to reducing child poverty in Austria, there is hope for Austrian children to look to a better and brighter tomorrow.

– Rebecca Fontana
Photo: Flickr

forest-bathing
For the first time in human history, humans are increasingly turning away from wild spaces. By the year 2050, expectations have determined that nearly 7 billion people or two-thirds of the human population will live in urban areas. Meanwhile, half of the world’s poor already live in Earth’s most populous areas where access to natural space is dwindling. Re-imagining the value of nature is alleviating symptoms of urbanization that disproportionately impact the world’s poor. In Japan, the practice of forest bathing (shinrin-yoku) serves as a functional detox from the unnatural environment. The practice presents a fresh perspective on humanity’s relationship with nature and provides insight into the importance of nature in sustainable development.

The Environment and Health

Throughout human history, the natural world guided people in their daily lives. However, urbanization is reducing human exposure to nature and increasingly introducing citizens to harmful pollution that exacerbates illnesses that disproportionately affect the poor.

In developing nations, illnesses are most associated with hazards of the urban environment carries. In Dharavi, India’s most densely populated and poorest community, a lack of clean water and sanitation or trash disposal systems are among the issues contributing to a lower quality of living. Despite this one square mile area housing close to 1 million people, there are no parks, trees or wildlife besides disease-carrying rodents and stray pets. In addition, summer temperatures soar and monsoonal rainstorms find just enough room for flooding to spawn mosquito-borne illnesses. Neighborhoods such as Dharavi depict a negative relationship between the urban environment and health.

Health and Forest-Bathing

Poverty often has links to mental illness. This means many of the symptoms of a polluted urban environment contribute to a higher likelihood of stress. Socio-environmental factors as a whole play a large role in determining the health of individuals. However, studies often overlook the tangible effect that the physical environment plays in development. Shinrin-yoku, the Japanese term for forest-bathing, provides insight into what humans are missing in an absence of nature.

Japanese health officials examined the relationship that exposure to natural places has on human health. While studying the practice of forest-bathing and bodily responses to nature, scientists discovered a direct correlation between health and exposure to nature. For example, studies determined that exposure to nature promotes health benefits, including “lower levels of cortisol, lower pulse rate, lower blood pressure,” more than urban exposure. Responses often lead to a lower likelihood of developing serious illnesses that are too expensive for poor nations to address. This begs the question: Do the environments citizens live in hold them back?

The Economics of the Wild

Nature adds a quantifiable impact on economies across the globe. This is especially important for poorer communities that experience direct impacts from the environments they exist in. Singapore, one of the most urbanized nations in the world and previously home to poor communities comparable to Dharavi, is integrating various forms of nature into urban design through the Singapore Green Plan. Sustainable developments feature the city’s main attractions and are helping to alleviate poverty. This means more revenue for the local economy and higher incomes, coupled with an improved quality of life. Comparably, a modern appreciation of nature is proving rewarding across the globe in alleviating symptoms of urbanization. In terms of health, Singapore’s increased greenery also improves the quality of living by negating the urban heat effect and air quality.

For similar reasons, outdoor recreation constitutes one of the most rapidly growing industries worldwide. Japan’s forest bathing is a cultural phenomenon in which citizens escape to natural space. For the United States, hiking and action sports such as mountain biking and skiing are becoming increasingly popular. A whole economy centers around this type of recreation. According to the Outdoor Recreation Association, recreation centered around the U.S. outdoors generates $887 billion annually. The wild is a source of wellbeing, economic development and cultural significance for millions. However, for the developing world, nature is still largely inaccessible, especially for impoverished citizens in urban areas.

Sustainable Development

Uncontrolled development is not the only cause of the environment in poor nations. Rather, the environment in poor urban areas is often responsible for the area’s poverty in the first place. Unsustainable development exacerbates symptoms of poverty. The absence of nature in urban areas holds poor communities down.

Singapore is not the only one incorporating sustainable development into its future planning. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) describes environmental aid as “necessary for improving economic, social and political conditions in developing countries.” Sustainable development and wellbeing increasingly look to nature as a fundamental aspect of development.

Increasing Access to Natural Spaces

Historically, access to nature by means of escape is recreational freedom for privileged, fully-developed nations. In developing nations, the environment is a determiner of the quality of life. Unfortunately, urban areas including Dharavi and Singapore do not have the same access to nature as Japan’s forests. This means that forest bathing is a distant dream for millions living in the most densely populated areas of the globe. Increasing accessible natural spaces and integrating nature into an urban design is fundamental to increasing the quality of life for developing nations.

Investing in poor communities is not separate from investing in the environment. The health, wealth and development of communities remain largely dependent on natural space. Regardless of status, forest-bathing in Japan presents an often overlooked benefit of nature that surrounds all of human life. Poverty and the environment are two heavily interconnected issues that can be and currently are receiving attention.

– Harrison Vogt
Photo: Flickr

COVID-19's Impact on South KoreaOriginating from Asia, it is no surprise that COVID-19 has affected many Asian countries. However, there is one prominent country that has persevered despite the drastic impacts of the pandemic — South Korea. Shrouded in technology, entertainment and education, South Korea has transformed itself from a lower-developed economy to a high-income leader in innovation. COVID-19 has impacted South Korea for better and for worse. Here are six facts about COVID-19’s impact on South Korea.

6 Facts About COVID-19’s Impact on South Korea

  1. With a strong economic connection to China, South Korea was one of the first countries to report coronavirus cases. Forty days after South Korea’s first case on January 20, 2020, the country confirmed close to 1,000 cases. The cases only increased in number due to inadequate understanding of the severity of the virus. Therefore, after this spike, the country made great efforts to contain the outbreak and educate its citizens. For instance, South Korea successfully implemented mandatory masking and accessible testing as well as advanced contact tracing. Currently, although there were more than 269,000 COVID-19 cases in South Korea as of September 10, 2021, the country has a contrasting number of around 2,300 total deaths.
  2. Multiple countries praise South Korea’s well-executed plan to persist during the pandemic. Korea is notable for these concepts: early plan, speed and awareness. To begin with, there was an immediate and early response to the first case, allowing for fast prevention. Also, the government focused on moving quickly in implementing COVID-19 regulations and notifying the public with information and safety guidelines. Hence, internationally, South Korea became a top model for dealing with the virus.
  3. To prevent the spread of the virus, the world and South Korea limited travel. Travel in and out of South Korea decreased significantly along with tourism. The OECD has stated that these financial risks of limited travel can lead to rising unemployment, which can be detrimental to those in poverty. Korea’s exports have reduced as well, decreasing dramatically as China started shutting down certain systems for safety and health purposes. For instance, in April 2020, 24.3% of exports dropped and caused many losses. In response, South Korea developed a plan called the Korea New Deal in order to invest in advanced technology and the well-being of workers.
  4. South Korea has one of the highest rates of elderly poverty. Most elderly South Koreans sell box scraps, run street food stations and clean unsanitary areas to survive. Thus, the country implemented stronger social protection and stable labor market regulations. South Korea also implemented safe social distancing procedures in 250,000 jobs.
  5. The eruption of COVID-19 negatively impacted many lives but accelerated research efforts. Multiple health authorities collaborated in private laboratories to uncover the efficacy of contact tracing, rapid regulatory tests and screening clinics. The country attempted several data tests and experiments, and in doing so, South Korea discovered more about the actual SARS-CoV-2 and better prevention methods. Scientific and mechanical technology has also improved for the better and advancements have become more rapid. Therefore, seemingly, COVID-19’s impact on South Korea includes more than direct health-related scenarios.
  6. Leaders of South Korea prioritize providing the public with current and up-to-date information and distinct guidelines on how to prevent infection. According to Exemplars in Global Health, South Korea was able to respond fast to COVID-19 due to its experience with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) back in 2015, which presented a similar health crisis. To fight misinformation during the pandemic, authorities are focusing on providing the nation with regular and accurate COVID-19 information.

Concluding Thoughts

COVID-19’s impact on South Korea comes with twists and turns, however, although there are many troubles, the country has solutions. History has seen South Korea rise up from its colonization to a booming economy. This East Asian country is now attempting to prevent an increase in COVID-19 cases through a comprehensive plan.

The virus is mutating and the Delta variant is only worsening countries’ conditions. As a result, the mask mandates that South Korea recently lifted are back in place. However, South Korea’s progress and plans so far indicate that it is well-prepared to mitigate any further consequences of COVID-19.

– Minjae Eum
Photo: Flickr

U.S. foreign AidThe percentage of GDP toward U.S. foreign aid is lower than most people expect, not even making it among the top 20 when compared to similar OECD nations. However, the U.S. does rank first in the amount of aid given, with over $34 billion going to foreign aid. The second-highest-ranking country is Germany, which gave about $24 billion to foreign aid. Many Americans may wonder where does this $34 billion go to and how is it used?

Top 5 Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid in 2019

Iraq ($960 million)

The U.S. government’s role in war-torn Iraq shaped the way the U.S. allocates foreign aid in the country. Post-Iraq invasion saw mostly aid in the form of investments into essential services. ISIS and the areas it controlled and used to fund itself damaged the country. So, the plans following 2010 for U.S. foreign aid revolved mostly around reconstruction and infrastructure investments. Today, humanitarian aid mainly addresses those displaced by violence, especially those in former ISIS-occupied areas and those recovering from economic collapse.

Egypt ($1.46 billion)

Since 1978, Egypt received more than $50 billion in U.S. military aid and $30 billion in economic assistance. According to the Center for Global Development, military aid remains steady as of recent. However, humanitarian assistance is slowly declining since the 1990s. Although military aid makes up a majority of Egypt’s aid, issues relating to health, such as infant and maternal mortality rates, are improving. In addition, USAID made significant investments in Egyptian education. The aid currently works to foster economic development in the public and private sectors.

Jordan ($1.72 billion)

According to U.S. News and World Report, most of Jordan’s aid in 2019 is economic unlike the two countries above. The latest numbers for the year 2020 show significant investments from the U.S. to Jordan. U.S. assistance for Jordan’s COVID-19 response adds up to about $35.4 million. This includes almost $20.8 million in humanitarian support to assist refugees in Jordan. Throughout the years, Syrian refugees in Jordan received $1.7 billion in humanitarian U.S. aid since the start of the Syria crisis.

Israel (3.3 billion)

New statistics in 2020 indicate the U.S. granted Israel an additional $500 million to the Israeli state. The aid falls under the long-term agreement signed by the Obama administration. U.S. Foreign aid to Israel is almost all military aid. Since 2000, 70% of foreign aid assistance is military aid and in 2019, military aid made up a record high of 99.7% of Israeli aid. In total, Israel received the most U.S. foreign aid of any country since World War II.

Afghanistan ($4.89 billion)

As in Israel and Egypt, a large amount of U.S. foreign aid to Afghanistan is military support rather than humanitarian organization assistance. As for other forms of aid, the U.S. government recently announced a $266 million humanitarian aid package for the Afghan people. It will support people in the midst of conflict and facing severe food insecurity. Since 2020, USAID to Afghanistan amounted to $543 million. Essential products, food and direct cash will benefit more than 2.3 million people. This includes the most vulnerable and damaged families and households, many of whom have fled their homes. People flee due to the violence in the region or an inability to pay for necessities due to COVID-19’s economic effects on the prices of goods.

– Gene Kang
Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Elderly Poverty in LatviaMany know Latvia, a small country in Eastern Europe that Lithuania and Estonia border, for its seaside capital city and rich cultural heritage. Following its swift recovery after the 2008 financial crisis, the country’s elderly population overshadowed Latvia’s strong economy. Brought on by a declining working-age labor force, the rate of elderly poverty in Latvia remains a point of concern.

The Vulnerability of the Elderly

In 2015, the World Bank unveiled a report titled “The Active Aging Challenge for Longer Working Lives in Latvia,” which presents data on the status of elderly poverty in the country. In coordination with the Latvian government, the project set out to discover how to develop a strategy to promote “longer working lives” while emphasizing the need to make better use of the existing workforce.

The results point to shrinking younger generations as the main contributor to elderly poverty over declining life expectancy rates. The report highlights two key risk factors that are causing the working population to dwindle: emigration and low fertility rates. An overall population decline of 0.5% each year is due to emigration siphoning workers out of the country.

However, low birth rates fail to provide the backup labor necessary to keep the economy stable. By 2035, this trend predicts that working-age populations will decrease by 23%. Furthermore, a report that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published determined that those in the 65 and older age group will increase in number by 50%, catapulting the elderly poverty rate in Latvia to double the average in comparison to other EU countries.

Lack of Safety Nets and Workforce Integration

The Latvian pension system is one of the problems which inherently stands in the way of solving elderly poverty in Latvia. Back in 1996, the government introduced the NDC scheme, or in other words, the pay-as-you-go system. This allowed individuals to make contributions to their retirement fund as they wanted. However, with the elderly population on the rise, it has become evident that those who made low contributions find themselves with very little to support themselves on.

Women in the 75 and older age group made the smallest contributions. The poverty rate of Latvia remains the highest across OECD countries. Additionally, the country has the lowest level of income among older people of OECD countries. Those who choose to remain employed find that only 40% of Latvian companies provide any training. This makes integration into the workforce much harder. Latvia has the highest proportion of people in the European Union with healthcare and education inequalities. This is due to a lack of training by firms and workers.

Lending a Helping Hand

The Riga Acting Seniors Alliance (RASA) aims to support Latvian individuals older than the age of 50 who are at risk of elderly poverty and help reintegrate them into society. Most notably, it connects seniors to others who share the same interests.

Caritas Latvia is another group that targets lonely seniors, the unemployed and people in poverty. It implements home visits, food and clothing drives, crisis centers and other volunteer work to help people in need. Caritas has pointed out that it will not be able to complete its work until spending on social protection increases to include the elderly at risk of poverty or social exclusion.

Looking Forward

The country’s government recognizes the problem of elderly poverty in Latvia and has incorporated elderly poverty reform into its legislative goals. A survey that the Central Statistical Bureau (CSB) conducted in 2019 found a 0.4% decrease in populations at risk of poverty in comparison to a similar study in 2017. This drop was due to the rise in the minimum wage, changes to the income tax application and increased social benefit offerings such as pension plans. The changes signal a promising start to resolve Latvia’s core socioeconomic issues as well as a commitment to achieving progress.

– Nicole Yaroslavsky
Photo: Flickr

offshore wind farmSouth Korea’s government announced plans to construct an 8.2 gigawatt “offshore wind facility by 2030.” Once completed, the project will stand as “the world’s largest single offshore development.” The project comes with economic and environmental advantages for South Korea. In order to help the economy recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, the offshore wind farm will increase revenue and energy production. The plan forms part of President Moon Jae-in’s Green New Deal project. The Green New Deal began in 2020 and will help Asia’s fourth-largest economy reduce its dependence on fossil fuels.

Offshore Wind Farm Funding and Benefits

The offshore wind facility project has already garnered significant funding. Several companies have contributed $42.4 billion to the project and the government will cover $802 million of the cost. In addition to generating renewable energy, the offshore wind project will create 5,600 jobs in the area. It will also extend South Korea’s “existing 1.67GW wind power capacity to 16.5GW by 2030.”

South Korean officials state that the wind energy facility “will produce energy equivalent to the output of six nuclear reactors.” The project has garnered significant support around the country due to its many benefits. A signing ceremony recently occurred for the new wind project in Sinan, a coastal town in the southwest region of the country. The offshore wind farm project is predicted to make an impressive impact on the country’s economy due to citizen, government and fiscal support.

Economic Impact of COVID-19 on South Korea

South Korea’s early response to the COVID-19 pandemic was successful as early testing and containment of the virus limited spread. However, the virus caused an economic recession due to halted business operations, closed borders and restricted mobility. For the first time since 2003, South Korea fell into a “technical recession.” In the first quarter of 2020, South Korea’s GDP declined by 1.3% followed by a second quarter decline of 3.3%.

The recession was caused greatly by a lack of demand for South Korean exports. Exports make up about 40% of the country’s GDP, so without the typically high supply and demand for products, South Korea’s economy was hard-hit. The economic decline also led to job losses across multiple sectors such as services, travel, hospitality, retail and manufacturing. As a consequence, South Koreans experienced harsh economic impacts, especially those already in poverty.

How Wind Power Improves Poverty

Despite South Korea’s status as a large world economy with high rankings in terms of education and healthcare, it still has a high poverty rate. The OECD ranked South Korea fifth among 33 countries for relative income poverty, with a rate of 16.7%. Relative income poverty is defined as “the ratio of the number of people whose income falls below half of the national median household income.”

Renewable energy sources such as wind power can help reduce poverty by decreasing a country’s reliance on fossil fuels. Fossil fuel prices can fluctuate drastically, causing instability in the economy. Wind turbines can replace the use of fossil fuels. The renewable energy sector also creates jobs and allows for energy security. With the power to use clean energy and bring economic prosperity to South Korean citizens, offshore wind farms provide a solution to poverty reduction.

The Future of Wind Farms

Overall, South Korean offshore wind farms could help South Korea bounce back economically after the COVID-19 pandemic. Wind energy is a sustainable resource as it is readily available. In comparison to fossil fuels, wind energy is more consistent and less expensive to harness. The boost in wind power could also place South Korea on the leaderboard for renewable energy.

Future prosperity and poverty reduction in South Korea will come from inclusive economic growth. With the use of renewable energy sources, sustainability and economic success are possible. Increasing accessibility to energy will thus help South Korea win the fight against poverty.

– Courtney Roe
Photo: Flickr

Distributing Foreign Aid
No unitary world body is responsible for coordinating and distributing foreign aid. Foreign aid efforts generally consist of bilateral or multilateral aid. One country directly grants bilateral aid to another, while several countries pool resources together before joint-delivering multilateral aid. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is an example of a bilateral aid organization because only the United States is part of its decision-making process. A strong example of a multilateral aid donor would be the United Nations or the World Bank, where the organizations themselves exercise a strong degree of autonomy over distributing foreign aid.

International Cooperation in Foreign Aid

The World Bank, United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are some of the biggest agenda-setters in foreign aid. While they all operate independently, each contributes to a shared effort and common understanding in achieving their goals.

In 2012, the United Nations convened a large conference to set targets and an agenda for goals in sustainable development by 2030. Of its 17 development goals and 169 targets, poverty topped the list and contained seven targets. The conference determined the most significant and salient issues relating to sustainable development until 2030. In support of this common objective, OECD also incorporated a platform regarding the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This exemplifies how one organization’s agenda can cross over and influence agendas that others set.

The Coordination Efforts of the OECD

The OECD advises the distribution and implementation of effective foreign aid flow among the aid members of its Development Assistant Committee (DAC). Within many different frameworks and groups, OECD utilizes a “gold standard” for foreign aid called Official Development Assistance (ODA). Since 1969, the largest countries convened within the DAC have adopted ODA as their primary source of distributing foreign aid. The definition of ODA is a complicated matter, because, for instance, the countries that are eligible for ODA change over time. Regardless, distributing foreign aid undergoes careful optimization to promote and target economic development and welfare in developing countries. These repercussions are wide-ranging. International bodies from the World Bank to the U.N. respect the standards that the OECD sets.

The OECD utilizes a top-down approach to achieving broader development and aid objectives. The organization regularly measures and assesses its progress in implementing its objectives. This includes providing advice to member countries. In its report on “Measuring Distance to the SDG Targets,” it provided member countries with an assistive overview of strengths and weaknesses when it comes to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that the U.N. set. Such feedback helps countries stay on track to best reach the goals. Overall, the study revealed uneven progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. Some targets, such as infrastructure experienced near achievement, but other targets rated medium to low progress.

The World Bank

The World Bank is something of a twin to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, instead of preventing and dealing with financial catastrophes like the IMF, “the [World] Bank is primarily a development institution.” One can see the international links when the World Bank discusses ODA while considering foreign aid flows.

In 2021, one of the World Bank’s primary objectives is to soften the economic blow of COVID-19. It plans to deploy up to $160 billion by June 2021 in support of countries’ responses to the virus. For example, the World Bank provided nearly 7,000 infection, prevention and control supplies and more than 31,000 personal protective equipment to Papua New Guinea. In Ghana, it supported the training of thousands of health professionals and technicians. Today, the World Bank is the largest external financier of education in developing countries. In its 2020 annual report, the World Bank estimated that the International Finance Corporation, a member of the World Bank Group, would contribute to the creation of at least 1.9 million jobs through the projects it financed in the fiscal year 2020.

Looking Forward

Thanks to organizations such as the World Bank, the U.N. and OECD, foreign aid benefits from higher levels of cooperation than ever. While no unitary body exists to overlook aid distribution, these organizations are filling the gap. Their efforts foster hope for even greater effectiveness in distributing foreign aid.

– Marshall Wu
Photo: Wikipedia Commons

Norway's Foreign Aid
Many countries in Europe regularly distribute foreign aid to developing economies in an effort to contribute to global welfare. Norway’s foreign aid makes up a significant portion of the aid that wealthy nations distribute. It has a long history of emphasizing the importance of foreign aid and continues in this legacy today.

The History

According to a Developmental Assistance Committee review by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Norway’s foreign assistance history dates back to more than 50 years ago. It has been donors to different nations around the world, and its government has most regularly distributed economic aid to countries in Africa and Asia. Norway’s non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play a large role in distributing its foreign aid. As of 2008, 30% of Norway’s development assistance went through NGOs. One of the earliest years of recorded foreign aid in Norway is 1965. In 1965, Norway distributed 8.1 million NOK (~$980,760) in aid to Africa. The top five countries that received aid were Tanzania, Uganda, Madagascar, Kenya and Ethiopia. Also in 1965, Norway earmarked 14.1 million NOK (~$1.7 million) in aid for countries in Asia. The vast majority of that aid went to India and Korea.

Norwegian Foreign Aid today

Norway’s total foreign aid budget for 2021 is $4.1 billion, which amounts to a little more than 1% of its gross national income. Norway distributes its foreign aid in an effort to help with humanitarian, education and economic relief efforts. It has also expressed a willingness to help promote peace around the world. Like many other nations that distribute foreign aid, Norway has emphasized environmental improvements. The government supports expanding clean and renewable energy, as well as forest conservation and agricultural productivity.

Foreign Aid Goals

Norway’s foreign aid focus is on emergency assistance, developmental and economic aid, climate programs, education, food and governance. Although some are easier to meet than others within a certain timeframe, the Norwegian government works to meet each one of these goals. Over the years, Norway has distributed billions of dollars in foreign aid while keeping the focus on the goals listed above. By meeting these goals, the Norwegian government can try to help other nations rebuild economies, improve education and governance.

According to Ine Eriksen Søreide, the country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Norway will continue its humanitarian and economic aid efforts in 2021. This will be especially pertinent as the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic play out. Since 2013, Norway has increased its humanitarian budget by about 67%. In 2020, it was the sixth-largest donor worldwide. Its special focus on green humanitarian aid is also very important during today’s climate crisis.

In conclusion, Norway is a top distributor of foreign aid every year and an important player in the world’s response to humanitarian crises. It focuses on issues such as economic development, food distribution and education for young people. And especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic, the Norwegian government recognizes the increased need for assistance in developing nations around the world.

– Amina Aden
Photo: Flickr

Denmark's Foreign Aid
When it comes to foreign aid, one of the most widely-commended countries is the small nation of Denmark. The Danes are well-known for their generous aid spending and both donor and recipient nations recognize Denmark as a highly effective partner in the fight against global poverty. Here are five facts about Denmark’s foreign aid.

5 Facts About Denmark’s Foreign Aid

  1. Denmark is a world leader in foreign aid spending. In 2019, Denmark spent $2.55 billion on foreign aid, a seemingly small figure compared to the $34.62 billion the United States spent, but Denmark’s population is only about 1.76% that of the U.S. When adjusted for population, Denmark’s foreign aid totals $447 per-capita, much higher than the United States’ $95 per-capita. In fact, Denmark is the fourth-highest per-capita spender of all OECD countries after Norway, Sweden and Luxembourg.
  2. Denmark has consistently been a world leader since the 1970s. The United Nations uses foreign aid as a percentage of Gross National Income to measure a country’s proportional spending, and Denmark is one of the few countries that has met or exceeded the U.N.’s target of 0.7% of GNI since 1978. Denmark’s foreign aid currently amounts to 0.71% of its GNI, trailing only Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden among OECD countries. However, for a brief period during the 1990s, Denmark actually increased this number to over 1%.
  3. Low-and-middle-income countries rate Denmark high for usefulness, influence and helpfulness in foreign aid. In a new study that AidData conducted, leaders from 40 aid-receiving nations ranked Denmark as a top development partner. Besides meeting the U.N.’s foreign aid target, Denmark scored second among all countries for its usefulness regarding policy advice, second for its influence in setting agendas and first for its helpfulness regarding reform implementation. Since 2009, these reforms have included promoting greater private sector expansion and focusing on social progress as a catalyst for economic growth. Denmark’s long-term commitments to implementing such policies in a small number of prioritized nations have proven to be highly effective in reducing extreme poverty.
  4. Denmark manages its foreign aid spending and implementation through DANIDA, the Danish International Development Agency. DANIDA’s top priorities for 2020 are advancing human rights and equality, developing sustainable green growth, providing humane asylum for displaced people and maintaining international cooperation in all global efforts. Denmark’s foreign aid reaches over 70 low-and-middle-income countries, but those of the highest urgency include Afghanistan, Somalia and Niger. Efforts in Afghanistan largely center around education as Danish aid provides teacher education, updated textbooks and curriculum development. In Somalia, DANIDA works to develop safety nets, human rights advancements and strengthen national and local governance. Niger receives policy advice on properly handling the irregular number of migrants in the country as well as basic delivery of living essentials to impoverished children.
  5. Denmark can still improve. While the country is one of only six to meet the U.N.’s target of 0.7% GNI in 2019 with 0.71%, this is a substantial drop from 2015 when Denmark spent 0.85% of GNI on foreign aid. Addressing this cutback, which was largely due to increased spending on refugees within the country, should be a top concern. Reverting back to 2015’s percentage or higher is a positive step Denmark can take, and such a move is all the more likely now as Denmark’s 2019 net migration was negative for the first time in almost a decade. As the country spends less on internal migrants, more of the Danish budget is available to supplement the once-highly-robust foreign aid sector.

One of the most effective ways developed governments can help to improve conditions in poverty-stricken nations is by properly funding and managing healthy foreign aid budgets. By taking Denmark’s example, more countries should seek to meet the U.N.’s 0.7% GNI target and implement this aid in a manner that best fits the needs of impoverished individuals in low-income countries.

– Calvin Melloh
Photo: Flickr

Healthcare in MonacoWith nearly 40,000 people, Monaco is one of five European micro-states and is located on the northern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Monaco has one of the best global healthcare schemes. The World Health Organization established that an individual born in 2003 can expect to have, on average, the longest lifespan in Europe. The country also has the third-highest proportion of doctors for its population in Europe.

Healthcare Education in Monaco

Leaders in Monaco believe that prevention and screening are essential to maintaining health and it is customary for young people to access comprehensive health education. This education aims to promote high-quality lifestyles and prevent early-risk behavior, such as tobacco use, drug addictions and sexually transmitted diseases.

Caisses Sociales de Monaco (CSM)

The Caisses Sociales de Monaco (CSM) is the official agency responsible for supervising Monaco’s public health service. Public healthcare automatically covers all citizens and long-term residents who contribute to the agency. French and Italian citizens may also access public health facilities in Monaco upon evidence of regular contributions to their home country’s state healthcare scheme. Foreign visitors can receive health treatment at all public hospitals and clinics. However, without state insurance contributions, travelers and expatriates will be forced to pay for all healthcare expenses accrued from treatment.

Public Healthcare Coverage

Public healthcare insurance operates through reimbursements, so an individual who plans on using coverage provided by the CSM will be required to make up-front payments and then claim costs back. After joining the public healthcare system, an individual receives a card that provides access to medical and dental care. The card contains administrative information necessary to refund medical care.

The public healthcare system provides coverage for inpatient and outpatient hospitalization, prescribed medications, treatment by specialists, pregnancy and childbirth and rehabilitation. Some prescription drugs are also reimbursed through the CSM and emergency care is available to everyone at Princess Grace Hospital, one of three public hospitals. The hospital will be reconstructed to strengthen the complementary nature of all the hospitals in Monoco.

Out-of-Pocket Healthcare Costs

Out-of-pocket healthcare costs in Monaco are high and if the CSM fails to provide sufficient coverage, an individual may supplement with private insurance. Private health insurance is a tool for individuals who want to cover medical services and fees not paid for by the public healthcare system. Doctors fund privately-paid equipment and staff through private contributions. According to an article from Hello Monaco, most Monaco citizens take out extra private insurance to cover ancillary services and unpaid rates.

A Commendable Healthcare System in Monaco

Every resident in Monaco is eligible for public health insurance but private health insurance remains an option for those interested in more coverage. Healthcare in Monaco earned outstanding reviews from the OECD and officials continue to seek improvements by reconstructing medical buildings and providing health education for young people.

– Rachel Durling
Photo: Flickr