Economic Downfalls And Their Effects On Charities and Nongovernmental Organizations.

Word Count: 592

The Great Recession of 2008 hit the United States, and it hit hard. Families as well as corporations were feeling the stress on their wallets, and spending was cut. It would make sense that charities and nongovernmental organizations that rely heavily on donations and fundraising to support their organizations and projects would be directly affected by the budget cuts that were happening all over the country. And to some extent they were. According to a study done by Stanford University in 2012, the recession reduced the total amount given by 7% in 2008, and by another 6.2% in 2009. And although the amount given started to increase in 2010, it only went up by 1.3% and .9% in 2011. But, over all, the average American was still giving the same proportion of their income to charities. During an economic downfall Americans on average do not suffer from an increase in monetary stinginess, although there has been no evidence of an increase in generosity. This can be problematic because it is in times of economic strife that charities and nongovernmental organizations need donations the most.

This brings up the question in the Government about whether or not to take away tax deductions for giving to charities. When a government is experiencing an economic crisis, the last thing that it will want to do is allow people to pay less on their taxes which would mean less money would be going to the government. Europe does not allow for a charity deductible, and so the government receives more money but people are going to be less likely to give money to charities if they have to pay taxes on it as well. This is what would happen in the United States if the government decided to rid itself of the deduction; Charities would feel a significant decrease in donations. This is something that many people, not just the government, have to think about everyday. The struggles between saving money and getting more money, or allowing for more money to be given to charities (or the personal, every day life equivalent) and to what we feel are our moral obligations.

While the total amount given to charities does in fact decrease, this could partially be because the targeting of more poverty relevant goes up. The total funding for food banks in 40 cities increased by 2.2% between 2007 and 2008, and by an astonishing 31.9% between 2008 and 2009 which shows that giving is targeted towards the needy. Even though this is the case for food banks, for other charities and nongovernmental organizations the outlook is not so great. While Americans may be giving the same percentage, that percentage applies to a now much smaller pool of money and so the absolute amount given decreases significantly. The most recent data shows that the growth rate for money given to charities has been the slowest of any period of two years since 1971 with the exception of the recession in 2001 after 9/11. At the rate that we are giving right now, it will take until 2022 to return to the level of money given recorded in 2007.

            To sum everything up, while the level of donations and charitable giving is going up, nonprofits and nongovernmental organizations are definitely feeling the economic downfall. They are cutting projects, and payrolls for their staff in order to exist. More people are starting to volunteer, but there is no doubt that nongovernmental organizations and charities are stretching every dollar.

Sources:

"Charitable Giving And The Great Recession." A Great Recession Brief . N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.stanford.edu/group/recessiontrends/cgi-bin/web/sites/all/themes/barron/pdf/CharitableGiving_fact_sheet.pdf>.

"Charitable Giving during the Great Recession | RSF Review." Charitable Giving during the Great Recession | RSF Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.russellsage.org/blog/r-mascarenhas/charitable-giving-during-great-recession>.

"On Air Now." wtaq. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2012/jun/19/us-charitable-giving-approaches-300-billion-in-2011/>.

The Economical Educational Recession

The Economical Educational Recession

Word count:633

The economics behind education is really complex and would take an extremely long time to tell anyone about it in any detail. So I want to focus on how education is affect by the world economy and how the recession has caused gap in the education systems of the world and how education is affecting the economy. The education system of the United States put 809.6 billion dollars in to our education system and with the recent economic depression we’ve been spending less on our education system and this has caused a lapis in the education system because some school are underfunded and the quality of the teachers has decreased because there are far better paying jobs in colleges and other fields. Ever since the “no child left behind” policy has been implemented the middle class has been slowly, but recently increasing, over the years.(U.S. Educatoin)

While it was a great system to start out with and the idea behind it was good they didn’t think about the fact that people would try to cram as much information into children’s minds, and they can’t take it all in and remember it after they finish a test. At this point we’re not even teaching our students the material, we’re teaching them to memorize the information that we give them, spit it back out on a test then forget it and learn new information. This doesn’t help prepare them for a future in college or in a career because memorizing information for a short period of time isn’t going to get many people far in life. When we begin actually teach our students information then we will begin to find that higher paying jobs are available to people who know what they’re doing.

That being said, because of budget cuts and the prospects of finding employment after graduation or obtaining a degree are very few. Public schools are often the first targets of state budget cuts. This means that the lack of supplies, materials and personnel affects the quality of public education, by making the U.S. less competitive on a global level. This also affects the quality of education at our colleges and universities, as more and more students enter these institutions unprepared and lacking the skills needed to succeed. On the other side of the coin, the recession has reduced the potential of finding a job for many who have successfully obtained degrees at institutions of higher learning. In this climate, an education does not guarantee one a better paying job, or even a job.(Debate)

This can’t be allowed to continue because all it does I hurt our economy even more  and while right now we think it’s a good idea in the long run the effects of this will be felt for a long time. The recession is certainly having a big impact on education as evidenced by severe budget cuts. States have been so cash-strapped that funds to preschool, elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools have been reduced in many cases. At the elementary and secondary levels, this has contributed to many teacher lay-offs and, in some cases, school re-organization and even closings. Class sizes are bigger. In addition, while tuition is going up at many colleges, financial aid programs are often being threatened by cuts, providing further barriers to low-income students.(Debate)

In conclusion cutting and limiting education right now isn’t the answer that we’re looking for to solve our financial crisis, it’s the fact that we aren’t educating our children enough and aren’t giving them the opportunity that they deserve. We have to make the choice to give our students what they need and help them to obtain what they want to obtain to help us with our world’s problems because they are the future.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-recession-having-a-big-impact-on-education

http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/

The economics of terrorism

 Economics and money play several large and important roles in terrorism. When taken from the terrorists point of view, there are a couple main and primary roles which can basically be broken down into two categories, the first is funding and the second is motivation. Then, from the point of view of those being affected by terrorism there are a couple more major factors, the first is costs going to damages and repairs, the second is the cost of counter terrorist initiatives.

Now, because of the nature of terrorism, money is less of a motivator than it would be in crimes or wars. There are usually more religious motivators but there are some situations where money is factor of the motivation. If the situation is terrorism to get a point across then money generally does not mean much but if it is a terrorist act where the objective is to scare people into giving money, it comes more into play however money is not always a motivator.

Money come a lot more into the picture with financing. Now with any organization, there is usually a need for financial resources and assets to fund operations and keep things in business and terrorism is no different. With the need for weapons and equipment, there is an obvious need for money to obtain materials. There are several ways that terrorists (in this case focusing more on cells from the middle east) continue to get financing. One is religious donations which makes up a good percentage of the money contributed. A fair amount also comes from ransoms and smaller operations. The cost of terrorism is so significantly dwarfed by the costs of rebuilding (strictly financial, not even beginning to talk about loss of life). For example, a bomb that would be detonated by a wearer can presumably cost around 150 dollars (U.S.) where as the damage from it could be anywhere from two thousand to two million dollars in damages.

When it comes to damages, the September 11^th attacks of 2001 ranks high as far as the total price tag. Some research shows that it is on the high side of one to two trillion (with a “T”) dollars. Here are some of the “big ticket items” from http://www.iags.org :

• The loss of four civilian aircraft valued at $385 million.
• The destruction of major buildings in the World Trade Center with a replacement cost of from $3 billion to $4.5 billion.
• Damage to a portion of the Pentagon: up to $1 billion.
• Cleanup costs: $1.3 billion.
• Property and infrastructure damage: $10 billion to $13 billion.
• Federal emergency funds (heightened airport security, sky marshals, government takeover of airport security, retrofitting aircraft with anti-terrorist devices, cost of operations in Afghanistan): $40 billion.
• Direct job losses amounted to 83,000, with $17 billion in lost wages.
• The amount of damaged or unrecoverable property hit $21.8 billion.
• Losses to the city of New York (lost jobs, lost taxes, damage to infrastructure, cleaning): $95 billion.
• Losses to the insurance industry: $40 billion.
• Loss of air traffic revenue: $10 billion.
• Fall of global markets: incalculable.

When it comes to counter terrorist efforts, the amount of money the U.S. In particular has allocated every year has grown since 2001. In 2008, the world had spent around 70 billion dollars (U.S.) to try to counter terrorism (since 2011). The figures show that it probably reduced the number of international incidents by 34%, yet terrorism has claimed more peoples lives every year.

Clearly terrorism is an economic issue (slightly more on the side of the “receiving” end of things which can not be simply analyzed and calculated.

Works Cited

4, 2006, April. "Tracking Down Terrorist Financing." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

"Ab_cj_terror_1|Why? Understanding Terrorism and Terrori|How Do Terrorists Get Their Money?" Ab_cj_terror_1|Why? Understanding Terrorism and Terrori|How Do Terrorists Get Their Money? N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

"The Cost of September 11." The Cost of September 11. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

"The Economics of Terrorism." Core Economics. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

"Is Counterterrorism Good Value for Money?" NATO Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

"Ten Years after Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks, $667 Million in Funds to Revitalize Lower Manhattan Remains Unspent." NY Daily News. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

How the Main Motive Behind Big GMO Companies is Profit

Word Count: 618                            

            In defense of their agricultural methods, big companies in the GMO industry claim that GMOs are going to solve world hunger and are needed to feed the world. In reality, the majority of GMO crops don’t even go to feeding people. Only 2% of GMO soy is consumed by humans, and only 10% of corn ends up being directly used in foods, with about half of that being in the form of high fructose corn syrup. Most GMO corn is processed into gums, pastes, additives, fillers, ethanols and other products. The real push of genetic engineering is not to make third world agriculture more productive or to feed more people, but to generate profits. GMO technology has become an industry controlled by a few large profit hungry companies.

                These large biotech companies and their patents are gaining more and more control over the nations seed supply. It is rather challenging to invent a method that would only give the benefits of genetically modified organisms to the buyer of the product because the reproduction of plants is a natural process. Yet, Monsanto has found a way to protect its technology by creating seeds that produce infertile crops. This “terminator” or “suicide” seed makes it necessary for farmers to buy seeds annually from the biotech company. Another one of Monsanto’s popular GM technologies that creates a dependency upon the company is “Roundup Ready” soybeans, seeds that are tolerant to Monsanto’s herbicide roundup. Because Monsanto has patented the Roundup Ready soybean, farmers who purchase seeds from the company must sign a licensing agreement, agreeing to use the seeds for only one season, to not give the seeds to anyone else for planting, to not save second-generation seeds for replanting, and to not use or distribute the seeds for breeding or research purposes. Farmers traditionally save seeds from a harvest for replanting, which saves them the cost of buying new seeds and reduces their dependence on seed vendors. Monsanto’s is doing its best to stop this practice, wanting that steady stream of revenue from farmers who must purchase seeds every year.

The domination of the seed market by big agribusiness affects farmers growing GM and non-GM crops alike. Under the licensing agreement, farmers are allowed to sell second-generation seeds to local grain elevators, where GM and non-GM seeds are mixed and sold in bulk without restriction. With the popularity of GM seeds, this practice makes it harder for farmers to avoid purchasing GMOs. “Roundup Ready” soybeans now account for 94% of soybeans in circulation. GM contamination is another huge concern for farmers trying to avoid GMOs, especially organic farmers who can lose their government-issued organic certification if contamination is discovered. Wind or wildlife can carry seeds into the fields of neighboring farms, where they grow among non-GM crops without the farmer ever even knowing. Though the farmer never intended to plant GM seeds, this still violates Monsanto’s licensing agreement. Many farmers are worried about being sued for patent infringement if GM seeds contaminate their fields. Expensive legal fees make it difficult to defend against a lawsuit, and if a court orders a farmer to pay monetary damages, the financial results can be devastating.

The principle technologies on the market today reflect the need of biotechnology companies to intensify farmers' dependence upon seeds protected by "intellectual property rights", which conflict directly with the age-old rights of farmers to reproduce, share or store seeds. Now that these companies have a lot of dependence, they’ve also started to raise the price of their seeds. Biotechnology companies are determined to extract the most profit from their investment as possible by controlling crops from seed to sale and forcing farmers to pay inflated prices for seed-chemical packages.

Works Cited

Altieri, Miguel A. , and Peter Rosset. "Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology will not Help the Developing World." AgBioForum . University of California, Berkeley & Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.agbioforum.org/v2n34/v2n34a03-altieri.htm>.

Cooney, Scott. "The Economic Argument Against GMOs: a Top Ten List." The Inspired Economist. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://inspiredeconomist.com/2013/02/26/economic-argument-against-gmo/>.

Wright, Kristi. "GMO patents squeeze small farmers." Rogue Valley Community Press. N.p., 6 Mar. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://rvcommunitypress.com/2013/03/gmo-patents-squeeze-small-farmers/>.

Economic Impact of India’s Food Security (611)

Economic Impact of India’s Food Security

         India HSBC Holdings global market director Hitendra Dave said, "the operation of the project cycle is very long, it may take months, maybe years to get the desired economic activity. The rupee has "beyond the real level”. Food safety law does not make the government beyond the fiscal deficit targets.”

         Next year is India's election year. In the election, the ruling Congress Party introduced a number of subsidies to the poor people, especially the new food security bill passed directly to each household food spending, subsidies to please the lower class voters. One of the program guaranteed 100 days of employment to a rural household at Rs. 100 (approximately US$2) a day. The Union cabinet states, “every person belonging to priority households… shall be entitled to receive 5 kilograms of food grains per person per month at subsidized prices.” According to the statement, food will be made available at between Rs. 1 (1.7 U.S. cents) to Rs. 3 (5 U.S. cents) a kilogram. This is the biggest program in the world and will cost the government about US$22 billion annually and cover 67% of the population. It forms a huge pressure on the economy.

        “The measure is credit negative for the Indian government (Baa3 stable) because it will raise government spending on food subsidies to about 1.2% of GDP (gross domestic product) per year from an estimated 0.8% currently, exacerbating the government’s weak finances,” the ratings agency said in a statement.

         The purpose of this plan is government wants to let people no longer in hunger. This bill is a right for food in India. It can also inspire many countries to do the same thing. However, food security and economic downturn are issues in a long run. This is the world’s biggest experiment of providing food grain to poor people. The government plans to double its food subsidies to 2 per cent of the GDP. The fiscal deficit, slow economic growth and not stable exchange rate are three big mountains current firmly on Indian people. The Indian economy is going through a slowdown now. In the recent years India’s GDP growth is from 8% to 9%. From 2011-2012 the growth rate is 6%. India’s GDP growth in 2012- 2013 is 5%, which is the lowest in a decade. This food security policy does not fit for India’s current economy. The new food security bill will take time to have an impact on the economy. The government also approved the food safety law, which may trigger worries. The Indian finance ministers announced so many measures. People have no choice. They are forced to obey the food security bill.

       If there are an additional 30 core people will get the cheaper food, the demand for other items of will rise significantly. It affects the economy in a negative way. Cheap food grains will lower the food bill of families and they would spend the extra money on other items. This will let the consumption of cheaper grains remain the same or even higher because people get rights to have food, rely on it and do not want to work hard.

         In conclusion, the Indian government takes effort to find a solution to solve hunger, the biggest issue happening in India. And it is a tough problem for the country. In a way people get adequate food to survive rather than lack of food. In the other way, the government subsiding the grain to help the food security, in the meantime, it costs a lot and it can’t promise the food security. Maybe having food is better than nothing, but it is a big challenge for India.

Work Cited

Annapurna, Singh. "Food Security Bill: Good politics to deliver bad economics." DECCAN HERALD n.d., n. pag. Print. <http://www.deccanherald.com/content/213752/food-security-bill-good-politics.html>.

Utpal, Bhaskar. "Food Bill will worsen economic  woes, says Moody’s." live mint& the world street journal. n. page. Print. <http://www.livemint.com/Politics/RZf5SB7rFzGalzcGo9YXSN/Moodys-says-Indias-food-security-Bill-credit-negative.html>.

Arun , Kumar. "Why food security bill makes economic sense." Hindustantimes 20 08 2013, n. pag. Print. <http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/columnsothers/why-food-security-bill-makes-economic-sense/article1-1110529.asp&xgt;.

"India’s Food Security Ordinance May Spell Economic Disaster." Wharton University of Pennsylvania. N.p., 09 07 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/indias-food-security-ordinance-may-spell-economic-disaster/>.

Dictatorship verses Economic Growth

                                                                                                                   Number of words:702

          In the world we live in today, It is believed that democratic governments are the best way to go if a country wants to become economically successful. It is also believed that governments ruled by dictators undergo economic failures. There was research going on to determinate whether economic success depends on the type of government a country has. The result showed that democracy was not the direct cause of economic growth. “ One group of economists found growth induced democracy in East Asia; democracy did not leas to growth”(The Economist). Another research made was comparing the economic growth between countries with both political and economical freedom to countries that were economically free but were politically repressed. The result also proves that the democracies are not the only way to get to a successful economic growth of a country. “Between 1991 and 2005, the countries that were economically free but politically repressed grew at 6.28% annually. Comparatively, the countries that were both economically and politically free grew at 2.62%. in other words some dictatorial regimes make better economic decisions for citizens than democratic ones”( "Democracy Correlated with Economic Growth?"). With these results it can be inferred that after all, all dictatorships are not bad and with a good dictator who knows how to manage the state resources for betterment of the country and its people, can keep the countries economy growing.

          Lets take Korea as an example, “ Modern Korea shows that dictators maybe able to bring about economic development”("Business & Money''). For 26 years, South Korea was a country that was largely dominated by autocrats. From 1961 to 1979, Park Chung Hee was the ruler of that nation and during that time Korea went from a state of poverty to a state prosperity, they build industries, electronics, cars, etc. “Korea simply couldn't function as a democracy before a higher level of development was achieved. '' The gem without luster called democracy was meaningless to people suffering from starvation and despair,'' Chung Hee once wrote”(''Business& Money''). Due to the growth that Korea had experienced, eventually dictatorship failed. Democracy took place and there was greater increase in the economy. This is to show that dictatorship can be needed and even helpful to bring some countries out of poverty and make their economy grow but up to a point then it might be time for democracy. There is a country that is still surprisingly keeping its economy growth at a high rate and still doesn't change into a democracy, that country is China. “ Beijing’s leadership believes the country can develop a modern, market-oriented economy without political openness. In fact, they see democracy as a threat to the nation's economic progress”(''Business & Money''). China has showed another example of how a country can prosper without being completely a democracy. China economy is growing at a much faster rate than many other democracies, “ China's economic growth rate kicked up 7.8% in the third quarter over a year ago, faster than rates of 7.7 in the first quarter and 7.5 in the second”("The Wall Street Journal").

         Dictatorship can be successful in helping bring a country from a poverty place to a certain economic growth that is why it is needed in developing countries. Most people thought that developing countries are just in need of a democratic government for their economy to start developing. But the example of South Korea shows that a dictatorship might be the right government to start improving the economy of some countries like developing countries. For example Egypt's precipitation into starting a democratic government lead to “ Egypt's economic continuous losses in all its sectors”( "Egypt Economy Continues Downward Trend''). May be Egypt wouldn't have suffer this economic crisis if it had waited to reach that economically stable growth state, where democracy would have been crucial for higher economical development. Despite what is commonly said, that developing countries need democracy for their economy to grow and their well being, after looking at the results of these researches it can be inferred that economy is not a directly cause by the type of government. Also it can be inferred that dictatorship can help develop the economy of some developing countries to some extent.

Resources

• The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, n.d. Web. 07 Nov. 2013. <http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/03/growth-0>.
• "Democracy Correlated with Economic Growth?"The Economic Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Nov. 2013. <http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-02-28/news/31107886_1_economic-growth-hdi-countries>.
• "Business & Money."Business Money Is Democracy Necessary for Economic Success Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Nov. 2013. <http://business.time.com/2010/11/05/is-democracy-necessary-for-economic-success/>.
• "The Wall Street Journal."China Needs 7.2% Growth to Ensure Employment(n.d.): n. pag. Web. <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303482504579179033609323974>.
• "Egypt Economy Continues Downward Trend - Al-Monitor: The Pulse of the Middle East."Al-Monitor. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Nov. 2013. <http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/09/egypt-economy-gulf-aid.html>.

756 words

The World Bank is not a charity, it's a business.

Most of the time when one hears about the world bank and it's claim of doing away with poverty especially by giving out loans to the poorest countries, he or she may think that the world bank is a saintly organization. However, analysis of the countries that have been given the loans shows that they actually pay back more than they gain (if they were given interest-based loans), and the money they are given is usually spent on buying or renting capital assets such as construction tractors from countries that are the major contributors to the World Bank. Therefore, the World Bank takes advantage of the hopeless poor countries.

One of the financial services the World Bank provides to developing/poor countries is that it provides low-interest loans to them (What We Do). Nevertheless, these are always long term loans and however low the interest may be, a lot of money will be paid back in terms of interest on top of the principle loan. The World bank seems to be indirectly run by super power countries the US, Germany, France, who are the top three financial contributors and whose ideologies like capitalism, democracy have to be adopted by whatever country that wants help from the world Bank. If these countries contribute a lot of their money that would have been used in national issues but is instead given to poor countries, it's not a favor but it's because they most likely want benefits from it. Thus, the world Bank in an investment channel to the developing countries, providing market for most of corporate companies like Shell, Coca Cola, which then transfer back the profits to the mother countries.

According to the BBC, one type of the projects that the World Bank sponsors is the one that develops the provision of clean water which usually involves building big water purifying plants. Although the sanitary water does lead to improved health, the purified water from such a plant costs more as compared to buying or collecting non-purified water (from a natural source) which people locally clean for example through boiling. Although it's understandable that water acquired from the purifying plant costs because of maintenance costs, poor people can't afford it daily and the plant is hardly utilized, yet the country has to pay back the World Bank.

Due to the fact that a certain poor country owes the World Bank, it can develop economic pressure to do a favor for the Bank but specifically to the super power countries that finance it. Susan George, a political scientist wrote, “Debt is an efficient tool. It ensures access to other peoples’ raw materials and infrastructure on the cheapest possible terms” (George). This is illustrated in Democratic Republic of Congo, where gold mines are issued as collateral security, and if DRC isn't able to pay in the given amount of time which is usually the case given it's unstable government, the gold is mined for a given period of time (usually years) to account for the debt.

Unfortunately, some developing countries go an extra mile in making cuts on important necessities, in order to pay back the loan. A research activist, Ashah Anup wrote that,

“But the way it has happened has required poor countries to reduce spending on things like health, education and development, while debt repayment and other economic policies have been made the priority” (Anup). This is contrast to one of the objectives of the Bank that states that, it aims to increase the standard of living for the poor. Debt makes most leaders in the owing country feel dependent and low, so they do whatever to feel like they are independent again.

In conclusion, the World Bank has enabled some developments in poor countries like better infrastructure, but like any corporate business or bank, it's strategy is to paint a good picture for itself as a non-profit savior for these poor countries, yet it benefits greatly and for a long time from them. Unless people stop being naive and research deeper on what some organizations that are considered “life saving” like the World Bank do, then eyes will continue to be blinded, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

Works Cited.

Susan George, A Fate Worse Than Debt, (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), pp. 143, 187, 235.

Shah, Anup. “Structural Adjustment—a Major Cause of Poverty.”Global Issues. 24 Mar. 2013. Web. 08 Nov. 2013. <http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty>.

"About."What We Do. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.worldbank.org/en/about/what-we-do>.

BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/development/aid_rev2.shtml>.