A question that has plagued economists, social scientists and political scientists for the last several years is solution to the staggering debt in underdeveloped countries. Depending on their background they will argue the need for greater institutions, the removal of corrupt governments, or even just time for development to occur. The question faced by Denise Froning and Romilly Greenhill was "Will Debt Relief Address the Needs of Highly Indebted Countries?" Both of these essayists from different backgrounds approached the question with a solution in mind, both answers are varying but both are to be respected in their own sense.
[...] Only then will debt relief really help.”Froning presents a very good case to why debt relief does not just work by itself and gives more of a glimpse into what needs to be done to eliminate poverty and see the results that are most desired. After analyzing both debates there is clear line that both scholars see differently on how to approach the problem. Who is right? Greenhill and Froning both prove good points in steps towards eliminating world poverty. [...]
[...] Greenhill shows that debt relief is needed and is not impossible, if countries like those in the G7 continue to ignore these problems they will only grow and people will continue to die from issues that could be resolved. Denise Froning takes a different approach to the solution to the problems faced by the HIPCs. She believes that the highlight for debt relief from the IMF and World Bank has only taken temporarily spotlight in the global eye because corruption is no longer on the world stage. [...]
[...] In order to meet the MDGs in 39 of the 42 cases as stated previously 100% debt relief is needed so that these countries are able to begin spending money on essential expenditures, even after all debt has been cancelled an additional $ 16.5 bn will be needed to meet the remaining goals. Greenhill concludes her argument by stating that helping these countries get out of debt and turn a new leaf towards a brighter future is not charity but a moral imperative. [...]
[...] The Unbreakable Link Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals v Greenhill, Romilly. The Unbreakable Link Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals vi Greenhill, Romilly. The Unbreakable Link Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals vii Greenhill, Romilly. The Unbreakable Link Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals viii Greenhill, Romilly. The Unbreakable Link Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals ix Greenhill, Romilly. The Unbreakable Link Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals x Greenhill, Romilly. The Unbreakable Link Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals xi Greenhill, Romilly. [...]
[...] The points he makes are what is needed in order to meet the MDGs and seem to be the best way at approaching the problems faced in these 42 countries, because of this I feel she had a stronger argument then Greenhill. Debt relief would not address all the needs of Highly Indebted Countries and a large plan is required to meet the goals everyone would like to see achieved in the near future. i Greenhill, Romilly. The Unbreakable Link Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals ii Greenhill, Romilly. The Unbreakable Link Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals iii Greenhill, Romilly. The Unbreakable Link Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals iv Greenhill, Romilly. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
