Però a diferència de les empreses privades, les ONG viuen també, i de vegades exclusivament, del diner públic. És a dir, de la voluntat política. Si el mercat no necessita o no l'interessa el producte d'una empresa privada, aquesta no té altra opció que reconvertir-se i dedicar-se a una altra cosa o tancar. Una ONG, si s'ha procurat una bona influència mediàtica, no.
Quin govern democràtic s'atrevirà a negar diners a una ONG que els demana per lluitar contra la pobresa i la misèria, per ajudar el tercer món? Cap, encara que se sàpiga que a mitjà i llarg termini molta d'aquesta ajuda pot ser contraproduent.
Noves dades (mireu la gràfica) avalen aquest temor. En un article publicat a la BBC online, l'economista Fredrik Erixon, cap del grup Timbro, un think-tank suec, i autor del llibre "Aid and Development: Will it Work this Time?", conclou:
The question then is not if rich countries can afford to give more aid to developing countries. It is obvious that they can. The question is whether this aid can reduce poverty by promoting economic growth. Sadly, the history of aid does not show that it can. Nor does it seem that world leaders, not to mention Bob Geldof and other campaigners, have any real idea how the aid given can be made more effective.
So, here is what donor countries should do.
1) do not spend any more money on development aid
2) withdraw all aid to countries that are not pursing sound economic policies and that fail seriously to build institutions for democracy and transparency
3) countries that meet these high standards should, within a limited period of time, be assisted with 'locking-in' already accomplished reforms and, in particular, with pursuing additional reforms
4) rich countries should immediately open up their markets for exports from poor countries
Trade has proven to be instrumental to poor countries development. Aid has not.