When is a country too wealthy to receive international aid?

India, despite its advances, has a population (90%) that is primarily poor.

Advances in science and business do not equate to national wealth.

You are presenting two facts, and making a causation fallacy.

The United States is arguably the richest country in the world. yet when we have a disaster, other countries have sent us aid. I particularly remember the international response to both Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf oil spill. So, it looks like no country is too rich, if the circumstances warrant aid. Perhaps it depends on who is giving the aid to decide if they want to give (or not) to countries over a certain level of wealth.

@squirbel this is why I suggested other forms of aid in helping get the infrastructure together to better distribute India’s own wealth

The US recieved financial aid during Hurricane Katrina from some of the poorest countries on earth including offers of aid (pretty large offers as well) from countries that they are technically at war with.

@laureth I think specific event aid is different to pledging an annual payment

How is it different?

@Lightlyseared just because it is. One is an annual payment to be used to help a country to just get through the year and the other is for a specific disaster. As @laureth said, lots of countries offered aid (not just in cash) when Katrina hit but these countries wouldn’t offer an annual payment to the USA in normal circumstances.

I do not think there is a dollar (or whatever currency) amount to determine if a country is too wealthy to receive aid. It is a matter of how the country is allocating their own resources. I can understand a country spending money on defense even maybe a small amount on a space program. However, sending aid to a country and then having another country send aid to first country seems a little ludicrous. I am guessing all the money changing hands has some political agenda behind it, perhaps in forming allegiances.

I agree that event specific aid is different than annual aid. You cannot really predict natural (or unnatural) disasters.

@RareDenver – do you perceive a difference between offering a country aid, and offering aid to people in that country?

Is that figure £280m ($457m) to be given in cash ? Maybe that’s the value of some specific resources that are rare in India. E.g. NMR machines or integrated circuit production machinery.
But if they’re sending cash, what’s the point? There’s already probably some huge cashflow that direction for IT services and call centers alone.

@laureth yes of course I do, and that’s what I’m getting at here. This is a situation where an annual payment is being made from the British Government direct to the Indian Government. I’m saying maybe the money could be better utilised by being paid to an NGO or local charity and that the British Government could offer aid to the Indian Government in some other way like helping them distribute their own wealth more effectively.

(maybe I worded the opening question poorly but I think the details helps clarify the angle I am approaching this from)

@RareDenver holy cow ! If it’s just a payment that is nuts I totally agree it could be channelled through an NGO for greater benefit. Or as I imagined earlier some special resource that’s rare in India…

Never.

But sometimes pride gets in the way. A good example was the initial US reaction after Katrina. International aid does not always mean money. It can include machinery, material, and knowledge.

Something similar happens in Japan right now.

Rejecting help from poorer countries can really hurt people’s feelings.

Isreal!
$3–8 billion/yr depending on what you count.

Update