Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Knights who say Ni

Infrastructure Neg arguements/strat

Recommended Posts

What would be some good strategies against an affirmative that just increases money to infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa. Oh and it would be help if these strategies were more based around lay judges because I'm debating in Wyoming if anybody knows how the judges are here.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OFF CASE: FX T

Corruption DA

Dependency DA

Spending DA

 

ON CASE:

plan: fiat argument that they can't fiat that african governments won't support it

solvency: african governments don't have cash to support longterm

us doesn't have cash to serve longterm

then just extend the da's and any other case specific stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think that this aff has any solvency due to IMF spending caps.

 

Google IMF spending cielings in the context of publich health assistance, basically, to qualify for loans and funding, these developing countries have to specify how much public spending in various fields they'll make, and if any outside aid is increased, to maintain these levels, they have to increase their own aid expenditures and infrastrucutre spending.

 

These IMF imposed spending ceilings are stifling African Governments ability to increase support for health infrastructure leading to no net increase in funding despite aid

 

Aslam, May 24, 2k5

(Adam, One World, “World Bank, IMF Requirements Stifling Poor Countries' Health Spending”, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0524-06.htm)

 

The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are preventing foreign aid from reaching HIV/AIDS programs in the world's poorest countries, according to an assessment appearing in a leading medical journal.

The matter ''reveals the dark underside of the industrialized world's grand rhetoric about improving the health of the poor,'' say Gorik Ooms of the international relief organization Doctors Without Borders and Ted Schrecker of the University of Ottawa in an article in the current issue of The Lancet.

At issue are health-spending targets that Schrecker and Ooms say limit poor countries' expenditure on public health.

In order to receive debt relief, each of sub-Saharan Africa's 32 most heavily indebted poor countries (also known as HIPCs) must win bank and fund approval for a poverty reduction strategy that includes a budget projection indicating spending targets across various sectors of the government's budget.

In some countries, these targets ''have functioned, at least temporarily, as health-spending ceilings: the requirements of the IMF appear to mean that countries must include the value of all new donor funding received for initiatives such as scaling-up delivery of antiretroviral treatment'' against HIV/AIDS, state the authors, who say they have encountered the problem in Mozambique and Uganda since around 2001.

In other words, ''if a sector receives any new funds that were not initially budgeted for, it forfeits a similar amount from the government coffers,'' they add, citing an earlier news item in The Lancet.

''Such expenditure ceilings create an obvious disincentive for external funders to offer financing that is desperately needed for such interventions,'' Ooms and Schrecker add in their article, which appears in the journal's May 21 edition.

In the case of Uganda, the authors say, the IMF said in September 2004 that the government in Kampala had rejected no HIV/AIDS funding because of expenditure ceilings. However, they add, only $18.6 million of $201 million approved for the East African country were disbursed by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

The bank and fund could not be reached for comment Monday. As the authors acknowledge, however, the ceilings are set because the IMF and finance ministries worry that ''the rapid inflow of foreign exchange associated with increased aid receipts can drive up the value of the recipient country's currency.''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if your judging is cool with CPs, run an agent CP like EU, China or something, rarely do infrastructure affs have a true US key warrant

 

Personally for cases involving spending and improving infrastucture, the Affirmative can perm the China or EU CP.

 

Simply because there is no mutual exclusivity unless it were coupled with a China D/A. On face, there is no reason why both countries cannot work together to improve infrastructure.

 

In fact I think the CP would be great for an AFF case because the perm now has the advantages of global unity and improved relations plus you can achieve solvency quicker.

 

Now the Neg has a problem as to why their CP should be soley prefered against the permutation by the affirmative. Very hard to combat and still have a solid neg strat.

 

On the issue of IMF restrictions, plans that remove such restrictions can solve. Brain Drain cases I believe do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen an infrastructure neg that has the US repeal an IMF policy, what would the plantext be like, that seems pretty FX to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally for cases involving spending and improving infrastucture, the Affirmative can perm the China or EU CP.

 

Simply because there is no mutual exclusivity unless it were coupled with a China D/A. On face, there is no reason why both countries cannot work together to improve infrastructure.

 

In fact I think the CP would be great for an AFF case because the perm now has the advantages of global unity and improved relations plus you can achieve solvency quicker.

 

Now the Neg has a problem as to why their CP should be soley prefered against the permutation by the affirmative. Very hard to combat and still have a solid neg strat.

 

I don't really see the perm as a problem. Any disad functions as a reason the plan is bad- politics, spending, US-x country relations. All of these disads answer back the permutation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...