Does giving money to development really make a difference? Can it reduce child deaths but at the same time and end overpopulation? Bill Gates seems to think so.

According to Bill Gates many people ask him why he devotes much of his wealth to "development" when the matter can't be solved. Well Mr Gates believes that "the problems of poverty and disease in the developing world can be solved and are being solved, everyday." Bill Gates may sound like a radical optimist, but is there truth to his words? Possibly not according to Xennor May.

Reducing the number of children who die year makes population growth decrease instead of increase. this may sound strange but it is surprisingly simple. Most families generally want smaller families, around two children. However if the mother isn't confident that her children will suffer she is likely to have twice as many or more, and as a result has to partition the family's resources between them.Over the last fifty years every nation has made improvements to its child survival rate and thus and declines in fertility.

Contrary to a common belief, government aid does make a difference. The UK is the largest funder of GAVI (Global Alliance of Vaccines and Immunisation), which in eight years reduced the number of children who died from measles by 75%, over 500,00 lives a year. Worldwide since 1980 measles is down 93%, tetanus down 85% and diphtheria 93%. The greatest success could be considered the decline of polio, which is down 99% and now only exists in four countries worldwide. By giving aid money there is in fact long term benefits, countless lives will be saved and billions of pounds will be saved every year when the vaccine is no longer needed.