{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018859245630174794, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.041666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Economic Aid as a Unilateral Transfer of Resources

In its simplest form one can define the concept of aid as some gift, service, or action which is performed without the expectation of remuneration or reward. If one accepts this simple and straightforward definition, then economic aid can be defined as the unilateral transfer of resources from one economic entity (the donor) to another (the recipient). The amount of resources which it makes available to the recipient is additional to those which the recipient would otherwise have been able to obtain through the normal channels of international trade, or to finance from its own reserves of foreign exchange. Put another way, economic aid is simply "help for others." As such, it is free in the sense that it does not (or should not) require any corresponding quid pro quo on the part of the recipient. The idea of providing "help for others" is of course not new. It is perhaps as old as the dawn of history itself. However, one does not have to go so far back to show that historically there has always been a strong moral and philosophical justification for acting compassionately toward the poor and less fortunate. During the nineteenth century the churches and other nongovernmental philanthropic organizations considered it their moral and humanitarian responsibility to act charitably toward their poorer colonial brethren. This obligation was not only justified but indeed required of them by the fundamental principles of Christian ethics and the teachings of the Bible. As Christians, it was their moral duty and responsibility to promote the economic, social, cultural, and spiritual life of their colonial and less fortunate brethren. They gave aid because it was right. What is more, they saw it as a continuing moral and humanitarian commitment. The imperial governments did not, however, share this abiding concern for the development and welfare of their colonial peoples. Officially, the provision of financial and economic assistance was regarded as something which could only be justified by extraordinary and compelling circumstances, for example, relieving human suffering caused by such natural