The UN is always sufficient in budget and human power. However, if the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise?
During reading the article, I swiftly founded my ideas. The answer to the question above is probably yes. Although the UN is undoubtedly doing impressive job in help and support those areas in trouble, such as fighting against Ebola in West Africa and transporting relief goods to disaster areas, the UN sometimes gives fish rather teaching those people in poverty and starvation how to fish. After processing ages like this, feedbacks tend to be something like to a continuous transportation work for UN and a handful of never self-dependence regions. As a solution, other charity organization like Arc can take care of those business calls for longer time and more patience such as cultivating the living skills of the local people and education.
In addition, even though the UN is perfectly funded, it can have influence beyond comparison worldwide rather than hire people from every single part of world or do everything itself. We can also talk about organization structure here as well. If the UN is going to do everything, the organization structure would be inevitably huge. If the UN want to keep its working efficiency and all missions delivered immediately, its leadership chain would be targeted to be short. But how could it be possible to manage the whole world with a short leadership chain?
sources: http://lewishistoricalsociety.com/wiki2011/article_image.php?image_type=article&id=53
That’s the problem. The UN is just a group of conscientious elites but not the god and many of those tasks dealt by UN are not something about whether fully funded. Furthermore, if the alliance of UN and other organizations can make the world a better place, why not?