August 31, 2005
FREEDOM AND AID?:
U.S. Grows More Generous Toward World's Poor: But the nation still ranks 12th among the 21 richest countries, an annual report finds. (Sonni Efron, August 31, 2005, LA Times)
The United States has significantly increased its foreign aid to poor countries but ranks 12th among the 21 richest nations in its overall performance in helping the world's poor, according to a widely watched annual report released Tuesday. [...]Critics argued that such studies do not give the United States credit for the billions it spends in military operations that provide global security and ostensibly allow other nations' economies to flourish.
Responding to such criticisms, authors of the 2005 index used a revised methodology, said David Roodman, who heads the study at the Center for Global Development, an independent Washington think tank. This year's report gave the United States points for its military contributions to keeping the world's sea lanes open for global trade, among other things, Roodman said. [...]
Although the United States spent more than $18 billion in foreign aid in 2003, J. Edward Fox, deputy administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development, said it was inaccurate to reduce U.S. foreign assistance to dollar terms. Doing so does not reflect the quality of the aid or the variety of ways that the United States helps the developing world, he said.
Not included are $1.2 billion in U.S. food aid to hungry nations, the estimated $34 billion provided each year by the U.S. private sector and the effect of the remittances that migrants working in the United States send to relatives back home, Fox said.
"Throwing money at a developing country is not necessarily the best way to do it," Fox said.
The index subtracted from the U.S. aid total about $1.5 billion in debt repayment that Washington received from the developing world and about $1 billion in debt that was written off, leaving a net total of $15.8 billion in material foreign aid given in 2003, Roodman said.
Even measured by that stricter standard, however, U.S. aid rose sharply, from $12.4 billion in 2001 and $14.7 billion in 2002, Roodman said, crediting the Bush administration.
Still obviously a politically correct measure. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 31, 2005 7:54 AM
This is nothing but a bunch of crock. The whole measure of % of GDP as aid is a political maneuver to make the US look stingy. To a recipient, what does it matter if a country with $2 in GDP gives 50% in aid? That still amounts to only $1. Even if Denmark gives 90 cents per person, it probably amounts to a few million. (I don't know what the population of Denmark is).
Also, the measurement is nothing but a way to get a predefined answer. Once they start adding and subtracting what they want, they can get any answer they want.
Posted by: sam at August 31, 2005 8:48 AMThis whole calculation is screwed up beyond redemption. Just one example: we are given "credit" for food aid. Food aid is part of our own agricultural support system that, as a whole, raises food prices for our own poor, uses donated food to drive out foreign farmers and limits access to our markets from abroad. The world's poor would be much better off if we just got the government out of agriculture completely.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 31, 2005 8:50 AMGood editorial in the WSJ today talks about the fact that aid doesn't work, and only wealth creation will bring the world's poor out of poverty. Nigeria has gotten billions in aid but its per capita income has decreased by 10% in the last decade. The aid bandwagon assumes that the poor are helpless. Business interests looks at the poor and see huge potential markets. Poor people know what they need and are willing to pay for the right products/services. Africa has the highest growth in cell-phone use of any region in the world. Give the world's poor access to technologies and other services through markets, and they will be able to build sustainable economies. Aid programs have huge overhead costs, only a tiny fraction of the money gets into the hands of the intended beneficiaries. Businesses run lean, eliminate inefficiencies, because they are profit oriented.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at August 31, 2005 9:36 AMIf only profit weren't evil.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 31, 2005 9:40 AMThe people who compile these numbers believe that hygene is possible only through state run public toilets.
Posted by: Luciferous at August 31, 2005 12:05 PMLuciferous, having actually cleaned toilets and showers in a campground, I can tell you right now that is so not the way to go. The best are beholden to the worst (and the poor worker can't legally get unholy revenge on the worst. Legally.)
Posted by: Mikey at August 31, 2005 12:10 PMNote that our private sector "aid" is almost twice the amount of our official government aid. That huge contribution almost never gets counted.
Posted by: ghostcat at August 31, 2005 2:06 PM"Note that our private sector "aid" is almost twice the amount of our official government aid. That huge contribution almost never gets counted."
And how does it stack up against other countries' private sector aid?
Posted by: creeper at August 31, 2005 8:07 PMThere's really no comparison. Even a relatively generous people like the Canadians give substantially less to charity than Americans:
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=498
Europe's numbers are worse.
Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 8:17 PMThis discussion omits our greatest contribution to the rest of the world. Do people think carrier battle groups and amphibious task forces are cheap?
Posted by: Lou Gots at September 1, 2005 10:37 AM