Robert, if all foreign aid was doing was the equivalent of providing organic food over the food these countries could have provided on their own, you’d have a point. But that’s not what foreign aid does (especially when looking at foreign aid from other countries other than the US). Health care and education are things that will allow people to become independent and self-sustainable more than any subsistence- and survival-based plan. That’s not to say that I don’t believe foreign aid policies can’t or shouldn’t be modified — by all means, I think they should. Especially the U.S.’s policies. They should be modified so that they are actually going towards people who need it, not towards who is most militarily and economically beneficial to us. Additionally, we should be doing other things to make sure that aid is actually making a difference, like changing many of our trade barriers that cost these countries more money that we give them in aid. But modification is different than reduction or elimination.

Lucy, I completely agree with you. It can be harmful to base your voting decision on one issue — it may help those effected by that one issue, but it can just as easily harm others. It’s like the 2000 election where the liberals and many “establishment feminists” took the left hostage over the issue of abortion. Don’t get me wrong, I think foreign aid, particularly UNFPA is a very important issue. But it’s not the only issue. Let’s face it, Bush did more for funding anti-human trafficking measures than any democrat before him (not enough, and sometimes in fucked up ways, but he did address it more than most Democrats even attempt to do).

Why the hell am I supposed to care more about women dying from back alley abortions in Kenya than, say, indigenous farmers in Mexico kicked off their land by NAFTA; Palestinian children crippled by weapons paid for by the U.S.; or girls sold into prostitution in Thailand by their debt-ridden parents, who contract AIDS and can’t afford medication because of the prices set by American pharmaceutical companies?

As the days go on in this election, I am starting to realize that I cannot in good conscience reconcile myself to this “establishment feminism” (and basically all mainstream liberalism) that cherry picks issues and votes accordingly. Of course there isn’t a strong third party opposition…BECAUSE YOU WON’T GET OFF YOUR ASS AND WORK FOR IT!

The habit of Westerners to draw an analogy between the Westerner/non-Westerner relationship and parent/child relationship has done horrific things to non-Western nations. Through the years, the left has (out of a misplaced idea of how to implement compassion) done huge damage with this.

Is some of the food/clothes aid later sold on the black market? Inevitably. But even then, the effect is to increase supply and therefore reduce price. Thus they achieve their purpose.

If reducing prices is the net effect of aid, then how are local capitalists - who do not have Western efficiencies to cut their costs - to develop local industry? How are local people to work and have the human dignity that comes from producing one’s own livelihood? How is the nation to develop its ability to stand on its own?

Could we run down the list of nations that stand on their own? Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea…. In contrast, Western nations have been enjoying the highest standard of living in history for decades, fueled by oil mostly imported from non-Western nations. Which types of nations provide the better formula for promoting human dignity?

Now, how are local capitalists – say, US citizens selling rival fuels such as firewood or whale oil – supposed to compete with petroleum? However they can. And sometimes they can’t.

To be sure, if the US banned the importation of foreign goods, the US might indeed achieve greater “independence.” This policy might indeed promote the interests of US citizens working the the firewood and whale oil businesses, as the US’s economy came to resemble more closely those of other “independent” nations. You wouldn’t get any dispute from me, unless you also wanted to suggest that this policy would promote “economic development” or the general welfare.

And who knows? Maybe the African economy would be better off in the long run without foreign aid. But in the short run I suspect many individual Africans would suffer and die without it.

In the long run, your somewhat dim but hard-working child will be better off if you teach her to read and do her own homework. But in the short run, I suspect she will get a lot of Ds and Fs if you don’t do her homework for her.
You recognize instinctively that doing her homework for her, rather than being a kindness, is a monstrous act of irresponsibility on your part. Now extend the logic.

Indeed, I do let my kids do their own homework. Yet I also feed them for free. Admittedly, if I stopped doing this, I expect that they would develop a much greater sense of independence. The ones that survived, anyway. Nevertheless, I continue to provide them with free food. Kind policy? Monstrous irresponsibility? Time will tell, I guess.

Has foreign aid damaged African agriculture and textile industries? Probably. But foreign competition was likely to harm these industries with or without foreign aid

How? They don’t have any MONEY. “Foreign competition” has no interest in opening a market where nobody can buy their material.

I’m not following this. You are suggesting that there exists some nation that has no resources (“money”), yet somehow has industries, and that these industries could be harmed by foreign aid or foreign competition. Could you name an example?

I agree that people who have no money or credit will not be tempted to buy anything from foreign competitors. But neither would they be tempted to buy anything from domestic competitors.

Admittedly, agriculture and textiles have traditionally been early rungs on the ladder of economic development. Can economies develop while bypassing these industries?

If someone is doing everything for them, probably. But the result will be a Potemkin shell that collapses at the first external shock. A nation must be able to take a reasonable stab at feeding and clothing its people, in order to have anything resembling an independent existence.

There’s that whole “independence” thing again. How many nations produce enough food to feed all their citizens? Japan? Saudi Arabia? UAE? Israel? Vatican City? These Potemkin shells have proven reasonably durable. To be sure, maybe they won’t survive the next depression/world war. The same may be said of many other nations as well.

I perceive two points of distinction between our viewpoints:

First, we have different understandings about commodity prices. I sense we both recognize the “creative destruction” that comes from economic change, including changes that come from beyond a nation’s borders. When people can import something cheaper than they can produce it domestically, domestic producers generally have to get out of the one business and get into something more productive. I don’t distinguish between cheap imports that come from trade and cheap imports that come from foreign aid; the consequences seem pretty similar to me.

In the 1970s oil prices increased. In the 1980s oil prices fell. The 1970s were a boom time for people in the US oil business; the 1980s were a bust time for people in the US oil business. But the rest of the US economy moved in a mirror image to the economy of the US oil industry. Would the consequences for the US economy in the 1980s have been any different if oil prices fell as a result of foreign aid rather than market forces?

Second, what is best for nations is not always best for individuals, and vice versa. By maintaining “independence,” Cuba, Myanmar and North Korea have rendered themselves resistant to most foreign influence, at some cost to the citizens of these lands. Similarly, the current US administration has emphasized a unilateral approach to many matters, resisting foreign influence, even when this results in US citizens having to bear greater sacrifices than they otherwise might have. Whether or not “independence” makes a nation more durable, it does not make the life of any specific citizen more durable. It is not obvious to me that the welfare of nations, rather than the welfare of people, should be the focus of foreign aid.

1) The measure of success implied by Florence Machio’s argument was not “move towards eradicating poverty” or “move towards eliminating any need for any further aid” — both of which are legitimate measures — but “save lives and provide women with more reproductive choice,” which is also a legitimate measure. By that measure, I don’t believe that funding local, high-quality reproductive health care in developing countries is a failure.

2) The article Daran links to, which is interesting, does not argue that aid is always counterproductive; the author, a professor in Singapore, believes that aid was an important factor in Singapore’s “economic miracle.” However, it does argue that the ways wealthy nations run aid is usually counterproductive.

His views, by the way, do significantly overlap with the conclusions the Paris Declaration came to in 2005. I don’t think it’s yet been long enough since the Paris Declaration to judge it a failure.

I’m talking about having a country with an economy a thousand times the size of yours dump free stuff on your markets, and destroy your native industry.

Except for rare, extreme cases of current ongoing famine (or other forms of immediate crisis response), are any significant NGOs or governments advocating this sort of relief? I agree with you, but you’re attacking a straw man.

Our ag and energy industries get support from the government in terms of direct subsidies (for ag anyway) and special treatment in law. But that’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m talking about having a country with an economy a thousand times the size of yours dump free stuff on your markets, and destroy your native industry. If the Xrxians from Pluto arrive and offer to give every American free magical air-powered cars, that may well be great for the Americans who get the cars. It’s not so great for the world’s automotive industry, which dies.

Is some of the food/clothes aid later sold on the black market? Inevitably. But even then, the effect is to increase supply and therefore reduce price. Thus they achieve their purpose.

If reducing prices is the net effect of aid, then how are local capitalists - who do not have Western efficiencies to cut their costs - to develop local industry? How are local people to work and have the human dignity that comes from producing one’s own livelihood? How is the nation to develop its ability to stand on its own?

And who knows? Maybe the African economy would be better off in the long run without foreign aid. But in the short run I suspect many individual Africans would suffer and die without it.

In the long run, your somewhat dim but hard-working child will be better off if you teach her to read and do her own homework. But in the short run, I suspect she will get a lot of Ds and Fs if you don’t do her homework for her.

You recognize instinctively that doing her homework for her, rather than being a kindness, is a monstrous act of irresponsibility on your part. Now extend the logic.

Has foreign aid damaged African agriculture and textile industries? Probably. But foreign competition was likely to harm these industries with or without foreign aid

How? They don’t have any MONEY. “Foreign competition” has no interest in opening a market where nobody can buy their material. My cousin the cotton farmer didn’t sell his bales in Lagos; they couldn’t pay for it.

Admittedly, agriculture and textiles have traditionally been early rungs on the ladder of economic development. Can economies develop while bypassing these industries?

If someone is doing everything for them, probably. But the result will be a Potemkin shell that collapses at the first external shock.

A nation must be able to take a reasonable stab at feeding and clothing its people, in order to have anything resembling an independent existence.

Bush proposed changing US policy to permit/require food aid to be purchased from near the areas where it would be delivered. So maybe there are ways to improve aid distribution without ending aid itself. (Of course, getting such a proposal through committees controlled by ag. state legislators will be tough….)

Bush is slightly less clueless than previous presidents on the topic. Of course, there are less damaging ways we could be doing things. You could have your daughter do the first 1/3 of her homework assignments, too. Still a disaster in the making.

Africa would probably be better off without foreign involvement. Period.

I just came across this article which argues that foreign aid primarily aids the donor countries.

And who knows? Maybe the African economy would be better off in the long run without foreign aid. But in the short run I suspect many individual Africans would suffer and die without it. The fact that people at the top of the heap benefit from foreign aid does not refute the idea that people at the bottom benefit as well.

Africa would probably be better off without foreign involvement. Period.

nobody.really Writes:
February 1st, 2008 at 9:36 am

Gee, I’m feeling sorry for the US’s poor agriculture and energy industries, being saddled with so much burdensome US aid. They’re putting on a brave face as they endure their robust death.

They’re not dead. But if we immediately stopped aid to ag and energy corporations, many of them would die. And in fact, the manner in which subsidies and locked-in government contracts work has meant that many previously feasible means of production (small farms, for example) have often become unviable.

I don’t agree with the “always fatal” idea. But certainly it is true to some extent that subsidies can cause an industry to lose the qualities that make it able to survive without subsidies. Subsidies can also mean that industries will make different cost/benefit decisions that may not benefit the public. (example: If the government did not and had never subsidized oil costs, one probable example would be that overall energy efficiency of cars sold in the US would have risen faster than it did.)

Gee, I’m feeling sorry for the US’s poor agriculture and energy industries, being saddled with so much burdensome US aid. They’re putting on a brave face as they endure their robust death.

But in ten years, or whenever you decide the Support Robert In Luxury program is a bad idea and it ends, I’ve lost my ability to generate new clients because I’ve spent ten years hanging out with stoner undergrads instead of networking. Cf, what has happened to (as the African economist in the linked article attests) agricultural and textile industries in countries receiving “help”.

After 10 yrs of the SRIL program, Robert and his family will have had the benefit of 10 yrs of good education, nutrition and health care. Those benefits don’t disappear by Year 11. What does disappear by Year 11 is a substantial portion of those people who spent the previous 10 years without education, nutrition or health care. Yes, the SRIL program will tend to undermine the teaching of self-reliance. I don’t mean to overlook this cost, but pretty much every aspect of civilization imposes the same cost. Civilization’s a bitch, eh?

Is some portion of the aid dollars skimmed off? Sure; that’s true of all kinds of organizations, public or private, and I see no reason to expect otherwise from foreign aid organizations. Is some of the food/clothes aid later sold on the black market? Inevitably. But even then, the effect is to increase supply and therefore reduce price. Thus they achieve their purpose.

And who knows? Maybe the African economy would be better off in the long run without foreign aid. But in the short run I suspect many individual Africans would suffer and die without it. The fact that people at the top of the heap benefit from foreign aid does not refute the idea that people at the bottom benefit as well.

Has foreign aid damaged African agriculture and textile industries? Probably. But foreign competition was likely to harm these industries with or without foreign aid; after all, I don’t think anyone blames the death of the US’s textile industry on foreign aid. In the meantime, everyone who consumes food and textiles has benefitted from their low cost.

Admittedly, agriculture and textiles have traditionally been early rungs on the ladder of economic development. Can economies develop while bypassing these industries? I don’t know why they couldn’t, but I acknowledge I don’t know of any good examples. It’s worth noting that in the State of the Union Address, Bush proposed changing US policy to permit/require food aid to be purchased from near the areas where it would be delivered. So maybe there are ways to improve aid distribution without ending aid itself. (Of course, getting such a proposal through committees controlled by ag. state legislators will be tough….)

No doubt a quick way to increase Africa’s per capita gross domestic product would be to “decrease the surplus population.” But not everyone measures the value of an African life in terms of agriculture and textiles. And at least some people who hold this contrary view command the resources to indulge their hobby. For better or worse.

Sure. Giving me a check for $50,000 a year for ten years will increase the well-being of people in my home, too, because we’ll start eating organic produce and I’ll stop working so hard and will instead go back to school and get the history degree I’ve always wanted.

But that doesn’t improve my family’s ability to support itself. It just makes our “well being” look better. Organic veggies instead of Safeway, happy fun school instead of grinding on clients. For now. While you’re writing the checks. But in ten years, or whenever you decide the Support Robert In Luxury program is a bad idea and it ends, I’ve lost my ability to generate new clients because I’ve spent ten years hanging out with stoner undergrads instead of networking. Cf, what has happened to (as the African economist in the linked article attests) agricultural and textile industries in countries receiving “help”.

Help gets you over a rough patch. It doesn’t usually improve your ability to advance your own cause. Subsidize me, and I don’t think “I better use this money to invest in my earning potential”, I think “whee, I don’t have to work this month!”

I agree that changing the way we deliver aid would make a positive difference, but I disagree that it would make a NET positive out of development aid. Beating someone with a club is less damaging than submerging them in acid, but do either one long enough, and the beneficiary dies.

Nonetheless, I stand by my last post — yes, there have been some people who have argued that foreign aid is harmful, nothing new there. But the fact is, the studies don’t back that up. These same studies do, admittedly, also show that foreign aid is not the saving grace of developing nations, as some would think. They are not the only, or in some cases even the primary, component in improving the health and education in developing countries, but they are a key component — and we have actually seen the evidence of what happens when you remove that key component (just look at the results of defunding UNFPA, even with the increase from the EU which still didn’t make up for what it lost from the US’ withholding).

In any event, government-controlled development aid is almost without exception destructive to local economies and disruptive of local political systems. The people who end up getting the benefit of the aid are wealthy elites in the “beneficiary” nation. There is reason to hope that private aid might be less pernicious, but the case against government aid is compelling and clear. Low levels of American aid represent the United States harming other countries less than our developed-world peers do, for a change.

CRS Report for Congress, Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy

The Center for Global Development and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The Administration’s Proposed Millenium Fund — While Significant — Would Lift Foreign Aid to Just 0.13 Percent of GDP

cost poor countries more money that aid we give them.

cost poor countries more money than aid we give them.

Even worse, the amount the US gives in foreign aid, when compared to what the US gave in foreign aid in the past, it gets even more appalling. In 2003, the US gave $11.6 Billion. This is the equivalent of .106% of the GDP and .55% of the US Budget Outlays. Compare this to what the US gave in 1962, where not only was the amount equivalent to .576% of the GDP and 3.06% of the budget, but when compared in 2003 dollars, the total amount given was $17.3 billion. That means that even if you look at the total amount spent (both in 2003 dollars), we spent $5.7 billion less in 2003 than in 1962.

It should be noted, though while the US spent less in foreign aid as a % of GDP in the last several years, we have spent more in foreign aid as a % of the US budget in 2004-2006 than we did under Clinton (so, depending on you measure these things, Democrats aren’t necessarily better; although, the money was spent, IMHO, more wisely under Clinton — so…well, it’s not all good or all bad under any particular party, I’m sure we can all probably agree on that).

And that’s even before you start looking at the issues of where the money is going and what the strings are to get the money, and the things like trade barriers that cost poor countries more money that aid we give them.

RonF said:

And we should also consider overall giving, not just government giving. When considering how much aid the U.S. gives to other countries, I see no reason to distinguish between aid that our government provides and aid that the individual citizens and non-governmental agencies they support give. It’s all from the same citizens of the same country. The country should get credit for all of it.

Great! I agree. And, yes, Americans are pretty good at making private donations, I’ll give you that. Especially right after a disaster (the tsunami, for example).

However…

“America Is the Most Generous Country in the World if You Include Private Donations to Charities.”

No. Americans certainly rise to the occasion in times of crisis, as the outpouring of charitable giving to tsunami victims demonstrated. According to U.S. government figures, private donations to low-income countries through American churches, charities, foundations, nongovernmental organizations, and college scholarships was at least $6.3 billion in 2003. And such data almost certainly understate the actual amount of private aid. Some organizations do not respond to the government survey used to collect the data, and some important forms of contribution are omitted, such as volunteer time. Alternative estimates vary, with the upper-end figure (including gifts to more developed countries such as Israel and Russia) at $17.1 billion for 2000. By this estimation, private charitable donations per American total $58 per year—or about 0.16 percent of U.S. income—ranking the United States second among major donors in private giving (the first is Ireland at 0.22 percent).

Combining public and private donations puts total U.S. development assistance in the range of $35 billion per year, or about 0.32 percent of U.S. income. In other words, for every $3 of income, the United States provides about one cent in development assistance. Even with this broader measure (and using the larger estimate of U.S. private assistance without making a similar adjustment for other countries), the United States ranks, at best, 15th among the top donors.

(That is from the source I posted earlier — Foreign Policy [Emphasis added]