|
I've a feeling that most Americans, Republican or Democrat, hate the idea of its country giving foreign aid whilst your special relationship cousins across the Atlantic have been very much for global poverty alleviation (especially since the Tony Blair years).
This sentiment of aid/global development support is already backed up by statistics such as p.116 of Riddell, R., 2008, Does Foreign Aid Really Work? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
But before you reply the usual reasons not to give aid (especially during an economic crisis) let me set some myths right:
Myth Number One: The US has given too much aid, it should cut down.
False and True. Volume wise, US aid is the highest, but not always (not during Bill Clinton's time for example). True in that the US gives large amount of aid--but not developmental aid/Official Development Assistance (ODA). A larger proportion of aid is send through DOD, HHS, Agriculture and other departments not always for development but for strategic reasons. Statistically, the US is one of the lowest in terms of aid/GNI (Gross National Income). So it depends on what is aid giving.
Myth Two: US aid never works
False. US aid has worked in instances--agricultural security, AIDS vaccines etc. But the majority of US aid fails because all the ideology with it is neoliberal--market freedom, privatisation, less state intervention liberalisation and all the "off railing" ideas that have caused financial crises.
Myth Three: US aid goes to dictators.
False and True. Who is a dictator? South East Asian nations are not democratic and yet gain US aid: Indonesia, Thailand are good examples. North Korea is a dictatorship and definitely does not receive US aid. US aid goes to India--is that a dictator? Corruption is aid is of course prominent--Afghanistan for example---but what is corruption? Read the works of Mushtaq Khan which shows that corruption actually aids development in some cases.
Myth Four: US aid doesn’t help the American people.
False. If you ask the logical members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (logical meaning even Republicans like Dick Lugar) they continue to advocate replenishments to the World Bank and US aid agencies. In the case of US aid agencies, yes aid works for the American people because US aid is tied to American exports/goods/businesses. Cut of aid and some US businesses won't get easy access to markets.
Similarly with the World Bank--the US is the largest shareholder and (surprise!) it has dictated the Bank's objectives occasionally--Bill Clinton's Treasury Sec Larry Summers forced the resignation of anti-neoliberal Joseph Stiglitz.
Myth Five: Screw it, we're in recession, spend money back home.
False and True. First, as I've said the US budget spending onaid is low--a minute percentage of total US GNI. Cut back aid and I'm not sure how much of the money you'll get per person. Following suit, do you think you'll automatically get back the money--by say subsidies, medicare etc--so easily? Already we've seen ho anti-government some members of Congress are: So if you cut aid, do you think you'll get tax breaks immediately?
I'm sure it's well known that one of the largest budget spending is on defence(spelt correctly). So why not cut more on military spending--which has hurt America globally and physically--money spent on treatment, PTSD and other stuff--that cut aid?
Myth Six: The US has no obligation to help the poor
False. Especially for those of you who are Democrats and Clinton supporters, surprise! the Millennium Development Goals were signed just before he left office. And quite conversely, GWB raised US aid more that the last two Democrat Presidents--although of course this was more for combating the GWOT. Yeah yeah, the US doesn’t have to obey UN resolutions--which are hardly enforcing--but then again does this not bring you back to 2003 when GWB administration defied the UN?
Myth Seven: No other country bothers....
False. The Nordic countries, despite having a lowest GNI/GDP that the US has spent more that 1% of it's GNI on aid. (Yeah yeah they are socialist--well is socialism really bad?) Your special relationship brother, the UK, is increasing its aid since 1997 to reach and ballpark figure of 0.7%/GNI on aid spending--not an optimum but still larger that the US ODA spending.
Myth Eight: Poor, lazy, corrupt, ungrateful aid recipients...
False and True. Some may be but that again is because of the nature of US aid. If there wasn't neoliberal ideas coming along side aid or if US aid wasn't tied to goods, aid would have worked and be effective. The said part is the poor, lazy,corrupt recipients have be so because of the western ideas of not just aid but of financial flows, trade(Western subsidies and tariffs) and other issues that foster inequality.
Myth Nine: I just don't get it still, I'm taxed, unemployed....
False and True. Sorry to hear that but the failure of the US economy lies with the prevailing idea of neoliberalism--whether Republican or Democrat--all still are to blame for the crises--1990s, 2000s. If that ideology was reformed, things would be better. But the poor in an industrialised country is still far more capable that the poor ina country that is subjected to tariffs, inflow of Western goods....
Myth Ten: Dambisa Moyo is right, Bono/Jeff Sachs sucks (the former for his music...)
False. It's a shame really that a Ivy League and Oxbridge alumni like Moyo has written two poorly researched and biased books on western aid. Some of her arguments hold but the rest lack soruces, strength and do not add to the debate. Yes Bono and Sachs are simply"give more aid" people. Aid is not the means to a best development--but it's not that you should immediate stop it or not give it. Your special relationship friend across the Atlantic benefited from your aid after WWII. Western Europe too. So many countries with US aid gain--in partial areas. It’s more the nature of US iad and not the issue of giving aid that matters.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(598 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
