Close Topic Options

Which Rich Countries Help The Poor?

A Washington-based think tank called the Centre for Global Development produces an index that rates how 21 rich countries help the poor each year.

This isn't merely based on aid money, but also includes factors such as trade, investment, migration, environment, security and technology. Each country is rated on how much they do relative to their size and the points are then tallied.

This year the Commitment to Development Index placed The Netherlands in top spot, followed by Denmark, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and Australia. The UK placed 12th and the US 13th. Japan was convincingly last.

Commitment to Development Index 2006

Data Map

The data map is another interesting feature that graphically compares how much each country does.

I would like to have a discussion about these findings. How do you interpret the results, what does it tell you and should we pay more attention to the poor? Are these studies useful or accurate?

A wider discussion can follow about how rich countries help poor countries develop.

Poor The Countries Rich Which

The United States of America, God bless her, has done more for the world than any other nation I know!

Which Rich Countries Help The Poor? History & Civil Business Politics

Republican, I understand your patriotism but you need to reply based on the list provided in the link. You state that the United States has done more for the world than any other nation you know, well...the list provided says that there are 12 countries who are doing "more" to help the poor than the United States that is number 13.

Poor The Countries Rich Which

First of all, I do not know anything about the Centre for Global Development, and will not look up anything about them right now. So, I will review the charts and information completely in ignorance of their biases and agenda.

I looked at the general information about trade. All of the countries, except for Switzerland, Norway, and Japan, seem to have very similar numbers for trade.

Note: The page doesn't indicate whether these numbers are in absolute terms, or in percentage of GNP. So, I looked into the FAQ, to see what basis they used to compare these countries.

The answer there invalidated the whole thing, as far as I am concerned.

They don't compare the countries based upon the total EFFECT of those countries. They base it upon the POLICIES of the countries, and the percentage of GNP that is dedicated to those functions.

So, the study is focused on the intentions of the governments of those countries, not on the effects of the efforts of the countries. That means that the very socialistic countries of northern and western Europe score higher - because their socialist policies are what this Centre for Global Development like!

Don't look at the EFFECTS of the country. That would make it obvious that the United States and Japan, by far the two largest economies, blows all the rest of those countries out of the water! The FAQ page even admits this!

Why does it make a difference that the two largest economies pay slightly less in percentage than other countries? Actually, that is a simple question to answer. Intent (percentage) is far more important to socialists than results (effect).

So, without even reading the mission statements of this "Centre" (why the French spelling, of a "Center" in the United States?) I can tell that they are another think tank dedicated to establishing socialism more firmly, by making the less socialist countries "look" bad. After all, if the US is spending 20 times more than the Netherlands, but the Netherlands is spending .0001% more of their GNP, then obviously the Netherlands are far more "kind" than the US.

I have made all of these observations based upon the information from the "Centre's" own pages. As far as I am concerned, this "study" is completely worthless, except as another socialistic propaganda device.

Offtopic but, I am impressed with myself! I wrote all of that, and my spell checker did not find a single error! Yeah!

Edited: Nighthawk on 26th Oct, 2006 - 12:32am

Poor The Countries Rich Which

Nighthawk, the survey shows the US is one of the most improved countries over the time period. It's quite positive towards the efforts being made by the US in that light. I don't believe it is socialist at all in its assessment.

I fail to see how you can possibly compare countries if you don't take into account their size. How else can you compare what a country is doing financially if you do not measure it against the scale of their economy?

If you compare what a multi-national like McDonalds does for a community against the local butcher, who might sponsor a local sports club, is that fair? Even though the butcher might be contributing a lot more of what it earns towards its community sponsorship?

The reality is the US gives a very small proportion of its GDP towards aid compared to other Western nations. So that means that the average Australian, who pays the Government through taxes, donates more from their tax to the poor than the average American might. That of course isn't the fault of the individual, because I know Americans donate a lot of money individually, but it says something about the policy of the government.

Congratulations on the spelling mate, however you made one tiny error. "Centre" is the correct way to spell the word, not center. The US changed the spelling as they have done many other English words into an American vernacular. England, the origin of the English language spells it "Centre". But the word could well have French influence, as France has ruled England before.

Which Rich Countries Help The Poor?

There is no doubt that Americans help smaller countries, but if they are not number one on the list why is it a concern here.

So because America has the Largest economy in the world, should it give more than most countries in respect to its GNP, it does give the most but not based on GNP, it gives the most overall also the data is for only the last 4 years, where is the rest of the data since America's Inception say 1776, can you even give me how much money total American has handed over as Aid since that time, I bet its far, far greater than any Country ever. The Data given is far to insufficient to make a valid argument.

The word "Center" or "Centre" can be used interchangeably like "theatre" or "theater" here in the states, we do not discriminate!

Which Rich Countries The Poor

This topic should not be squarely about the US. As I mentioned in an earlier post I think it shows that the US is increasing its help to poor countries compared to other nations. But it still has some way to go to match many European nations who have a strong tradition of helping others at a Government, including socialist countries like Sweden etc.

The US should not give more than anyone else in relation of its size, but it should be leading the way as far as reaching UN-set targets for aid.

The UN Official Development Assistance target of aid is 0.7 percent of GNI. The countries that have honored their commitments of, or have established a binding timetable to do so by 2015, include Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, the United Kingdom, Finland, Spain and Belgium. The US, Canada, Japan and Australia are noticeable absentees.

However, US citizens are far from stingy with their donations. This website, US and Foreign aid shows that while US Government spending on foreign Aid is not too impressive, individual private donations are.

This is an excellent example of US generosity.

Edited: arvhic on 6th Nov, 2006 - 4:20pm

Which Rich Countries The Poor Politics Business Civil & History

I have looked many places on the web to try and find total aid given (without the CGD's subjective criteria to private donations), but have not had a lot of success. The article below starts to scratch at what irks me about the tone of the CGD's work:

https://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042106E.shtml

The US people are extrodinarily generous. While it is true that the CGD does mention other countries, it truly is focused on the US during its discussions. Taking from the CGD's review, still targetting the 1970 generated idea of .7GNP as the accepted level:

This is $100 billion short of the .7% goal of the world. Further down in the article, we see what the US people chip with "their" government:

The US people made up 70% of the short fall of the arbitrarily selected goal of .7% of the UN back in 1970. You think that this might pull the US up in the charts a bit, but the CGD decides if that money was wisely spent. The private spendings were screened as follows to decide if those dollars are acceptable charity or not. Of course, as a result, the US doesn't fair much better than they did before they SPENT $71 Billion ADDITIONAL in aid. In reading their criteria for "good" aid, I can't help but get the feeling if the US spent some of its money on their poor and homeless that this wouldn't count because the US already has so much.

As a US citizen, it is quite irritating and discouraging to see such critiques of my generousity. As a mater of fact, I am glad most people don't subscribe to the GNP's publications or I am sure that $71 billion would be quite less. Also, while we do bicker about the policies that our government holds in the US from time to time (basically everyday - no mater who is in office), that is OUR right and it is OUR government. When the US is held up against other countries, we do not look at it as a case of them (the government) separately from I (the individual). In those cases, it is us (government and individuals) compared to them. This article starts to review some of the pitfalls and holes with the CDG's initial 2004 review (seems to be affliated with the CDG...perhaps they got some feedback):

https://gpr.hudson.org/files/publications/G...hilanthropy.pdf

The US people are generous and they like their freedoms. One of those is the freedom to give our money to whom we wish. We are not too keen on the idea of one entity (the government) deciding what my money should do or where it should go, because that means you are taxing me to give my money away. Looking at it as a GNP makes some feel better because that sort of implies corporations. However, the money truly comes from all revenue sources of the government (corporate and personal taxes). In general, those in the US are ok with taxing corporations as long as their jobs remain in tact and we are oblivious to the donations other than their good, but increase my taxes too much and you will see revolutions.

Personally, I like the feeling I get when I donate. This has been said over and over again by those that donate their money to causes. I get very little in a sense from the feeling when my government donates. I know my government donates a lot and I have very little idea (short of support against terrorism) where the aid dollars from my taxes goes. In a way, I am happy I don't because that would mean that there is a program (spending money) to inform me of the good that the US aid dollars are doing and those dollars would be better spent. If you tax me additionally to get the "shortfall" from the .7% of GNP from the government, I will personally vote against every politician that adheres to that platform and I am sure I am not the only one. There was a tea party a few years back that shows how much Americans like paying taxes.

One other thing that really bothers me is that the US has many of its talented citizens abroad helping in many capacities. I for instance have worked in Taiwan, S. Korea and Malaysia. In each of these countries, I have helped transfer and develop technologies that have saved and generated millions. Those profits allow for more employment and tax revenues in the country. Make no doubt, a US company will profit from my being where I am at, but the fact is that so does the host nation. I am not the only one... This aid or support is not counted by the CDG.

Edited: Vincenzo on 7th Nov, 2006 - 5:28am