Close Topic Options

Which Rich Countries Help The Poor? - Page 2

I think you make some excellent points Vicenzo. There has been a bit of criticism over CDG's use of intent when evaluating OECD nation's commitment to development. I actually believe intention is very important when assessing things like aid. The reason is because aid money is often conditional and governments are very selective of who they give aid money to. Conditional aid can often be more prescriptive, forcing countries to bow down to the demands of the donors. Therefore, to simply look at the sheer size of aid donation doesn't paint a true reflection of how useful that aid is.

You would think private donations are a more effective way of providing aid, but even charities have their shortcomings. They are often fairly expensive operations to run and not all the money donated will reach the intended target. There is also a valid debate as to whether throwing buckets of money at poor people solves the problem of poverty, as opposed to other measures such as developing an economy and removing trade barriers. But I agree that there is definitely a greater sense of satisfaction in taking the effort and initiative to donate yourself.

Vincenzo, of that $71 billion private US donation figure you mention, about $47 billion are remittance money. This is the breakdown:
"¢ International giving by US foundations: $3.4 billion
"¢ Charitable giving by US businesses: $4.9 billion
"¢ American NGOs: $9.7
"¢ Religious overseas ministries: $4.5
"¢ US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.7 billion
"¢ Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $47 billion.

Personal remittances often come from foreign workers who send money back home.

Globalissues.org explains,

CDG doesn't count remittances as a form of aid, which could explain the discrepancy in figures between some of the assessments in this forum. This website also produces a graph, if you scroll down past the remittances section, which factors private donations. It still shows Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands are well ahead when it comes to aid.

CDG suggests that the US does not close the gap with most other rich countries; "The US gives 13c/day/person in government aid"¦.American's private giving-another 5c/day-is high by international standards but does not close the gap with most other rich countries. Norway gives $1.02/day in public aid and 24c/day in private aid" per person. (These numbers will change of course, year by year, but the point here is that Adelman's assertion-one that many seem to have-is not quite right.)

The only realistic way you can compare how generous a country has been is on a basis that considers scale of economy and population size. I don't think this is suppose to be an exercise in saying this country is more generous than the next. Rather, I think the CGD report is intended to let people know where countries can improve their help to the poor. It also raises public awareness and I think that is useful.

Now the final point I would like to make about aid, is size doesn't always matter. Large quantities of aid doesn't equate to useful, good quality aid. A lot of the OECD aid bill, $37 billion nearly 50 percent is actually dodgy or described as phatom aid, not generally available to the poor.

First-world subsidies can often dwarf the value of aid. This is particularly apparent in the EU where governments subsidise the agriculture industry to ridiculous levels, leaving African farmers with no hope of competition. Then there are also the motives behind supplying aid to certain countries.

Edited: arvhic on 9th Nov, 2006 - 4:49pm