Aid That Doesn't Deliver

Category: Americas, Faith & Spirituality, Life & Society Views: 3089
3089

The Bush administration has pledged $350 million to tsunami relief. It's a safe bet that at least $248 million of that money will be spent right here in the U.S. 

The U.S. government places conditions on its foreign aid that require most relief and development assistance materials and services to be purchased from U.S. companies and agencies. The last time the the government revealed any data on this issue-back in 1996-72 cents out of every U.S. foreign aid dollar was spent on U.S. goods and services. 

This arrangement might strike most U.S. taxpayers as a fair and just arrangement. Why shouldn't the nation's economy and its companies get something out of money the government spends on foreign aid? 

For starters, this arrangement makes aid less productive. Requiring that foreign aid benefit U.S. companies often means that precious resources are used buying more expensive goods or services; while valuable time is wasted transporting these goods to the region. This hurts poor countries, including those devastated by this disaster of monumental proportions. 

Countries that receive aid also have less control and decision-making on how to spend aid money. For example, countries like Malaysia or Sri Lanka, where the staple diet is rice may get shiploads of sorghum, or wheat, because these items are available from U.S. company stockpiles. What's worse, goods like sugar or roofing sheets that may have been secured in the region, injecting much-needed vigor into the regional economy, are ignored as U.S. materials are imported at top dollar. 

It is ironic that the Bush administration, which in its rhetoric promotes free markets and less government involvement in the economy, turns foreign aid into corporate welfare. 

Adding insult to injury, the U.S. and other rich nations agreed that by January 1, 2002 they would cut the strings and untie aid to least developed countries. This Agreement, the Development Assistance Community (DAC) Recommendation to Untie Official Development Assistance to Least Developed Countries, was finally reached after 30 years of negotiations and was an acknowledgment that tied aid "represents poor value for money and undermines development assistance." 

However, three years later, the U.S. government may well be the worst offender. Despite having signed international agreements and commitments on lifting this kind of restriction on foreign aid, the Bush administration maintains doggedly intransigent. The Bush administration hasn't even bothered to provide any data about the issue. The latest available figures reported are from 1996, when Bill Clinton was president. 

At that time, the U.S. estimated that 71.6 percent of bilateral aid commitments were tied to the purchase of U.S. goods and services. These figures were repeated in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Agency Performance Report published in April 1999. The same data was repeated in the Reality of Aid 2000 edition. No figures have been reported since the agreement went into effect. 

The tsunami disaster makes improving the efficiency of humanitarian assistance an urgent matter. There has never been a better time for the U.S. to cut the strings and make sure money spent on aid actually reaches the intended beneficiaries. 

Why Cut The Strings? 

Tying aid promotes goods and services from the donor country and undermines the humanitarian purpose and the overall effectiveness of assistance. It results often in inappropriate aid, which does not meet the needs of the poor. 

By allowing greater competition for the provision of services, a recipient country can benefit from buying from suppliers that compete on price, quality, and service. Untying aid can also help strengthen the local and regional economies and contribute to building local productivity. 

At the time of a disaster, we must remember that there are ample supplies of local expertise-carpenters, building contractors, management consultants, architects, surveyors-and many of these skilled workers are unemployed. Restoring human dignity to those affected by a disaster will mean giving them the opportunity to earn a living and feed their families. This cannot happen if U.S. companies, agencies, and contractors crowd out locals because of the practice of tied aid. 

In September 2004, the United Nations' Economic Commission for Africa's Economic Report on Africa reported that "the donors' habit of insisting that aid funds be spent purchasing goods and services from the same donor countries is crippling Africa's chances of pulling ahead." According to the report, "tied aid" reduces the real value of the assistance by some 25 to 40 percent, given that recipient countries are forced to buy imports that are not priced competitively. 

Steps In The Right Direction: The Coalition Of The Willing 

The ECA report notes that four countries (United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands) were breaking away from the idea of "tied aid" with more than 90 percent of their aid "untied." These efforts must be commended. 

The tsunami offers an opportunity for the U.S. to join this "coalition of the willing." It's time that this nation's foreign aid started to deliver more benefits and stopped being a vehicle for welfare to U.S. companies.

Emira Woods is the Co-Director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.


  Category: Americas, Faith & Spirituality, Life & Society
Views: 3089
 
COMMENTS DISCLAIMER & RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
The opinions expressed herein, through this post or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization. The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


Older Comments:
MELEK FROM CANADA said:
Is usual the US in particular use aid as a way to pump their own economy which is in serious trouble...
2005-03-16

H.A. FROM YATHRIB said:
The cowboy and his supporters have no good intention of helping the victims of the Tsunami. It is hard to believe that the richest country in the world is not the highest contributor. In addition, too many strings are attached to her aid package.

I, H.A., do not blame the boy. She (U.S.) is too busy engaging in illegal war and state sponsor terrorism. She is paying $4 billion to Isreal to kill palestinians and to build the apartheid wall and of course billions going to Iraqi war to take out 1 person (Saddam Hussein), who is writing novel and busy in gardening as we speak....anything could be more stupid than this.

Well, "like dissloves in likes"...Since the american cowboy is an .., the does stupid things...I can't blame him for this stupidities...It would morally wrong to blame the boy...
2005-03-09

GARNETS FROM USA said:
It sounds desirable to spend relief dollars in the counrty that needs the relief. However, it's probably not always possible to get local materials to the regions where it is needed, especially in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. These are no doubt considerable logistical and infrastraucture problems.

My tax dollars as well as my personal charitable donations go towards relief efforts. I leave it up to to government and the organizations to determine the best distribution. Sending American surplus food - I have no problem with that. If I'm hungry and suffering after a disaster, I'm not complaining about what food I get.

You discussed the US, Norway, UK, Holland and Denmark. Tell me, how do Saudi Arabia, UAE and other rich Middle Eastern countries compare to waelthy Western nations in their relief contributions?
2005-03-07

DONALD.SMITH FROM UNITED STATES said:
This is so very true. The United States provides foreign aid to countries only to see that aid go to US companies. The aid never makes it to those in the greatest need. Take a look at the recent Tsunami in Asia. $15 million turned into $35 million and by the end of the week became $350 million. As always money comes with strings attached. Look at Iraq, money that goes to Iraq, doesn't find its way into Iraqi companies, but American companies.
2005-03-05

YAHYA BERGUM FROM USA said:
Well put, amin21 -- IMO (In My Opinion). Also FWIW (For What It's Worth) at IslamiCity.com and perhaps iViews.com as well a Muslim's use of "we", "us" and "our" is generally understood to indicate the Muslim community as a whole. Before another Muslim commentator at this site had pointed that out to me, I had merely assumed that the meaning of "we", "us" and "our" would depend on the commentator's choice of a country and the content of the article itself. That is however not the case here. I think it has something to do with having hope for unity amongst our-selves or something like that. Salaam!
2005-03-05

AMIN21 FROM USA said:
Aid is free. Beggars can't be choosers. Ok Maybe the aid doesn't provide as efficiently as it would if untied... But it still provides a certain value of goods and services that are unquestionable. That is what money represents right? It is a symbol of goods and services. We are donating our goods and services and in the meantime subsidizing our own economy.
No one is hurt by this except the direct economic competitors of those providing the aid. Yes the money could help with the local economies but then 3rd world countries are notorious for their government corruption sucking a high proportion of any money and goods and services anyway... Often they use charity as a pocket filler for themselves.
2005-03-04