GOOD! I love happy news.
Posted on 09/18/2018 1:55:22 PM PDT by gattaca
The United States' commitment to global development does not look good compared with that of other wealthy countries — and it's likely to get worse.
According to an annual index released Tuesday by the Center for Global Development that ranks 27 of the world's wealthiest countries, the U.S. scored dead last on foreign aid contributions and quality — despite being the largest donor in dollar amount. That's because in 2017, it allocated a mere 0.18 percent of its gross national income for development assistance. That is well short of the 0.7 percent that wealthy countries have committed to strive for since 1970. (Only seven countries met or exceeded that target in 2016.)
Not only that, but by the measures of the index, American aid is also poor quality. When the index assessed aid given directly to recipient countries, the U.S. performed below average on every measure of quality (efficient use, transparency, building up institutions in recipient countries and reducing their administrative burden).
On the other hand, American aid given through international organizations like the World Bank or Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria scored relatively high for quality. Unfortunately, the U.S. does not prefer international organizations and provides 83 percent of its aid directly to recipients — a higher proportion than any of the other countries in the index.
Guess How Much Of Uncle Sam's Money Goes To Foreign Aid. Guess Again! GOATS AND SODA Guess How Much Of Uncle Sam's Money Goes To Foreign Aid. Guess Again! This is the first time since CGD began publishing the index 15 years ago that it has had the data to calculate the quality of aid, allowing it to recognize that countries like Australia may not give generously but give high-quality aid.
But "development is more than aid," says Ian Mitchell, an author of the report and deputy director of the think tank's Europe office. That's why the index also ranks countries on financial transparency, support for technological research and development, protecting the environment, low barriers to trade for developing countries, open migration policies and contributions to global security like peacekeeping or avoiding arms sales to poor and undemocratic countries.
All these policies of wealthy nations have a strong impact on the development of poor countries, Mitchell says. For example, the environmental footprint of rich countries is most responsible for climate change, but poor countries experience catastrophic consequences because of geographic and economic vulnerability.
Overall, Sweden, Denmark are first and second, respectively, while Germany shares third place with Finland — the first time a non-Scandinavian country has broken into the top three. The U.S. ranked 23rd.
Mitchell says many of the Trump administration's policies are not yet reflected in the rankings, which were compiled mostly from 2017 data.
"The U.S. finishing 23rd isn't a consequence of Trump," Mitchell says. "It's a consequence of the U.S. position over a long time."
"If the U.S. follows through on leaving the Paris Agreement, and once any new tariffs are fully reflected in the trade score, we'd expect the U.S. rank to drop further," he says. "Both are material issues for development."
What the rankings do reflect though, Mitchell says, is the U.S. focus over the last few years on security — peacekeeping, humanitarian interventions and especially protecting international sea lanes. In this policy area, the U.S. is eighth.
Esther Ngumbi, a researcher at the University of Illinois and an Aspen Institute New Voices food security fellow from Kenya, thinks the rankings are an important tool that she hopes will expand to include other major actors like China. Mitchell says they're working on another index of emerging economies' commitment to development next.
"At the end of the day, the decisions and commitments of countries that have the money matter," says Ngumbi. "These decisions, like on climate change, truly have an impact on the everyday lives of citizens of developing countries."
Ngumbi points out that when developing nations prosper, the whole world benefits from new economic opportunities and greater security.
"Every action has a consequence attached to it, but at the same time, together we can improve," she says. "The index is hard data and evidence to know who's doing well, who's not doing well" — and, she hopes, sends a message to governments like the U.S. "to rise up, give more and be better."
If you add in PRIVATE religious charity —much more efficient than gummint $$— then the USA comes in very close to THE TOP.
And yet these same twits claim that our assistance is tantamount to colonization and ultimately harms people.
Until it becomes an anti-trump anti American rallying cry.
Winning.
Factor in the money spent on illegals, housing, food, healthcare, etc. I consider that foreign aid.
Truth to tell by refusing to play the “Man is dooming the planet.” global warming game the U.S. is actually doing more in real results for development in impoverished countries.
to rise up, give more and be better.
People like this should be shot.
“People like this should be shot.”
I prefer hanging but....
L
Yep. World War I and II cost us nothing.
And..?
What a load of crap.
Pity. If it’s that low, then we just ought to throw in the towel completely and give up. I guess it’s so insignificant that they don’t need the money. Is that what they’re saying?
I’m sorry, what is the United States doing funding ANY “development assistance?” I must have missed where any other country provided fledgling America with any. I believe we got where we are mostly on our own. So how is it we owe anybody anything, let alone a bunch of turd-bowl countries that have squandered every cent ever given to them?
Factor in PRIVATE charity, and we’re near the top.
I would like to see ALL (yes, ALL ... no exceptions) US Government “foreign aid” ended.
Anything worth doing is worth doing right. Since we’re obviously not doing it right....well then, let’s not do it at all.......
My old economics professor would call this lying with statistics.
Note the buried statement “despite being the largest donor in dollar amount”.
That’s right, the U.S. spends more in foreign aid than any other country on the planet but that’s lost in the drivel of this article which is deliberately worded to make it sound like we’re somehow slacking in that regard.
I wish we were slacking, it’s time we stopped being the world’s piggy bank.
I’d like to defund foreign aid *and* NPR.
When a natural disaster happens, which other country sends an aircraft carrier group off of Haiti or Phuket or Japan?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.