South Korea Places Last in Foreign Aid Survey, Does it Matter?

Tags: Center for Global Development

• Gaetano Calebrisi
  8:42 pm on December 5th, 2008 1

  There’s an old Confucian that more or less goes like this: “Catch a fish for a man and he’ll for a day. Teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime.”

  The way foreign aid is processed right now, it does more of the former than the latter. I suggest William Easterly’s “White Man’s Burden” for a good exposition on this.

  As for why military aid is not considered in their report, it’s probably because on an empirical level military aid does little to alleviate long-term suffering for the general population. Yes, the relief efforts of the US military during the 2004 tsunami helped, but more in the short-term. To the contrary, military aid seems to aid a select interest group of a society with little trickle down effect for the broader population. Aid to Columbian police and military forces in their fight against the FARC helps the those institutions to do just that: fight the FARC. I haven’t heard any evidence-longitudinal, statistical, or even anecdotal-that belies such a notion. Same in case in Pakistan. US aid to that country’s military seems to have done little in the social realm. If anything it’s just entrenched groups that look out more for their own interests than that of the society as a whole.

  I would go even further in saying that attempting to make military aid a large part of general aid packages does little for that countries political development. Billions of dollars to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran (back before 1979) made those countries more illiberal and only fostered local grievences.

• OSweet
  11:15 am on December 6th, 2008 2

  Another assumption is that aid/charity is only worthwhile if originally collected by governments as taxes and then funneled through government institutions (which generally ensures that it’s more prone to corruption, waste and misuse).

  Look on the website of this “not-for-profit”: instead of asking you to “donate,” or “contribute,” they ask you to “invest.”

  Lol.

• Sonagi
  5:16 pm on December 6th, 2008 3

  There’s an old Confucian that more or less goes like this: “Catch a fish for a man and he’ll for a day. Teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime.”

  Confucius wasn’t the first to realize that truth. That saying is common folk wisdom in English, too, and probably many other languages.

• hoju_saram
  9:25 pm on December 6th, 2008 4

  A few points:

  The nordic countries you’ve singled out deserve praise for their aid afforts, not cynicism. At the end of the day, whether you count their contributions to global warming or not, they give more in terms of real dollars and as a measure of their GDPs to aid projects than America does. Thats not to say that the US is not generous – it is – but give credit where it’s due, rather than slagging them off like its some sort of pissing contest.

  Where was the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark when the Indonesian tsunami hit? Where were they when other recent natural disaster hit? I’m sure they have great global warming policies though.

  That’s a pretty shitty comment.

  The Tsunami as of jan 2005:

  Norway
  $183m in government donations, (approximately $39.50 per citizen – more than the US by a long shot), plus an estimated $30m raised in private donations.

  Sweden
  $80m in government donations, of which around $20m has been disbursed, plus at least $75m in private donations including money raised during two telethons.

  Denmark
  $75m in government aid. Copenhagen has sent a field hospital, transport vehicles and a ship to the UN aid effort, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said.

  Netherlands
  $34m has been donated by the government as emergency aid. A further $259m has been allocated for reconstruction. Aid groups say a further $35m has been raised in private donations. A Dutch police identification team has been sent to Thailand.

  I don’t have any stats, but my guess is as a measure of GDP they did very, very well.

  I agree that unskilled immigrants should have nothing to do with any measure of aid, but military “aid” is also a very questionable yardstick, since for the most part the US military is used primarily to project influence and advance self-interest. Even the contributions to Columbia are for domestic purposes (security, drug supply eradication), and not for the betterment of Columbians. That’s not to say that the US military doesn’t benefit other countries – it often does, particularly in South Korea and Afganistan – but in the vast majority of case, persent and historical, only if that benefit also correlates with US interest.

  In saying all that, every other country weilds its armed forces in much the same way, and for the same purposes. But credit where credit is due.

• GI Korea
  9:56 am on December 7th, 2008 5

  Before people start patting themselves on the back about their nation’s level of foreign aid, it is best to look at what aid they are given. Look at the tsunami relief. The aid given by these countries is more then likely not aid at all but rather smoke and mirrors:

  But a closer look at those commitments shows that hundreds of millions of dollars in those pledges had already been committed to development projects in the region. And as much as half of the offers are for interest-free loans, which the United Nations traditionally does not count as humanitarian aid.
  The tsunami relief effort illustrates how large pledges of aid have historically yielded far less cash than was promised for humanitarian relief and recovery efforts. And it underscores why the United Nations _ which asked for nearly $1 billion to fund its tsunami relief and reconstruction efforts over the next six months _ remains concerned that money may not be available to finance relief efforts, despite commitments made worldwide.
  “I will not be surprised if we do not get all the money” pledged by governments, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told reporters. “This is the history we live with.”
  Over the past two years, the United Nations has faced a shortfall of $3 billion in funding for relief operations and for rebuilding countries devastated by civil conflicts or natural disasters. In many cases, countries simply have not followed through on large public pledges of support.
  U.N. officials and aid experts say that the challenge in accurately tallying aid pledges is that governments rarely explain whether their contributions consist of new money, loans or a repackaging of earlier announced development assistance meant to increase the apparent size of their donation.
  “Governments have traditionally played political theater with aid pledges,” said Shepard Forman, the director of New York University’s Center on International Cooperation, who has studied aid disbursements. “There have been lots of smoke and mirrors in the amounts pledged by governments, and there is almost no way to track it.”

  Now here is a chart that shows aid pledged to aid received:

  http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/aidtracker/

  Notice hoju saram’s country Australia scores high on both aid pledged and received, however look at what the aid they offered actually is:

  Australia and Germany recently topped the list of aid donors with pledges of $810 million and $674 million, respectively. Half of Australia’s pledge consists of interest-free loans to the Indonesian government spread out over five years.

  So half of Australia’s aid wasn’t aid at all but a loan if the Indonesians wanted it. The Australians, a lot of people don’t realize did provide a lot of military support in the opening days of the tsunami relief that they do not get enough credit for. This aid was much more important then offering loans. That is the problem with international aid often times it is not aid at all, but instead smoke and mirrors, which is what I see this survey being.

  Also these studies do not take into account private donations made to charity, which Americans overwhelmingly top in the world at with no one even coming close:

  http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/112739777749.htm

  http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/aidtracker/

  To make matters worse claims were made that the cash aid that was given in the tsunami response was being funneled not to the poorest people effected but to rich land owners instead:

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4621365.stm

  Here is a good Asia Times article on the level of corruption within the aid agencies and Indonesia itself:

  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HI20Ae01.html

  Scott Guggenheim, the World Bank’s Indonesia-based sector coordinator for social development, says it would be difficult to expect the BRR to top its present achievements given the logistical problems of the areas.

  “So far, only 1% of the reconstruction fund is unaccounted far, but we learned that in Louisiana the amount of funds that was misused was $2 billion,” he told a press conference in Aceh in July.

  Great, what aid that actually reaches the people, only 1% of aid can be accounted for. When I read stuff like this, I have every right to be cynical.

• Gaetano Calebrisi
  10:22 am on December 7th, 2008 6

  GI talks about an ideologically driven smoke-and-mirrors show being put on when it comes to foreign aid statistics. Granted, the statistics he provides from the Reuters site would seem to validate his general argument about American magnanimity towards the world.

  However, looking at the other breakdowns of foreign aid statistics would indicate a story different from the one GI is advancing. In the categories of “Gov’t and Multilateral Aid” and “Gov’t vs. Private Aid”, the United States does indeed surpass the other top 20 donor nations. However, when you look at the statistical breakdown for “Gov’t Aid per Capita”, the US doesn’t stack up as well.

  According the “Gov’t Aid per Capita” statistical breakdown, the US’s “Gov’t Aid per Capita” is $2.90. Australia-the country GI has decided to whip on-provided $39.42 in “Gov’t Aid per Capita”. Norway provided $38.25; Netherlands $18.82; Kuwait $31.08.

  Looked at from the “Gov’t Aid per Capita” perspective, US foreign aid is to a large degree parsimonious given all of America’s economic dynamism (current financial crisis notwithstanding) and abundant material wealth. If anything, what America’s $2.90 “Gov’t Aid per Capita” statistics show is that despite its total aid allotment in absolute numbers, in relative terms there is clearly more that the US can do when it comes to foreign aid.

• GI Korea
  11:32 am on December 7th, 2008 7

  Gaetano you missed the point.

  Who said anything about ideology driven smoke and mirrors? These countries inflate their aid statistics to make it look like they are doing more then they really are. I haven’t seen how the aid for the US is broken down but I wouldn’t be surprised if the US was doing the same thing.

  The numbers for the aid are inflated thus rendering the aid per capita statistic irrelevant. Plus it doesn’t include private donations which the US by far leads the world in.

  Also I didn’t whip on Australia, I stated facts. Australia inflated their aid number just like everyone else did. Australia however has done and continues to do more for tsunami relief then the vast majority of countries combined.

• CalmSeas
  1:41 pm on December 7th, 2008 8

  On Foreign Aid…It needs to be reduced drasticly and in many cases cancelled altogether…many countries in Africa and Asia are glaring examples.

  Aid only goes to prop up Autocratic/Despotic regimes in many cases. It seldom gets down to the grassroots level.

  Kickback schemes, outright theft, etc. are all a part of foreign aid, especially when it comes to USAID, where persons from a respective country are often employed to identify & distribute the USAID, thus creating their very own network of preferred contractors and receiving kickbacks from the USAID contracts, or in the secondary selling of USAID items once they have been awarded…if they even make it that far before being re-directed.

  US Military aid meets the same fate with Commanders collecting up the equipment after it has been issued to their units and re-selling it, or after the individual soldier has received their US training & equipment issue, they head out to the local market to sell or pawn it off. Many TCNs will have NO appreciation for anything given to them…it is only when they actually earn it themselves will they take care of it.

  I will never forget watching 30,000 M16s, which were US military aid to the Armed Forces of the Philippines, being trucked out of Camp Navarro, Zamboanga City, Mindanao one day…never to be seen again.

  When the WESTPAC commander, Adm. Fargo I think, made a visit soon after that and inquired about the whereabouts of the weapons (he obviously already new), he was met with that infamous Flip smile and B/S excuses, by AFP Gen. Kyamko…the Adm. stormed out of Kyamko’s office after only five minutes.

  Just another glaring example why we should let these countries either sink or swim on their own…at least until they have obvious “Humanitarian” needs and ONLY when they come & ask for help…NOT trying to out do each other in offering up ridiculous amounts of aid that never materializes.

  We should also be the ONLY ones who dispense any USAID and US Military aid, as we have seen that it immediately turns into a scam. Often being SOLD to the intended recepients, or given out as a gift from a certain politican or militant group.

• Sonagi
  2:51 pm on December 7th, 2008 9

  Great, what aid that actually reaches the people, only 1% of aid can be accounted for. When I read stuff like this, I have every right to be cynical.

  Reread the original quote and note the word in boldface:

  “So far, only 1% of the reconstruction fund is UNaccounted far,

• Phineas Coffee
  2:59 pm on December 7th, 2008 10

  Sorry GI, but the stats provided for the “Gov’t Aid per Capita” is very relevant.

  Even when you factor in the the private donations, the US still comes in 19th place out of the 21 countries cited in the Center for Global Development graph you provided.
  [Check out this link: http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001805.html

  Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that those countries who allot more aid per capita also have more domestic social welfare obligations than the US. With that taken in to consideration, its clear that the US has much more latitude to give more in terms of foreign aid but doesn’t for a litany of reasons.

  Finally, as you more or less admitted, the aid numbers are being exaggerated. If that’s so, it still doesn’t explain why the US is coming out at the bottom of the pack in respects to foreign aid per capita.

• Phineas Coffee
  3:26 pm on December 7th, 2008 11

  By the way, another point I wanted to make about the private donations.

  In statistics attempting to show the generosity of private US contributions to foreign aid, there gets lumped in the outward remittance flows of foreign nationals working in the US.

  Now it’s nice that the US allows foreign nationals working in the US to send money back to their home countries, but to conflate these remittances with that of US generosity to that that of the world at large strikes me as a chip of the old block of sly bean counting.

  The inclusion of foreign national remittance isn’t a testament to American largesse but rather a testament to the charitableness of the immigrants to their home communities.

• Brian in Jeollanam-do: South Korea has poor commitment to developing nations, US think tank says.
  5:33 am on December 9th, 2008 12

  [...] The CGD has more analysis of the US numbers, and why it ranked where it did, though ROK Drop is a bit cynical about the methodology.More information on South Korea is available on the country profile. It [...]

 

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.