Foreign Aid Business

Recently I was confronted by the Canadians who boosted that they give twice as much as US in Foreign Aid. And if the current trend continues, they will be giving three fold as much as US in foreign aid. The only defense that I could muster was to blame the Bush Administration. They loved that but I don’t this he is solely to blame. I doubt the trend was any different in the Clinton years.

Anyway, so can someone please educate me on the whole foreign aid business? And why the US doesn’t give as much as other developed nations do?

An googled image:

[thumb=H]foreignaid5248_8592416.JPG[/thumb]

Re: Foreign Aid Business

BEcause we make sure you haven't larned Russian for the last 50 years and also that you won't be shooting your women in the head in soccer stadiums for the next 50. Consider it payment in kind or as accountants call it goodwill.

Vaisey, percentages mean siht anyway. What is the GNP of Denmark and that of the US. If I gave you 50% of 1 dollar and 25% of $10 dollars. I am sure you would be happier wiht the former, right percentage guy!!

Re: Foreign Aid Business

Sure. But why can't we get the heart to give 50% of $10?

And some of the countries we do give Aid to aren't angels, the others really deserve it. For instance countries in latin America and southern Africa.

Re: Foreign Aid Business

^ because we need to make sur the global wealth increases as it has been for the past 50 years under America carrying the capitalism and globalism banner. there is cost to that. Denmark can spend that, because they don't need to worry about Germans or russians putting up hitler or stalin statues in copenhagen.

Ahmadjee, do you give any money to hindu schools in India? or is your tithe just goes to the jamaat. Answer carefully..

Re: Foreign Aid Business

AJ you hit the nail on the head when you called it a business..most foreign Aid has stipulations..so when the US forks out aid it is essentially for US backed projects which in turn buy from US products from US companies..( i am using the US as an example solely this applies to most governments)

In addition, US aid stats does not include private donations which are sizable and it also forgets to mention Aid is essentially a means of influencing policy..the biggest net recipients of Aid would be Israel, Egypt and nowadays Pakistan..with Israel receiving the highest per citizen of any country in the world..this aid is primarily to promote US interests and not for poverty alleviation ( Egypts socio-economic indicators since 1978 I doubt have improved as a result of the US alliance)

Re: Foreign Aid Business

This is the miracle of mathematics. The fact is that the US gives one third of all humanitarian dollars in total assistance world-wide. Certain advocates have chosen to focus on percentage of GDP to attempt to portray the US as cheap.

Additionally the tax law of the US encourages private donations, and over 75% of the funding from American NGOs comes from private sources, not the government. In foreign countries there is far less individual giving, and far more governmental giving. So your diagram does not take into account the entirety of US citizen giving. By deducting your donation from your taxes, the US government is foregoing tax receipts which could be used for additional giving.

http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/papers/hpgbrief3.pdf

Re: Foreign Aid Business

Ok, so far I haven't heard anything original. If you Google on the issue, the websites who want US to give more give %ages, those who think US gives a fair share or more talk about actual money. Israel, Pakistan and Egypt are generally mentioned by the critics and the reports that try to make the picture good enough or perfect never mention these countries.

Hopefully someone else can post something original.

PD Bhaijaan, most of my contributions go to jama'at but I do give to Salvation Army, the local church & some other organizations that ask on humanitarian grounds. Hindus have never come up to me to ask for a donation. They are generally well off. Though I wouldn't mind giving to a Hindu school in India. According to Mirza Sahib, if someone ask for charity riding a horse (call it a BMW in this day and age) do not turn him away because of his apparel & ride, instead help him so God may look over your sins & shortcomings.

Re: Foreign Aid Business

OG bhaijaan, I do believe that private donations are backed by American people and I have found Americans in general to be very generous in giving. Those countries that give a lot in Forign Aid have very high taxes but I don't know if their NGOs are funded by government or not. Nor do I have any numbers/stats that show how much NGOs from US give where?

Re: Foreign Aid Business

aj, I htink you have your answer to the question why US chooses to giv emore money to Israel and Egypt and Pakistan, in your own very post. Just like you choose to give most of your meny to the jamaat, US chooses to give as much or as little to whomever they feel like. No one should tell you who to gie money to and neither does anyone have any right to tell America how it decides to spend it's money. If it was up to the knuckleheads on this forum, they would want money to go to suicidebomberstan...unfortunately we don;t like that country.

Re: Foreign Aid Business

From a Philanthropy Journal.

Let’s say that total annual U.S. philanthropy is about $190 billion. Estimates are that international private giving for all sources of giving is about 10.8 percent of that total (although foundations give only about 4 percent of their resources internationally.) This yields about $20 billion in cash giving. However, only about 6.5% of total U.S. philanthropy is given for international programs or sponsorships that are actually overseas. The “international” giving total is then reduced to $12 billion.

Another $850 million or so flows from U.S. sources directly to overseas (non-U.S.) recipients. Again, this is almost certainly an under-estimate, since it does not totally capture individual behavior (the Brownies of Peoria selling lemonade to help the clinic of the Peruvian colleague of someone’s pediatrician, or the Fight for Sight initiative of the students at Brunswick School in Greenwich, CT who pass the hat at football games to help a vision clinic in Tibet.) So, the cash total is back up to something on the order of $13 billion.

Added to this should be the $1.5 billion the U.S. universities provide in scholarships and services to developing country nationals in their years as foreign students in the U.S. So, we are up to $14.5 billion. From here on, things get murkier. The value of all donated goods – as technical as computers from Microsoft and as mundane as dear Aunt Tillie’s old summer frocks – is unknown. There is also danger of double counting here, since some donations will be counted in cash value both by corporations and by non-profits. But, it is probably at least $2 billion, with huge increases at times of natural catastrophe or war – events that are, unfortunately, common. After Hurricane Mitch, for example, the U.S. military base in Honduras had to call in the Marines – not to keep order, but help distribute donated goods, which were arriving at a rate of 120 shipments every date.

Finally, of course, there is the problem of valuing services. There is simply no way to do this without crossing over into rank speculation. But, the reservoir of American global voluntarism is broad and deep: executives traveling worldwide for the International Executive Service Corps, for example; physicians and surgeons providing basic care and complex services to clinics in poverty areas throughout the developing world; lawyers volunteering though the ABA’s international law program; lay volunteers in such programs as the Mercy Corps, a “Peace Corps” within the religious order of the Mercy Sisters. To be conservative, let’s say the value of voluntarism adds another $1 billion.

It is not unreasonable, then, to estimate that the total value of U.S. private philanthropy abroad is about $17.5 billion, nearly three times the size of United States government official development assistance. Having reached that conclusion, there is reason to pause, however. There is, of course, much debate about the effectiveness of government foreign aid. A dollop of similar skepticism is also in order for the implications of this level of private aid. Regulations can mislead. For example, for a U.S. non-profit to register with and receive funding from the United States government for foreign aid efforts, it must demonstrate that at least 20 percent of its funds are raised privately.
http://www.onphilanthropy.com/op2001-09-06n.html

Re: Foreign Aid Business

Additionally the US allows giving by large donors to be done through foundations. Bill Gates for example can donate highly appreciated Microsoft stock to his own private foundation, and avoid paying US Federal taxes. The european model is that far more of the giving is done through collecting taxes and doling out the money. This is a notoriously inefficient method. Direct giving by US individuals, Corporations and Foundations has a much lower overhead factor, and therefore a good deal more efficient. Please note below that the amount of international donations by US Foundations alone exceeds the budget of every other country.

International Giving by U.S. Foundations Reaches $3 Billion for Fourth Consecutive Year
Funders Concerned that Anti-terrorism Guidelines Could Hurt Future Grantmaking

New York, NY, November 8, 2004—Annual foundation funding for international programs reached $3 billion for the fourth year in a row in 2003, despite an economic downturn, terrorist attacks, and the launch of an ongoing war on terror, according to International Grantmaking III: An Update on U.S. Foundation Trends, a new report prepared and published by the New York City-based Foundation Center with the support and collaboration of the Council on Foundations in Washington, DC.

International Grantmaking III examines patterns in international giving based on an analysis of grants made by the nation’s largest foundations and includes the results of a recent survey of the largest U.S.-based international funders.

As recently as 1998, grants for U.S.-based and overseas international projects totaled only $1.6 billion. Critical factors in the consistently high level of giving in recent years include the presence of new international funders on the scene—ranging from the multi-billion-dollar Bill & Melinda Gates and Gordon and Betty Moore foundations, to numerous smaller independent and corporate foundations and an increasing number of community foundations—and increased giving by many established funders.

http://fdncenter.org/media/news/pr_0411a.html

Re: Foreign Aid Business

Bhindians learned Russian very well and it benefitted them immensely and are still enjoying the fruits of their relationship…baneeays were know for stabbing in the back, i did’nt know they dabbled in being ungrateful swine…

Re: Foreign Aid Business

Alot of mis-information and flashy words in this thread. The EU boosts the highest ODA in the world. The US signed on to 0.7% at Monterrey but has regained on its global commitments. The US does not provide ODA as financial capital unlike the EU, Australia and Canada. It provides ODA in the form of US companies and experts (50% of the ODA is paid back to the US firms so the countries never see the money, it goes back into the US economy) coming to teach developing country nations how to use products and then sells them the most expensive technology with the ODA.

One very important aspect of ODA is debt relief which finally the G-8 have agreed to provide this relief to 18 HIPC countries totally close to 20 billion dollars and 1.5 billiond dollars in interest rates. However the total debt of Africa is close to 1 trillion dollars so this doesn't even make a dent in the total interest and net capital outflows from Africa in terms of interest rates on loans.

But to point out that the EU has doubled its current aid to Africa with is another 20 billion Euros. So that is great news and they plan to hit the 0.7% target in 2015.

Re: Foreign Aid Business

I’m with CM on this one. The study by the Brookings Institution spells it out clearly.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/rice/20050627.htm

Re: Foreign Aid Business

Just for a little edification,

Clinton FY 2000 Budget:

http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=225685205811+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Line item 150, pg 284 Total International Aid, (non-Military)

1998 actual 7,157Billion
1999 estimate 7,828
2000 estimate 7,774
2001 estimate 7,774
2002 estimate 7,774
2003 estimate 7,774
2004 estimate 7,774

Bush 2006 budget Summary
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/sheets/25_12.xls (xls file)
I have excluded Iraq reconstruction and CPA line item for comparability

2004 Actual 12,519 Billion
2005 Estimate 12,906
2006 Estimate 13,128
2007 Estimate 13,427
2008 Estimate 13,737
2009 Estimate 14,042
2010 Estimate 14,364

Now, even idiots should be able to see substantial differences. (Ignoring the arguement of GDP, which, as I said before ignores tax loopholes that exist to encourage private giving, as opposed to high taxation and central government authority, a huge structural difference that is ignored in the GDP arguement.)

Bush’s actual expenditures exceeded what Clinton was planning to spend by 4.7 Billion, and represents a 60% increase over the Clinton projected budget. (Ahmadjee, you are using Clinton 2000 numbers in your Googled graph)

Clinton chose to freeze this line item budget prior to the election. (Remember, the FY 2000 really starts Oct 1 oct 1999. So that the Budget for 2000 is submitted to the Congress in Jan of 1999.)

So in rough terms the expenditures for these areas will have doubled under Bush. By the time you add in the debt relief, the increase is enormous. Is it enough? Apparently not for some people. But it does represent the largest increase in the history of this country.