Thanks, gentle Reader, I had seen the document you give in the link but i didn't know what to do with it.

This is interesting, but unfortunatley I can't copy the chart here, you'll need to look for a green and red chart in the middle of the document GR provided.

It shows that in proportion to their GID the top donors are Norway (0.95 % of GNI), Sweden, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands (Ireland comes just next), and that the US comes last with only 0.16 of GNI.)



Source: OECD Development Statistics Online last accessed Sunday, April 27, 2008

They say later that the reluctance of the US government to help is not due to stinginess but to the belief that you actually harm the individual by helping him directly, that he must learn to stand on his own two feet... so from that point of view they are just as wise or just as harsh as they are about their own needy citizens at home.

Another part of the document says that US citizens are more generous than their government, which I'm ready to believe, but I couldn't see any clear figures.

If one of you could find such comparative figures, I'd be interested.

There are also numbers that show that as a percentage of GDP, we do not give as much as other nations. I do not have any reference to give on this, but I do remember reading about this.

Oops! Looks like you already pointed this out Ophelia!!

Ophelia wrote:


There was a quote (translated into English from French, I suppose) from the remarks of a French politician commenting on what had gone wrong with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in one of the history books I was reading about it which I really liked. It was something like: "Somewhere amidst all the debate about giving them fish versus teaching them to fish, the practice of leasing them costly and fragile fishing rods seems to have crept in." Unfortunately, that sounds just about true to form.

""Somewhere amidst all the debate about giving them fish versus teaching them to fish, the practice of leasing them costly and fragile fishing rods seems to have crept in."

Yes, that's a good quote

At least it's better than what probably happens some of the time, ie: it's against our philosophy to give them fish and we can't make a decision about how to teach them how to fish so we'll all go home!

Yes, this is true. Aid is a big policy difference between the USA and Europe. Supporters of aid can argue that the partnerships that are built through development actually contribute more to human security than weapon systems and wars. If the US lifted its official development assistance to one percent of gross national income, matching the Nordics, it could transform the planet into a place of peace and prosperity.Well, I think the comparatively low level of American help to the rest of the world is due to stinginess. If Americans were more generous people would like them a lot more. Again, aid policy has wider impacts. US security would be better enhanced by supporting global economic development than by putting up barriers to dialogue. As well, official development assistance is a main tool to reverse global climate change.there is something to the argument about direct help having corrosive effects. That is why it is better to find ways to invest for profit than to support charity, except in emergencies. There are a lot of profitable opportunities in areas that benefit the poor. Functioning markets are the main tool to reduce poverty.

Robert Tulip wrote:



Oh phooey. I wasn't going to open this can of worms, but just try to stop me now. Our strings-attached development "assistance" is what has nearly destroyed the Third World. Who says Europe or the US knows better than the Third World does how to live in the latters' own countries? They were doing just fine on their own before the people with the polluting, obtuse, destructive, exploitative, elder-disrespecting, not-thoroughly-tested, toxic methods for doing everything came and started telling them to do it all differently.



Well, much as I like information about how to win friends and influence people, and much as I am in favor of enhanced dialogue rather than barriers to it, I balk at the assumptions underlying your conclusion: "official development assistance is a main tool to reverse global climate change." "Development" is what is causing global climate change. And what makes the "developed" countries exporting their over-polluting, over-consuming methods to places with populations too huge to sustain them "official"-ly better than smaller-scale, clearer, more direct exchanges among people?

Right here, right now, we need to be transforming and shifting our infrastructure, transportation and energy grids so that they function more like those of the Third World's traditional, sustainable methods did before we started to mess them up. If you don't have the right answer in effective practice, you can't model it or teach it to others.



If I am in a position to give someone something they need, I hope I can give it without any strings, allowing that person or group an opportunity for empowerment through exercising their choice, their creativity, their intelligence with their unfettered use of it to navigate their world, with which they are more familiar than I am, and in which they, not I, have to live with the results. Look at what the greed of so-called lenders has done to our economy recently. It was doing that and worse to the Third World for decades.

If I trusted that the governments here and there were using the money to benefit the people and the countries as a whole, rather than to profit some dangerously powerful money-addicts, I would be more for it. As it is, I like groups like the ones where you support women's small businesses, help people who need to get eye surgery, buy fair trade products which are made in environmentally clean ways by well-compensated, independent people -- individuals helping at a small, clear, manageable level. Other than that it is better for everyone if I just consume less, use the most conscientious patterns of consumption and transportation I can, buy local and organic, and reuse, recycle. I want them to teach us as much as we teach them. They are not such dummies, you know.

Hi GR9, you should have a look at the outcomes of the Accra Forum on Aid Effectiveness. Increasing the volume of aid assistance can meet millennium development goals. You are right that western technical expertise has not always found best development results, but there is much room to expand aid spending in ways that will be good for poor people.
Unfortunately, traditional methods are not sufficient for the large population of the world. The task is to find new global methods that will function in a sustainable way. In this regard, technologies with much promise include ocean algae farms to remove carbon from the air, and use of the currents of the oceans as arteries for transport of fresh water in fabric sacks.
Good comment, but it is possible to use market instruments to support the basic development goals you suggest. A key to improved health and education is getting more money to parents and families so they can pay for services when they need them. So, for the MDGs, supporting private enterprise and improved transport and communication help lay a foundation for social objectives.

Internal Strife in the Republican ticket



hmmm...she is just such a vacuous person I cannot even believe that she is being CONSIDERED as the new face of the party. The Repubs better figure this out quick. Not 4 years ago they were saying the Dems lost their way and identity...seems to be a huge reversal.

I agree, but now we shall see if he can hack it.

As a historian I have always wondered which America would be ready for first, a black person or a female person. We may know that answer now, but we did have a lot of people voting based on bias. I recall a news anchor asking people about the race issue and a man replied that he wasn't racist but he wasn't voting for a balck man. Yeah, my husband and I sat with our mouths ajar. I also heard many say that they would not voter for a woman, so racism and sexism are still alive an kicking in America.

I wonder how much racism figured into the results of our election. Remember, racism is not just whites against all others - it works both ways. In my county the population is approximately 98% white - McCain won the local election, but in the state of Virginia the numbers are much lower (67% white non-hispanic in 2006) and Obama won the state. The US percentage was also lower in 2006 - 64%.